Conveyancing Enquiry - Unable to answer

yellowpollycat

Our buyer's solicitor has raised an enquiry: 

 'Our Local Search refers to a notice that has been issued to XXXX Developers Limited dated 15 April 2014 in relation to the cost of street works of £2,000,000.00, please provide evidence that this has now been paid'

Both the Developer and Council have refused to provide this as it is financial information not on public record.  My solicitor says asking the seller to provide evidence of payment between two third parties is highly unusual - it's the first one he's had.   The official response is 'We are unable to obtain any further information regarding the same as this does not directly relate to our client'.

Should it have been raised?  There are 2 other houses on the estate being sold and they haven't been asked this question - has anyone else been asked for evidence of payment by a developer to the council?

There is an s106 in place which provides indemnity for debt transfer to house owners etc. which the buyer's solicitor has had since the draft contracts.

This is the only thing outstanding and is delaying our exchange.  We are nervously awaiting her response ....  if she demands it then it looks like the sale is off :-(

Thrugelmir

yellowpollycat said:

Should it have been raised? 

Enquiries are fact finding missions in order for other partes to make subjective decisions. You never know what might be already known from another source. The world is highly interconnected and even more so at a local level. 

ss2020jd

The fact that it hasn’t been raised by other solicitors doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be raised, it might just mean that your solicitor is being more thorough. 

If there is any slight chance that you could be liable for related costs then you would be glad it has been spotted.

Not publicly available- Does this mean it’s not available to find out under a freedom of information request, or it might not be relevant in that case? If the LA search flagged it it must have some relevance. 

I understand some enquiries can seem frustrating, especially so close, but if you can find out as much as you can you can then make an informed decision as to whether to pursue the matter. Perhaps think the mortgage lender could have insisted too.

edit: just re-read and realise  you are the seller. If your solicitor can give you advice as to what the alternative is or if it’s one of those enquiries that can not be answered then the buyer will have to choose if they accept the response. 

MrsBrush

If it is the lender who is insisting on an answer, nothing will move until it has been dealt with to the solicitors' satisfaction.

As frustrating though it is, it will have been raised for a reason and it might not always be clear to a purchaser or seller what these are (which is why a good quality and thorough solicitor is a must!) You have to trust the judgement of the professionals, as they are the one party who is clearly supposed to have your interests at heart.

Our purchase is in a 3 week long "black hole" while our sellers solicitors have not answered the enquiries for reasons known only to them. It all looks very minor to me, but my mortgage company will not allow us to proceed as there is apparently a potential risk to the property's value through a historic covenant that they want clarification on. The rest of the chain is wobbling, the seller has already moved most of their possessions out and we are otherwise ready to exchange. No-one is moving until someone sorts this out, which is so annoying if one party isn't playing the game to the same rules as the rest of the parties. 

yellowpollycat

Thrugelmir said:

yellowpollycat said:

Should it have been raised? 

Enquiries are fact finding missions in order for other partes to make subjective decisions. You never know what might be already known from another source. The world is highly interconnected and even more so at a local level. 

True, but the Developer is now onto Phase 4 and the new school built!  I meant should it have been raised given the s106 agreement which gives owners indemnity from transfer of development debts?    

yellowpollycat

ss2020jd said:

The fact that it hasn’t been raised by other solicitors doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be raised, it might just mean that your solicitor is being more thorough. 

If there is any slight chance that you could be liable for related costs then you would be glad it has been spotted.

Not publicly available- Does this mean it’s not available to find out under a freedom of information request, or it might not be relevant in that case? If the LA search flagged it it must have some relevance. 

I understand some enquiries can seem frustrating, especially so close, but if you can find out as much as you can you can then make an informed decision as to whether to pursue the matter. Perhaps think the mortgage lender could have insisted too.

edit: just re-read and realise  you are the seller. If your solicitor can give you advice as to what the alternative is or if it’s one of those enquiries that can not be answered then the buyer will have to choose if they accept the response. 

My conveyancer is of the opinion that the s106 agreement covers any risk to the buyer - as long as that is explained then it should be ok.  However the buyers solicitor is still asking for evidence of payment despite this 

yellowpollycat

MrsBrush said:

If it is the lender who is insisting on an answer, nothing will move until it has been dealt with to the solicitors' satisfaction.

As frustrating though it is, it will have been raised for a reason and it might not always be clear to a purchaser or seller what these are (which is why a good quality and thorough solicitor is a must!) You have to trust the judgement of the professionals, as they are the one party who is clearly supposed to have your interests at heart.

Our purchase is in a 3 week long "black hole" while our sellers solicitors have not answered the enquiries for reasons known only to them. It all looks very minor to me, but my mortgage company will not allow us to proceed as there is apparently a potential risk to the property's value through a historic covenant that they want clarification on. The rest of the chain is wobbling, the seller has already moved most of their possessions out and we are otherwise ready to exchange. No-one is moving until someone sorts this out, which is so annoying if one party isn't playing the game to the same rules as the rest of the parties. 

Hi, very frustrating!  It is what it is and we'll know more on Tuesday.  The developer has sold hundreds of houses on this estate and is now on phase 4 so I don't think it's a lender requirement.  Early in the enquiries, their solicitor asked for a indemnity policy for owner liability until the relevant section in the s106 was pointed out.  I'm hoping it's related to that and irrelevant now.  Hope yours goes through ok 🙂

yellowpollycat

Thanks all - as an update to this, it was a S220 Notice, a security bond not an invoice.  As the work was completed it was never required to be paid!  Just to compound this solicitor's error, she then advised the buyer, in writing, not to go ahead as it was 'an outstanding debt attached by a local land charge to the property' - all complete tosh.  I'm sure I have a case for negligence or malpractice given this!!

AdrianC

yellowpollycat said:

Our buyer's solicitor has raised an enquiry: 

 'Our Local Search refers to a notice that has been issued to XXXX Developers Limited dated 15 April 2014 in relation to the cost of street works of £2,000,000.00, please provide evidence that this has now been paid'

Both the Developer and Council have refused to provide this as it is financial information not on public record.  My solicitor says asking the seller to provide evidence of payment between two third parties is highly unusual - it's the first one he's had.   The official response is 'We are unable to obtain any further information regarding the same as this does not directly relate to our client'.

Should it have been raised?

Whether it should have been raised or not is irrelevant.

It HAS been.

The answer your solicitor has given is the only one he can do.

What happens next is entirely up to your buyer and/or their lender. They need to either accept the evidence is not available and exchange, or walk away. Perhaps a useless indemnity policy would give them a little reassuring hug?

yellowpollycat

AdrianC said:

yellowpollycat said:

Our buyer's solicitor has raised an enquiry: 

 'Our Local Search refers to a notice that has been issued to XXXX Developers Limited dated 15 April 2014 in relation to the cost of street works of £2,000,000.00, please provide evidence that this has now been paid'

Both the Developer and Council have refused to provide this as it is financial information not on public record.  My solicitor says asking the seller to provide evidence of payment between two third parties is highly unusual - it's the first one he's had.   The official response is 'We are unable to obtain any further information regarding the same as this does not directly relate to our client'.

Should it have been raised?

Whether it should have been raised or not is irrelevant.

It HAS been.

The answer your solicitor has given is the only one he can do.

What happens next is entirely up to your buyer and/or their lender. They need to either accept the evidence is not available and exchange, or walk away. Perhaps a useless indemnity policy would give them a little reassuring hug?

Hi, not sure you saw the update?

AdrianC

yellowpollycat said:

Thanks all - as an update to this, it was a S220 Notice, a security bond not an invoice.  As the work was completed it was never required to be paid!  Just to compound this solicitor's error, she then advised the buyer, in writing, not to go ahead as it was 'an outstanding debt attached by a local land charge to the property' - all complete tosh.  I'm sure I have a case for negligence or malpractice given this!!

Nope, because you have no contract with that solicitor.