Buyer hospitalised after exchange

GDB2222

Flugelhorn said:

6 in the chain! I am surprised no-one has given notice to complete. 

if the gentleman was able, can he give temp PoA to the solicitor (though presume it is accessing funding that would be the issue)

Giving notice to complete is fraught. Of course, it works fine if someone in the chain just needs an impetus. 

But in this case suppose the sick person recovers in a couple of weeks and can then attend to his affairs. The chain can continue, with a delay, and everyone is happy.

instead, completion notices are issued, giving two weeks to complete. The sick person doesn’t complete and loses his deposit. The next one up gains that deposit, but he can’t complete without the funds from his sale. So, he loses his own, larger, deposit. And it ripples up the chain like that.

 The only winner is the seller at the top of the chain, who gains a 10% deposit and keeps his house. But, he may be unhappy too. Whatever his reasons for selling his house still stand, and yet he’s stuck with it until he finds a new buyer. 

So, in practice, it’s not clear that it’s in anyone’s interests to fire off a completion notice. 

Of course, everyone can claim their losses from the person at the beginning of the chain, but that could take years, and nobody really knows exactly how solvent that person is. 

chainhell

GDB2222 said:

Flugelhorn said:

6 in the chain! I am surprised no-one has given notice to complete. 

if the gentleman was able, can he give temp PoA to the solicitor (though presume it is accessing funding that would be the issue)

Giving notice to complete is fraught. Of course, it works fine if someone in the chain just needs an impetus. 

But in this case suppose the sick person recovers in a couple of weeks and can then attend to his affairs. The chain can continue, with a delay, and everyone is happy.

instead, completion notices are issued, giving two weeks to complete. The sick person doesn’t complete and loses his deposit. The next one up gains that deposit, but he can’t complete without the funds from his sale. So, he loses his own, larger, deposit. And it ripples up the chain like that.

 The only winner is the seller at the top of the chain, who gains a 10% deposit and keeps his house. But, he may be unhappy too. Whatever his reasons for selling his house still stand, and yet he’s stuck with it until he finds a new buyer. 

So, in practice, it’s not clear that it’s in anyone’s interests to fire off a completion notice. 

Of course, everyone can claim their losses from the person at the beginning of the chain, but that could take years, and nobody really knows exactly how solvent that person is. 

Thanks for your insight.  I think that’s why all solicitors have agreed to hold off for now.

AskAsk

chainhell said:

silvercar said:

AskAsk said:

Flugelhorn said:

EssexHebridean said:

Your solicitor needs to ask the buyer's solicitor the direct question - are they in funds, and do they have signed documentation. As exchange has already happened, if the answer to both of those is "yes" then there is no reason that I can think of why completion should not be able to happen. 

Agree if they are in fund and documents are signed then they could get on with it and get the chain moving 

the fact that it hasn't completed, means the answer is no, else they would have completed.  solicitors don't check with clients before completion, like they do before exchange, so it would have happened without the solicitors knowing or being interested in the buyer's situation between exchance and completion as the solicitors don't need any input from the buyer to complete if they already have funds.

Normally that is true,  it if the client has notified his solicitor that he is in hospital and should defer completing until the client says so, then the solicitor would point out the risks and liabilities, but ultimately conform. In this case we know the solicitor is aware his client is in hospital.

The buyer has been uncontactable for this whole period.  The solicitor had to contact hospitals to find him.

i am surprised that the hospitals would disclose information about a patient to a solicitor and that when a solicitor doesn't hear from a client, they would start calling hospitals.  it isn't the sort of thing that a solicitor would do.

like they just wouldn't be calling around police stations.  it seems very strange to me.

silvercar

AskAsk said:

chainhell said:

silvercar said:

AskAsk said:

Flugelhorn said:

EssexHebridean said:

Your solicitor needs to ask the buyer's solicitor the direct question - are they in funds, and do they have signed documentation. As exchange has already happened, if the answer to both of those is "yes" then there is no reason that I can think of why completion should not be able to happen. 

Agree if they are in fund and documents are signed then they could get on with it and get the chain moving 

the fact that it hasn't completed, means the answer is no, else they would have completed.  solicitors don't check with clients before completion, like they do before exchange, so it would have happened without the solicitors knowing or being interested in the buyer's situation between exchance and completion as the solicitors don't need any input from the buyer to complete if they already have funds.

Normally that is true,  it if the client has notified his solicitor that he is in hospital and should defer completing until the client says so, then the solicitor would point out the risks and liabilities, but ultimately conform. In this case we know the solicitor is aware his client is in hospital.

The buyer has been uncontactable for this whole period.  The solicitor had to contact hospitals to find him.

i am surprised that the hospitals would disclose information about a patient to a solicitor and that when a solicitor doesn't hear from a client, they would start calling hospitals.  it isn't the sort of thing that a solicitor would do.

like they just wouldn't be calling around police stations.  it seems very strange to me.

Maybe the client phoned the solicitor when he was first taken to hospital and the solicitor hasn't heard since.

Flugelhorn

GDB2222 said:

Flugelhorn said:

6 in the chain! I am surprised no-one has given notice to complete. 

if the gentleman was able, can he give temp PoA to the solicitor (though presume it is accessing funding that would be the issue)

Giving notice to complete is fraught. Of course, it works fine if someone in the chain just needs an impetus. 

But in this case suppose the sick person recovers in a couple of weeks and can then attend to his affairs. The chain can continue, with a delay, and everyone is happy.

instead, completion notices are issued, giving two weeks to complete. The sick person doesn’t complete and loses his deposit. The next one up gains that deposit, but he can’t complete without the funds from his sale. So, he loses his own, larger, deposit. And it ripples up the chain like that.

 The only winner is the seller at the top of the chain, who gains a 10% deposit and keeps his house. But, he may be unhappy too. Whatever his reasons for selling his house still stand, and yet he’s stuck with it until he finds a new buyer. 

So, in practice, it’s not clear that it’s in anyone’s interests to fire off a completion notice. 

Of course, everyone can claim their losses from the person at the beginning of the chain, but that could take years, and nobody really knows exactly how solvent that person is. 

thanks  - must say the only time I came across it was a simpler case where our vendor didn't want to complete during covid and needed a big kick to get on with it - never got as far as the notice, more the threat I think 

chainhell

AskAsk said:

chainhell said:

silvercar said:

AskAsk said:

Flugelhorn said:

EssexHebridean said:

Your solicitor needs to ask the buyer's solicitor the direct question - are they in funds, and do they have signed documentation. As exchange has already happened, if the answer to both of those is "yes" then there is no reason that I can think of why completion should not be able to happen. 

Agree if they are in fund and documents are signed then they could get on with it and get the chain moving 

the fact that it hasn't completed, means the answer is no, else they would have completed.  solicitors don't check with clients before completion, like they do before exchange, so it would have happened without the solicitors knowing or being interested in the buyer's situation between exchance and completion as the solicitors don't need any input from the buyer to complete if they already have funds.

Normally that is true,  it if the client has notified his solicitor that he is in hospital and should defer completing until the client says so, then the solicitor would point out the risks and liabilities, but ultimately conform. In this case we know the solicitor is aware his client is in hospital.

The buyer has been uncontactable for this whole period.  The solicitor had to contact hospitals to find him.

i am surprised that the hospitals would disclose information about a patient to a solicitor and that when a solicitor doesn't hear from a client, they would start calling hospitals.  it isn't the sort of thing that a solicitor would do.

like they just wouldn't be calling around police stations.  it seems very strange to me.

Yes I might be wrong there, the solicitor appears to have a contact that’s updating them.  Possibly a landlord or neighbour.

AskAsk

chainhell said:

AskAsk said:

chainhell said:

silvercar said:

AskAsk said:

Flugelhorn said:

EssexHebridean said:

Your solicitor needs to ask the buyer's solicitor the direct question - are they in funds, and do they have signed documentation. As exchange has already happened, if the answer to both of those is "yes" then there is no reason that I can think of why completion should not be able to happen. 

Agree if they are in fund and documents are signed then they could get on with it and get the chain moving 

the fact that it hasn't completed, means the answer is no, else they would have completed.  solicitors don't check with clients before completion, like they do before exchange, so it would have happened without the solicitors knowing or being interested in the buyer's situation between exchance and completion as the solicitors don't need any input from the buyer to complete if they already have funds.

Normally that is true,  it if the client has notified his solicitor that he is in hospital and should defer completing until the client says so, then the solicitor would point out the risks and liabilities, but ultimately conform. In this case we know the solicitor is aware his client is in hospital.

The buyer has been uncontactable for this whole period.  The solicitor had to contact hospitals to find him.

i am surprised that the hospitals would disclose information about a patient to a solicitor and that when a solicitor doesn't hear from a client, they would start calling hospitals.  it isn't the sort of thing that a solicitor would do.

like they just wouldn't be calling around police stations.  it seems very strange to me.

Yes I might be wrong there, the solicitor appears to have a contact that’s updating them.  Possibly a landlord or neighbour.

i would be very surprised if the solicitors are speaking directly to the hospital as hospitals can be a bit funny giving out information about patients, including if whether the person is a patient at the hospital, unless it was a relative.

but as everyone in the chain is happy to wait, then there isn't much you can do.  it is not a nice situation as it doesn't seem to be very clear what is happening as the buyer is not directly contactable or have relatives or friends helping with communication.

chainhell

Yes fair enough, hopefully we will hear good news next week.  

chainhell

GDB2222 said:

Flugelhorn said:

6 in the chain! I am surprised no-one has given notice to complete. 

if the gentleman was able, can he give temp PoA to the solicitor (though presume it is accessing funding that would be the issue)

Giving notice to complete is fraught. Of course, it works fine if someone in the chain just needs an impetus. 

But in this case suppose the sick person recovers in a couple of weeks and can then attend to his affairs. The chain can continue, with a delay, and everyone is happy.

instead, completion notices are issued, giving two weeks to complete. The sick person doesn’t complete and loses his deposit. The next one up gains that deposit, but he can’t complete without the funds from his sale. So, he loses his own, larger, deposit. And it ripples up the chain like that.

 The only winner is the seller at the top of the chain, who gains a 10% deposit and keeps his house. But, he may be unhappy too. Whatever his reasons for selling his house still stand, and yet he’s stuck with it until he finds a new buyer. 

So, in practice, it’s not clear that it’s in anyone’s interests to fire off a completion notice. 

Of course, everyone can claim their losses from the person at the beginning of the chain, but that could take years, and nobody really knows exactly how solvent that person is. 

I hope you don’t mind me asking a follow up.  We have heard that higher up the chain are going to issue a notice to complete on Friday.

if the chain can’t complete at the end of this period, are the deposits automatically taken or is it up to those issuing the notice to instruct a litigation solicitor and take their buyer to court for deposit plus damages?

the person is still in hospital so I’m hoping he will recover before the legal action commences 

thanks in advance 

GDB2222

chainhell said:

GDB2222 said:

Flugelhorn said:

6 in the chain! I am surprised no-one has given notice to complete. 

if the gentleman was able, can he give temp PoA to the solicitor (though presume it is accessing funding that would be the issue)

Giving notice to complete is fraught. Of course, it works fine if someone in the chain just needs an impetus. 

But in this case suppose the sick person recovers in a couple of weeks and can then attend to his affairs. The chain can continue, with a delay, and everyone is happy.

instead, completion notices are issued, giving two weeks to complete. The sick person doesn’t complete and loses his deposit. The next one up gains that deposit, but he can’t complete without the funds from his sale. So, he loses his own, larger, deposit. And it ripples up the chain like that.

 The only winner is the seller at the top of the chain, who gains a 10% deposit and keeps his house. But, he may be unhappy too. Whatever his reasons for selling his house still stand, and yet he’s stuck with it until he finds a new buyer. 

So, in practice, it’s not clear that it’s in anyone’s interests to fire off a completion notice. 

Of course, everyone can claim their losses from the person at the beginning of the chain, but that could take years, and nobody really knows exactly how solvent that person is. 

I hope you don’t mind me asking a follow up.  We have heard that higher up the chain are going to issue a notice to complete on Friday.

if the chain can’t complete at the end of this period, are the deposits automatically taken or is it up to those issuing the notice to instruct a litigation solicitor and take their buyer to court for deposit plus damages?

the person is still in hospital so I’m hoping he will recover before the legal action commences 

thanks in advance 

Notice to complete gives 2 weeks to find the cash to complete your purchase. This might mean a bridging loan, bank of mum and dad, or whatever.  But if you don’t manage that in time then your deposit is forfeited. 

If your deposit was less than 10%, then that would need to be topped up by you.

Any losses suffered by your seller in excess of the 10% would potentially be a matter for litigation, or at least would not be automatic. 

If I were you I would be exploring all options to try to get the completion money together. You have nearly 3 weeks.