Moaning "buy to let" offplan buyers on BBC this morning
Discussion
Drove into work this morning. Had the benefit of the lovely Vanessa Felch on BBC Radio London.
On the show, whining and complaining was a fellow who had purchased two new build flats in London. He paid £4,000 deposit, and signed a contract (this is important, sports fans) agreeing to pay £450,000 for each two years later when the build was done.
Anyway, now they’re built. And the builders want their £892,000. Which he agreed to pay contractually.
Of course, the flats are now worth about £300,000 each if that. So the builders are suing him to make him complete at the price he agreed to complete at
On the show, whining and complaining was a fellow who had purchased two new build flats in London. He paid £4,000 deposit, and signed a contract (this is important, sports fans) agreeing to pay £450,000 for each two years later when the build was done.
Anyway, now they’re built. And the builders want their £892,000. Which he agreed to pay contractually.
Of course, the flats are now worth about £300,000 each if that. So the builders are suing him to make him complete at the price he agreed to complete at
burned greedy fool said:
But it’s not fair, they say they’re going to sue me and then they will take my main house off me. Why should they be allowed to do this? Surely the government should stop them from doing this to me. No one explained to me that this could happen, I just thought that if I didn’t want the flats then all would lose is £4,000. It’s mis-selling.
Tonker, off you go, my sunEdited by Soovy on Wednesday 9th December 09:31
"I just thought that if I didn’t want the flats then all would lose is £4,000"
why did he think that?
1. because he's a plonker who didn't read the contract and should never have got involved ITFP?
2. because the seller actually told him that at some point?
Must be 1. because there's never any sharp practice in the building/estate agency game, is there?
why did he think that?
1. because he's a plonker who didn't read the contract and should never have got involved ITFP?
2. because the seller actually told him that at some point?
Must be 1. because there's never any sharp practice in the building/estate agency game, is there?
Pothole said:
"I just thought that if I didn’t want the flats then all would lose is £4,000"
why did he think that?
1. because he's a plonker who didn't read the contract and should never have got involved ITFP?
2. because the seller actually told him that at some point?
Must be 1. because there's never any sharp practice in the building/estate agency game, is there?
If it was 2, then he's still a plonker, because you do your own researchwhy did he think that?
1. because he's a plonker who didn't read the contract and should never have got involved ITFP?
2. because the seller actually told him that at some point?
Must be 1. because there's never any sharp practice in the building/estate agency game, is there?
Suggest that any budding flat owners in the same boat don't have a read of this then.....
http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Developer-win...
Oh dear.
http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Developer-win...
Oh dear.
Soovy said:
Pothole said:
"I just thought that if I didn’t want the flats then all would lose is £4,000"
why did he think that?
1. because he's a plonker who didn't read the contract and should never have got involved ITFP?
2. because the seller actually told him that at some point?
Must be 1. because there's never any sharp practice in the building/estate agency game, is there?
If it was 2, then he's still a plonker, because you do your own researchwhy did he think that?
1. because he's a plonker who didn't read the contract and should never have got involved ITFP?
2. because the seller actually told him that at some point?
Must be 1. because there's never any sharp practice in the building/estate agency game, is there?
Durruti said:
Suggest that any budding flat owners in the same boat don't have a read of this then.....
http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Developer-win...
Oh dear.
Of course they won.http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Developer-win...
Oh dear.
There is a clear and unambiguous contract.
A foresee a LOT of this.
Soovy said:
Durruti said:
Suggest that any budding flat owners in the same boat don't have a read of this then.....
http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Developer-win...
Oh dear.
Of course they won.http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Developer-win...
Oh dear.
There is a clear and unambiguous contract.
A foresee a LOT of this.
buying a house is a privileged, not a right.
to buy a house to make money, must be treated as a business, which includes looking at the market you are entering.
a house price rise that was unsustainable would give you a hint of whats to come.
burned greedy fool said:
But it’s not fair, they say they’re going to sue me and then they will take my main house off me. Why should they be allowed to do this? Surely the government should stop them from doing this to me. No one explained to me that this could happen, I just thought that if I didn’t want the flats then all would lose is £4,000. It’s mis-selling.
If he has to sell his main house to finance the completion of this contract it's not like he's going to be homeless.
Live in one of the flats you just bought you doofus!kentmotorcompany said:
When buying property one normally exchanges contracts just before you finally complete.
I would have thought anything outside the norm (being legally committed two years in advance) should be pointed out?
From what I've read, most of them used the builder's "preferred" solicitor/conveyancer, who were probably, um, less thorough in explaining things to the buyer.I would have thought anything outside the norm (being legally committed two years in advance) should be pointed out?
Very similar situation to the Jaguar XJ220, where purchasers signed up to buy at around £450,000k, and tried to wriggle out when values plummeted to £150k before they were due to take delivery.
It all hinges on what was in the contract.
I do have a certain amount of sympathy for his plight though, but I suppose it's no different to somebody buying a place at £500k and it being worth 300k two years later.....You don't hear them moaning if it went the other way, they probably would be boasting down the pub......
It all hinges on what was in the contract.
I do have a certain amount of sympathy for his plight though, but I suppose it's no different to somebody buying a place at £500k and it being worth 300k two years later.....You don't hear them moaning if it went the other way, they probably would be boasting down the pub......
Wacky Racer said:
Very similar situation to the Jaguar XJ220, where purchasers signed up to buy at around £450,000k, and tried to wriggle out when values plummeted to £150k before they were due to take delivery.
It all hinges on what was in the contract.
I do have a certain amount of sympathy for his plight though, but I suppose it's no different to somebody buying a place at £500k and it being worth 300k two years later.....You don't hear them moaning if it went the other way, they probably would be boasting down the pub......
A great analogy. This is EXACTLY it. The XJ220 contracts (I have seen one) state that you agree to buy at a particualr time at a particular price.It all hinges on what was in the contract.
I do have a certain amount of sympathy for his plight though, but I suppose it's no different to somebody buying a place at £500k and it being worth 300k two years later.....You don't hear them moaning if it went the other way, they probably would be boasting down the pub......
LESSON - READ CONTRACTS BEFORE YOU SIGN THEM, AND USE YOUR BRAIN.
Soovy said:
Pothole said:
"I just thought that if I didn’t want the flats then all would lose is £4,000"
why did he think that?
1. because he's a plonker who didn't read the contract and should never have got involved ITFP?
2. because the seller actually told him that at some point?
Must be 1. because there's never any sharp practice in the building/estate agency game, is there?
If it was 2, then he's still a plonker, because you do your own researchwhy did he think that?
1. because he's a plonker who didn't read the contract and should never have got involved ITFP?
2. because the seller actually told him that at some point?
Must be 1. because there's never any sharp practice in the building/estate agency game, is there?
I think a lot of people who have bought off plan like this haven't bothered to instruct solicitor; they've just signed the contract and returned it.
Possibly some mileage to be had (acting for the buyers) if the seller has not returned a part of the contract which it has signed, but generally, these off-plan contracts seem to be very generous to the seller. I've seen one with no long-stop date for instance.
Possibly some mileage to be had (acting for the buyers) if the seller has not returned a part of the contract which it has signed, but generally, these off-plan contracts seem to be very generous to the seller. I've seen one with no long-stop date for instance.
He'd have been better off with an option to buy, not a forward contract to buy...
/Finance geek mode.
Who'd have thought a bubble could burst?
It's people like this that created the bubble in the first place, forcing real buyers and first time buyers out of the market. I have no sympathy.
/Finance geek mode.
Who'd have thought a bubble could burst?
It's people like this that created the bubble in the first place, forcing real buyers and first time buyers out of the market. I have no sympathy.
you know I actually feel sorry for some of these people, theres a lot of people who have bought new builds and laid down a 10% deposit and face bankruptcy and its not always 'clearly' their fault. Most, if not all, of these exchanges took place when the mortgage market was a lot better. If you exchanged on a 450k flat, paid a 45k deposit and had a mortgage decision in principle for the remaining 90% then what do you do when the buildings finished, your mortgage offer has expired and the only products you can now find need a 20-30% deposit? It's hard or impossible for some people to find an extra 10%. Ok, maybe thats the risk they took and losing 45k is what they deserve but then to get sued for an extra 100k for costs whilst the developer has sold the apartment in question in a firesale for cheap to one of his mates for a backhander does seem harsh to me.
The government appears to have bailed out the banks, various developers have been given incentives by local councils to build (even when contracts were already made in the 'boom' years), help is available for those who have no work where the govt will pay a proportion of your mortgage, the govt has put pressure on banks to not repossess without all other options being considered, but there is no help for homeowners in this situation at all. I know some are greedy investors who need to take it on the chin but that not everyone...
The government appears to have bailed out the banks, various developers have been given incentives by local councils to build (even when contracts were already made in the 'boom' years), help is available for those who have no work where the govt will pay a proportion of your mortgage, the govt has put pressure on banks to not repossess without all other options being considered, but there is no help for homeowners in this situation at all. I know some are greedy investors who need to take it on the chin but that not everyone...
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff