Vendor impersonated me.... help!

GDB2222

Doozergirl wrote: »

You don't actually know that's a risk with this woman any more than you know what another vendor will do. People are completely unpredictable and cannot be controlled.

You cannot know. It's all a risk. The solicitors do what they do for a reason. Take photos to support.

I'd be deeply concerned about the vendor's behaviour.

At the very least, I'd take a detailed photographic inventory of the state of the house. I'd thoroughly test all the appliances, note down all the serial numbers, etc. I'd know I can get away with this unpleasant behaviour because the vendor seems utterly desperate to sell.

If I had not had a full structural survey, now would be the time to get one.

steampowered

Another vote from me for pulling out and informing the police.

I would also be serving small claims court proceedings on the vendor to recover all costs incurred in the sale process up to this point.

If I really wanted the house and thought I was getting a fantastic deal I might go ahead. Probably with a full survey. But it would have to be a very good deal to compensate for the added risk of dealing with such a dishonest vendor - trust has gone from the process and you can't trust their answers.

eddddy

I haven't read the entire thread...

But are you sure it's the vendor who is impersonating you?

For example, could it be somebody at the EA's office (who want's their commission)?


An EA who interacts with conveyancers on a weekly/daily basis is far more likely to have the knowledge and confidence to fool a conveyancer - compared to an average seller.


(Did the EA recommend that conveyancer? If the EA uses them a lot, they may be very familiar with their security questions etc.)

Doozergirl

Hooray, still, for people who suddenly decide that due diligence has become important only now.

Checking the vendors ID, ownership and current charges against the property is already very much an integral part of the process! What do people think solicitors do?

Suddenly deciding to have a structural survey because the vendor isn't a nice person makes no sense at all. The house is what you are buying and even nice people may not know what's up with their own house.

You can't pull out and sue the vendor, because there is still no contract in place. We all know how the system works here - if we don't, then why are we replying? Breaking one law doesn't suddenly mean that all the others fall away and you can sue for what you like.

GDB2222

Doozergirl wrote: »

Hooray, still, for people who suddenly decide that due diligence has become important only now.

Checking the vendors ID, ownership and current charges against the property is already very much an integral part of the process! What do people think solicitors do?

Suddenly deciding to have a structural survey because the vendor isn't a nice person makes no sense at all. The house is what you are buying and even nice people may not know what's up with their own house.

You can't pull out and sue the vendor, because there is still no contract in place. We all know how the system works here - if we don't, then why are we replying? Breaking one law doesn't suddenly mean that all the others fall away and you can sue for what you like.

I always have a structural survey, but I know other people skimp. This seems a great excuse for doing due diligence really thoroughly, even if it's late in the day.

I tend to be trusting on things like appliances, and I think most people are the same. The risk is not that serious, and most vendors won't deliberately defraud you. This vendor has proved herself capable of fraud, so yes it does alter the odds.

Slinky

I'd be exploring the possibility of OP's solicitor asking the vendor's solicitor to retain £5-£10K subject to a satisfactory inspection by the OP after completion. Our solicitor asked for a £1K rentention when our vendor said he couldn't supply us with all known sets of keys (He was expecting us to collect a set from an unknown gardener). That chivvied the vendor into getting those keys back himself.

allypally26

Any update?

k3lvc

allypally26 wrote: »

Any update?

Given OP hasn't been back since the morning after posting this I'd park it in the 'fiction to which we'll never know the answer' pile

SmashedAvacado

It’s probably technically a phone hacking offence. Police might be interest on this basis.

Momanns

Police won't get involved. Agreed it's outrageous but compared to the thousands of fraud reports daily - you've not suffered a loss . You've just got to ask yourself whether you want this property badly enough!