what happens if unacceptable conditions are found after missives have concluded ?

TSeeker

I'm a 1st time buyer and going to buy in Scotland. A bit nervous so asking some questions.

1. I went over the Soct gov website about buying house (here: www.mygov.scot/selling-a-home/conveyancing-and-settlement) and there it says that conveyancing commences once the missives have concluded. Once missives have concluded it's legally binding for the buyer to buy and seller to sell. However as you can read there are points like "make sure there are no unusual conditions in the deeds that might affect the way you live there" and "tell you if there are any burdens (legal limitations, like not being allowed to build a fence on the property)" and so on. What if these conditions are unacceptable to me as a buyer ? Is this not something that should have happened before the missives concluded so that I could have pulled out without consequences ?
2. I'm a bit confused between how to choose a solicitor/conveyancer vs mortgage lender. Seems mortgage lenders have a panel of approved solicitors which must be used. If I get hold of a good solicitor and then later when searching for mortgage lender find the best one on the day doesn't recognise this solicitor (i.e., not in their panel), then what do I do ? MSE advises to choose the lender after the offer has been accepted. I could have got an AIP/DIP from any lender to convince the seller that I am likely to get the loan, but when the time comes to actually borrow, we are advised to sweep the market or hire a broker once again.
3. Is TA6 form the rest-of-UK equivalent of Scotland's Home Buyer Report ?

Ta !

MovingForwards

1. Your solicitor should provide you with a report and a copy of the property title deed to read through, this is prior to conclusion of missives.

2. Pick a firm with at least 3 partners and you should be ok for mainstream lenders, they generally have a list of their solicitor panel if you look online. Specialist lenders can be slightly more awkward.

You also need a solicitor to make the formal offer for you.

3. The home report is a valuation, the papers filled out by the seller is like the TA6.

user1977

1. In short, you'd be able to pull out (assuming they're objectively problematic). You can find a fuller guide to what's typically in the missives here: https://www.lawscot.org.uk/media/370538/client-guide-edition-4.pdf
But more often than not these days, your solicitor will have checked the title before you're ready to conclude missives anyway.
2. Not generally an issue as all but the tiniest conveyancing firms are going to be on the panels of the mainstream lenders. Most buyers have a fair idea of who their lender is likely to be before they make an offer.
3. It's similar to the seller questionnaire part of the Home Report. Incidentally, don't confuse the Home Report with Homebuyers Reports, which is the type of survey usually obtained by buyers in England & Wales.

GDB2222

I’m astonished that missives are concluded before all aspects of the title have been checked over thoroughly. It seems to be creating uncertainty where there should be none.

user1977

GDB2222 said:

I’m astonished that missives are concluded before all aspects of the title have been checked over thoroughly. It seems to be creating uncertainty where there should be none.

I thought it was fairly well-known even in rUK that in Scotland the practice is to have the contract at an earlier stage with the boring stuff dealt with afterwards. It creates the certainty that the transaction will actually happen (and when it will happen), if you discount the <1% chance of something surprisingly problematic cropping up. As I said though, it's not the most common practice these days simply because people have a chance to look at the title etc while something else is holding up concluding the missives (waiting for mortgage offers etc).

GDB2222

user1977 said:

GDB2222 said:

I’m astonished that missives are concluded before all aspects of the title have been checked over thoroughly. It seems to be creating uncertainty where there should be none.

I thought it was fairly well-known even in rUK that in Scotland the practice is to have the contract at an earlier stage with the boring stuff dealt with afterwards. It creates the certainty that the transaction will actually happen (and when it will happen), if you discount the <1% chance of something surprisingly problematic cropping up. As I said though, it's not the most common practice these days simply because people have a chance to look at the title etc while something else is holding up concluding the missives (waiting for mortgage offers etc).

Suppose that you conclude missives on the house you are buying and on your sale simultaneously. It later turns out that the house you are buying is fine, but there's a problem with 'the boring stuff' on your existing house and your buyer drops out. Obviously, you'll have serious financial problems completing your purchase. Is that all covered by the missives? 

You say "<1% chance of something surprisingly problematic cropping up", but in a chain, the chance that there's something wrong with at least one house in the chain is obviously greater.

user1977

GDB2222 said:

user1977 said:

GDB2222 said:

I’m astonished that missives are concluded before all aspects of the title have been checked over thoroughly. It seems to be creating uncertainty where there should be none.

I thought it was fairly well-known even in rUK that in Scotland the practice is to have the contract at an earlier stage with the boring stuff dealt with afterwards. It creates the certainty that the transaction will actually happen (and when it will happen), if you discount the <1% chance of something surprisingly problematic cropping up. As I said though, it's not the most common practice these days simply because people have a chance to look at the title etc while something else is holding up concluding the missives (waiting for mortgage offers etc).

Suppose that you conclude missives on the house you are buying and on your sale simultaneously. It later turns out that the house you are buying is fine, but there's a problem with 'the boring stuff' on your existing house and your buyer drops out. Obviously, you'll have serious financial problems completing your purchase. Is that all covered by the missives? 

No, that's a risk you'd have to take. Though of course the principle is that you ought to already be aware of material problems with the title etc for your own property, so why shouldn't the risk fall on you.

You say "<1% chance of something surprisingly problematic cropping up", but in a chain, the chance that there's something wrong with at least one house in the chain is obviously greater.

We're not as fond of chains in Scotland as in England, so it's a bit less of an issue.

sheramber

Your solicitor will go check over everything in the title deeds and highlight any potential problem. For example when I was buying my solicitor highlighted access to the back garden as shown on the deeds and asked me to confirm that was correct. 

He also advised me that there were no problems with the searches etc.

I was given a copy of the missive to read over and agree to before missives were concluded.

[Deleted User]

TSeeker said:

I'm a 1st time buyer and going to buy in Scotland. A bit nervous so asking some questions.

1. I went over the Soct gov website about buying house (here: www.mygov.scot/selling-a-home/conveyancing-and-settlement) and there it says that conveyancing commences once the missives have concluded. Once missives have concluded it's legally binding for the buyer to buy and seller to sell. However as you can read there are points like "make sure there are no unusual conditions in the deeds that might affect the way you live there" and "tell you if there are any burdens (legal limitations, like not being allowed to build a fence on the property)" and so on. What if these conditions are unacceptable to me as a buyer ? Is this not something that should have happened before the missives concluded so that I could have pulled out without consequences ?
2. I'm a bit confused between how to choose a solicitor/conveyancer vs mortgage lender. Seems mortgage lenders have a panel of approved solicitors which must be used. If I get hold of a good solicitor and then later when searching for mortgage lender find the best one on the day doesn't recognise this solicitor (i.e., not in their panel), then what do I do ? MSE advises to choose the lender after the offer has been accepted. I could have got an AIP/DIP from any lender to convince the seller that I am likely to get the loan, but when the time comes to actually borrow, we are advised to sweep the market or hire a broker once again.
3. Is TA6 form the rest-of-UK equivalent of Scotland's Home Buyer Report ?

Ta !

Others have already covered the deeds and burdens so I won’t repeat what has been said. 

You’ll need a solicitor to make an offer on a property and before you start looking you’ll want an Agreement in Principle from a mortgage lender so you have a good idea of budget. Get an AIP, either direct from a lender or use a mortgage broker, and then pick a solicitor from that lender’s panel. 

GDB2222

user1977 said:

GDB2222 said:

user1977 said:

GDB2222 said:

I’m astonished that missives are concluded before all aspects of the title have been checked over thoroughly. It seems to be creating uncertainty where there should be none.

I thought it was fairly well-known even in rUK that in Scotland the practice is to have the contract at an earlier stage with the boring stuff dealt with afterwards. It creates the certainty that the transaction will actually happen (and when it will happen), if you discount the <1% chance of something surprisingly problematic cropping up. As I said though, it's not the most common practice these days simply because people have a chance to look at the title etc while something else is holding up concluding the missives (waiting for mortgage offers etc).

Suppose that you conclude missives on the house you are buying and on your sale simultaneously. It later turns out that the house you are buying is fine, but there's a problem with 'the boring stuff' on your existing house and your buyer drops out. Obviously, you'll have serious financial problems completing your purchase. Is that all covered by the missives? 

No, that's a risk you'd have to take. Though of course the principle is that you ought to already be aware of material problems with the title etc for your own property, so why shouldn't the risk fall on you.

You say "<1% chance of something surprisingly problematic cropping up", but in a chain, the chance that there's something wrong with at least one house in the chain is obviously greater.

We're not as fond of chains in Scotland as in England, so it's a bit less of an issue.

You wouldn't normally have bought a property knowing there were material problems with the title. So, I would have thought that most sellers would be in blissful ignorance. And, there'd be no point in concluding missives with your buyers without first informing them of material defects that you did know about?

It sounds like the only safe course is to get a report on title on the property you are selling before concluding missives?

TSeeker

Thank you all - very kind and helpful of yous !

GDB2222 said:

You wouldn't normally have bought a property knowing there were material problems with the title. So, I would have thought that most sellers would be in blissful ignorance. And, there'd be no point in concluding missives with your buyers without first informing them of material defects that you did know about?

It sounds like the only safe course is to get a report on title on the property you are selling before concluding missives?

lol yes, it sounded a bit counter-intuitive for the buyer too when I first read it, which is why I asked. The chain thingy is definitely going to be a bummer for those "<1%" (assuming this the correct statistical representation) cases. However as long as you can pull out without the dreaded consequences even after the conclusion of the missive in-cases where it's genuine reason, it's at-least some relief. Much better to just ask the conveyancer to check all this while arranging the mortgage as the replies here say; forewarned is forearmed.

I heard a case about Japanese Knotweed which the seller deliberately didn't disclose on TA6 (England) and the buyer had to sue the seller (IIRC, the buyer won the case). It's much better if you can bail out of the purchase though instead of these legal battle IMO. Obviously not everything you might know until you have moved into the house. There might be more expensive surveys that might give you a better satisfaction - as always, it'll all be a matter of trade-offs and risks.