Govt unveils home buying and selling reforms.
Discussion
The big question is: how binding will it be?
Buyers need to became to back out of a deal when it turns out the sellers have misrepresented, are straight out liars, or the property has undisclosed issues.
I’ve backed out of at least 6 purchases after getting to “offer accepted” on the above grounds. And it’s cost me a lot more in voided conveyancing than the sellers, because the burden of work falls on the buyer because caveat emptor.
Buyers need to became to back out of a deal when it turns out the sellers have misrepresented, are straight out liars, or the property has undisclosed issues.
I’ve backed out of at least 6 purchases after getting to “offer accepted” on the above grounds. And it’s cost me a lot more in voided conveyancing than the sellers, because the burden of work falls on the buyer because caveat emptor.
PhilboSE said:
The big question is: how binding will it be?
Buyers need to became to back out of a deal when it turns out the sellers have misrepresented, are straight out liars, or the property has undisclosed issues.
I ve backed out of at least 6 purchases after getting to offer accepted on the above grounds. And it s cost me a lot more in voided conveyancing than the sellers, because the burden of work falls on the buyer because caveat emptor.
Indeed . And as well as such issues, with a slowly building chain of say 5 or 6 properties everything takes so long that someone may have an illness death divorce or other life event that makes it impossible to complete. I think the critical issue is speeding things up not making things binding at an earlier stage.Buyers need to became to back out of a deal when it turns out the sellers have misrepresented, are straight out liars, or the property has undisclosed issues.
I ve backed out of at least 6 purchases after getting to offer accepted on the above grounds. And it s cost me a lot more in voided conveyancing than the sellers, because the burden of work falls on the buyer because caveat emptor.
Edit to add: Stamp duty is another problem. It means you can't afford to move again a couple of years later if the first house isn't perfect. This must encourage people to bail out of transactions if something better comes up .
Edited by mac96 on Friday 19th June 18:25
I always thought stamp duty might better be positioned as an interest free loan over, say 10 years. Buying a house to then do up, etc swallows cash. If you freed up some of them at it would likely go directly into the economy.
If you sell before the 10 years then the balance gets deducted account of transaction.
If you sell before the 10 years then the balance gets deducted account of transaction.
hidetheelephants said:
Better still get rid of stamp duty entirely and have LVT instead. Stamp duty is a farce.
I know this concept is a big “push” at the moment, but what’s going to happen to people who paid large amounts of SDLT under the old system, and then suddenly find themselves subject to a new, much higher LVT to “replace” it?PhilboSE said:
hidetheelephants said:
Better still get rid of stamp duty entirely and have LVT instead. Stamp duty is a farce.
I know this concept is a big push at the moment, but what s going to happen to people who paid large amounts of SDLT under the old system, and then suddenly find themselves subject to a new, much higher LVT to replace it?It just looks like they're replacing paper with a pile of 'tech':
'The reforms are centred around a major shift to digital processes, including digital property logbooks and sales packs to allow trusted information to be shared securely between professionals and accessed by buyers and sellers in real-time. The government will also back digital identity checks, electronic signatures and AI-assisted conveyancing to eliminate duplication, reduce fraud risk and accelerate transactions.'
And no doubt at vast expense.
'The reforms are centred around a major shift to digital processes, including digital property logbooks and sales packs to allow trusted information to be shared securely between professionals and accessed by buyers and sellers in real-time. The government will also back digital identity checks, electronic signatures and AI-assisted conveyancing to eliminate duplication, reduce fraud risk and accelerate transactions.'
And no doubt at vast expense.
hidetheelephants said:
Better still get rid of stamp duty entirely and have LVT instead. Stamp duty is a farce.
Stamp duty is literally the biggest cause of issues up and down the housing chain.It causes older buyers in larger properties to stay put rather than get hit for SD downsizing and it's a massive gouge by the Govt that hurts people trying to move up. The latter is particularly irritating for me at the moment as I'm about to pay HMRC nearly £14k in SD. The greedy
s.hidetheelephants said:
richhead said:
mac96 said:
I wouldn't guarantee that a government introducing LVT would abolish stamp duty either!
You know that they will always get the tax, taxes in force never go away, but new ones are added, vat was a temporary tax!!!
Income tax was introduced to pay for a war, I believe. Napoleonic? The war is long over but the oddly tax remains...
"Sellers and estate agents will have to provide key information upfront in sales packs at the point of listing. This will set out a home’s condition, leasehold costs and chain status.
Sounds like a rehash of 'Home Information Packs.
Be interesting to see how a home's condition is assessed. If sellers are expected to have a survey of their own home to confirm the condition, that's an added expense, and if it's just a form to fill out with some questions, a fair bit easier.
May make it easier to prove someone has lied about something if you later find out the roof has been leaking for years etc and they've covered it up.
Sounds like a rehash of 'Home Information Packs.
Be interesting to see how a home's condition is assessed. If sellers are expected to have a survey of their own home to confirm the condition, that's an added expense, and if it's just a form to fill out with some questions, a fair bit easier.
May make it easier to prove someone has lied about something if you later find out the roof has been leaking for years etc and they've covered it up.
borcy said:
There must be a better way than what we've got now.
How do other countries manage it?
Ours isn’t perfect, but then I don’t believe there are other nation’s systems that work much better or at least don’t have other significant downsides.How do other countries manage it?
The only way reforms will work is if they are accepted by lenders. They didn’t like the last idea (as they were reluctant to accept information that wasn’t commissioned by them) and if they’re not on board it’s useless.
The English system potentially works quite well most of the time, but it hits buffers that often cannot be legislated against such as slow searches, Land Registry delays, inept cheap conveyancing solicitors and inexperienced estate agents.
The thing to me is how the legal profession decides to re invent the wheel on every transfer.
Read the lease. For freehold investigate covenants etc etc
To me there should be a certificate that says " look it is all fine and here are the issues and answers ". On report on title valid for lots of years. They waste vast amounts of time on title investigations that were already done by another lawyer.
Read the lease. For freehold investigate covenants etc etc
To me there should be a certificate that says " look it is all fine and here are the issues and answers ". On report on title valid for lots of years. They waste vast amounts of time on title investigations that were already done by another lawyer.
From what I've experienced, its the conveyencers that need reforming (and I assume the digital switch is a large prod in that direction). Have one st one in the chain and everyone suffers. Have a slow enough one and the seller pulls out after 3 months as he can get 10% more from a fresh sale.
t one in the chain and everyone suffers. Have a slow enough one and the seller pulls out after 3 months as he can get 10% more from a fresh sale.Slagathore said:
"Sellers and estate agents will have to provide key information upfront in sales packs at the point of listing. This will set out a home s condition, leasehold costs and chain status.
Sounds like a rehash of 'Home Information Packs.
Be interesting to see how a home's condition is assessed. If sellers are expected to have a survey of their own home to confirm the condition, that's an added expense, and if it's just a form to fill out with some questions, a fair bit easier.
May make it easier to prove someone has lied about something if you later find out the roof has been leaking for years etc and they've covered it up.
Anyone asked the lenders if they’re ok with sellers providing the pre sale MOT?Sounds like a rehash of 'Home Information Packs.
Be interesting to see how a home's condition is assessed. If sellers are expected to have a survey of their own home to confirm the condition, that's an added expense, and if it's just a form to fill out with some questions, a fair bit easier.
May make it easier to prove someone has lied about something if you later find out the roof has been leaking for years etc and they've covered it up.
That was the reason the HIPs didn’t work - all the searches in the sellers pack were out of date and/or not trusted by the time a suitable buyer materialised.
When it can be argued the conveyancer is technically working for the mortgage company over and above most buyers in terms of £££ value of liability it’s the mortgage cos that’ll need convincing the govts ideas are going to be reliable enough.
Caveat emptor, particularly if you’re the institution funding most of the purchase.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff