House selling rant
Discussion
No particular reason for this apart from venting.
Finally finished my house and for family reasons decided to sell so I could live closer to my kids. House went on the market and after a few viewings an offer was made that I was happy to accept. Now we are at the final stage and just about to exchange contracts. All searches etc have been done and their ifa had been telling my agent that everything was in order etc. So with all the confirmations from solicitors etc that we are just about to exchange I moved out into rented near my kids so they could exchange and then move in quickly.
Agent phones me yesterday saying there may be a problem with the buyer financing the deposit. What do you mean financing the deposit? You either have it or you don't! Why the hell this far down the road has the deposit not already been confirmed etc? I tell the agent to get it sorted asap and within ten minutes I get the news that the buyer has been trying to get a loan for the deposit but as it isn't the first time he's tried it doesn't look good.
To say I'm fuming would be an understatement! So that's two (alleged) professionals (the agent and the buyers ifa) and neither of them had the good grace to confirm the deposit existed or that there was a problem (ifa was fully aware of what was happening). So that's me with a solicitors bill for the conveyancing for my side and a house that still needs selling.
I don't know whether to sack the agent or go multiple agent and get them all to fight it out for first to sell etc.
Oh and sorry forgot to add a few f
ks into the text but seeing as this isn't the lounge I didn't bother.
Finally finished my house and for family reasons decided to sell so I could live closer to my kids. House went on the market and after a few viewings an offer was made that I was happy to accept. Now we are at the final stage and just about to exchange contracts. All searches etc have been done and their ifa had been telling my agent that everything was in order etc. So with all the confirmations from solicitors etc that we are just about to exchange I moved out into rented near my kids so they could exchange and then move in quickly.
Agent phones me yesterday saying there may be a problem with the buyer financing the deposit. What do you mean financing the deposit? You either have it or you don't! Why the hell this far down the road has the deposit not already been confirmed etc? I tell the agent to get it sorted asap and within ten minutes I get the news that the buyer has been trying to get a loan for the deposit but as it isn't the first time he's tried it doesn't look good.
To say I'm fuming would be an understatement! So that's two (alleged) professionals (the agent and the buyers ifa) and neither of them had the good grace to confirm the deposit existed or that there was a problem (ifa was fully aware of what was happening). So that's me with a solicitors bill for the conveyancing for my side and a house that still needs selling.
I don't know whether to sack the agent or go multiple agent and get them all to fight it out for first to sell etc.
Oh and sorry forgot to add a few f
ks into the text but seeing as this isn't the lounge I didn't bother.I'm afraid this is dead in the water !
Whilst I appreciate your dissatisfaction with the Agent he would have had no way of knowing that his buyer did not have the cash to make the deposit , you can only ask the question and if the answer is 'yes I have the 10 or 20%' what can you do- ask to see bank statements etc ?
I assume that a survey had been done by the guys lender ? If so the bank or building society involved must have wanted confirmation that the balance was available from 'own resources' they would not offer mortgage facilities if the guy had to borrow elsewere for the deposit , maybe 5 years ago but not now !!!
If on the other hand a survey had not been done , and yet you say all the searches have been completed ( this would have taken at least 5 weeks ) then your Agent is at fault, he should have realised that all was not well , advised you accordingly and you should not have moved out.
Rower
Whilst I appreciate your dissatisfaction with the Agent he would have had no way of knowing that his buyer did not have the cash to make the deposit , you can only ask the question and if the answer is 'yes I have the 10 or 20%' what can you do- ask to see bank statements etc ?
I assume that a survey had been done by the guys lender ? If so the bank or building society involved must have wanted confirmation that the balance was available from 'own resources' they would not offer mortgage facilities if the guy had to borrow elsewere for the deposit , maybe 5 years ago but not now !!!
If on the other hand a survey had not been done , and yet you say all the searches have been completed ( this would have taken at least 5 weeks ) then your Agent is at fault, he should have realised that all was not well , advised you accordingly and you should not have moved out.
Rower
Normally a mortgage offer would nto be made by a bank until they could see that the mortagee had sufficient funds for a minimum deposit, ie 5-10% of mortgage value. The estate agent or the solicitor should then have asked to see the mortgage offer! Someone has not done their job properly....
Also to muddy the waters; every time threads similar to this arise, or threads asking about the negotiating process, for example, it becomes clear a not inconsiderable and quite vocal section of PH dispay displeasure at the concept of being obliged to provide evidence of funds.
It is of course perfectly possible to oblige potential purchasers to deomnstrate their ability to fund a purchase either voluntarily or by a multitude of possible legal amendments to the house buying and selling processes. History shows the public and our political leaders have no appetite whatsoever to make fundamental changes to the current system. So we're left with relationship building and trust within chains. There's not much evidence of an excess of trust in this sector (of the indivuduals concerned, let alone the "professionals").
Sorry for your specific problems and I hope it sorts itself out before you need to re-market.
It is of course perfectly possible to oblige potential purchasers to deomnstrate their ability to fund a purchase either voluntarily or by a multitude of possible legal amendments to the house buying and selling processes. History shows the public and our political leaders have no appetite whatsoever to make fundamental changes to the current system. So we're left with relationship building and trust within chains. There's not much evidence of an excess of trust in this sector (of the indivuduals concerned, let alone the "professionals").
Sorry for your specific problems and I hope it sorts itself out before you need to re-market.
Road2Ruin said:
Normally a mortgage offer would nto be made by a bank until they could see that the mortagee had sufficient funds for a minimum deposit, ie 5-10% of mortgage value. The estate agent or the solicitor should then have asked to see the mortgage offer! Someone has not done their job properly....
Rubbish. The mortgage offer is the last thing to be issued after the searches etc. have been carried out. A buyer would not have an offer at that stage. They may have an 'offer in principle' which is completely different and not worth the paper it's written on.Sorry, we typed over each other. You are, of course, correct that the purchasers solicitor (in 99% of cases) would need a copy of the mortgage offer. If an estate agent made it explicitly clear to you (the OP) that "everything" was in place and the OP took this to mean he could move out then I would be offering the agent a Paddington Bear stare. It is atleast as likely, however, that there was an under communication or a miscommunication or misunderstanding between atleast one solicitor (not notorious for being open and clear with estate agents) an agent (not notorious in understanding the whole process and situations) and a purchaser (even less knowledgable, by notoriety). Chuck in a bit of Chinese wispers and a couple more agents, an "I"FA or two and you have a recipe for someone innocently if naively making an expensive decision.
The survey and searches had been done and apparantly his solicitors were only waiting on the mortgage offer (which is where it all fell apart due to his and the ifas' messing about) ready to exchange etc.
Been onto the agent and got them to start remarketing the house asap.
Only consolation is that it will hopefully cost the old buyer more than myself in conveyancing fees etc.
Fingers crossed I can find a buyer in a reasonable time frame or I may have to rent the place out.
Been onto the agent and got them to start remarketing the house asap.
Only consolation is that it will hopefully cost the old buyer more than myself in conveyancing fees etc.
Fingers crossed I can find a buyer in a reasonable time frame or I may have to rent the place out.
wolf1 said:
So with all the confirmations from solicitors etc that we are just about to exchange I moved out into rented .
I was in a similar situation 18 months ago. Buyer down the chain was getting a "grant" from his Mother. Mortgage people wanted a signed statement it was a gift not a loan. Mother on hols in Spain. So all on hold.The chain had previously held up by a misunderstanding on Building Control sign off down the chain.
My Solicitor advised that we did not sign any lease until after exchange. So we withdrew from a letting we liked.
A few weeks later after Building Control issue was sorted and the Mother could sign her money away, the chain exchanged, and we were able to get the lease on the original farm cottage.
Good Luck.
surveyor said:
Road2Ruin said:
Normally a mortgage offer would nto be made by a bank until they could see that the mortagee had sufficient funds for a minimum deposit, ie 5-10% of mortgage value. The estate agent or the solicitor should then have asked to see the mortgage offer! Someone has not done their job properly....
Rubbish. The mortgage offer is the last thing to be issued after the searches etc. have been carried out. A buyer would not have an offer at that stage. They may have an 'offer in principle' which is completely different and not worth the paper it's written on.surveyor said:
Road2Ruin said:
Normally a mortgage offer would nto be made by a bank until they could see that the mortagee had sufficient funds for a minimum deposit, ie 5-10% of mortgage value. The estate agent or the solicitor should then have asked to see the mortgage offer! Someone has not done their job properly....
Rubbish. The mortgage offer is the last thing to be issued after the searches etc. have been carried out. A buyer would not have an offer at that stage. They may have an 'offer in principle' which is completely different and not worth the paper it's written on.
). So the sequencing does seem to differ from lender to lender / circumstance to circumstance but I have always found it a bit strange in the home buying process that the Agent does not have to validate you are good for the funds before putting your offer forward to the vendor.mattdaniels said:
Not in my experience. I have a mortgage offer in place (ie. paid for, survey/house valuation done, offer issued) and the searches are not yet finished nor have I had to demonstrate to the agent or the mortgage company that I have the required deposit (which is fortunate, as I'm driving it ). So the sequencing does seem to differ from lender to lender / circumstance to circumstance but I have always found it a bit strange in the home buying process that the Agent does not have to validate you are good for the funds before putting your offer forward to the vendor.
As I hinted at above, an agent has a very fine line to tread between keeping good relationships and trying to ascertain whether a buyer is a "good" buyer or a "not quite so good" buyer and passing that information to the seller to help enable an informed decision to be made.). So the sequencing does seem to differ from lender to lender / circumstance to circumstance but I have always found it a bit strange in the home buying process that the Agent does not have to validate you are good for the funds before putting your offer forward to the vendor.In almost every single thread that has ever been posted in the history of Pistonheads where this sort of question has been posed almost to a man the all-wise Pistonheads fraternity has declared an agent requiring proof of funds - or even politely askig for funding to be clarified - is Satan himself. In the internet warrior kingdom that is PH "most" contributors would be so upset with an agent proactively trying to support an offerer in this manner they would leave the potential transaction/sue the agent/go behind the agent's back and deal with the vendor directly/tell all their friends how disgusting the agent is/etc...
Sadly (in my experience) the public simultaneously want all the rights and freedoms available when selling and all the rights and frredoms when buying. This usually is a conflicting position. A bit like we all seem to want the State to keep out of our lives but PH, mumsnet and the media are full of stories around "why wasn't something done?!"
Rower said:
I'm afraid this is dead in the water !
Whilst I appreciate your dissatisfaction with the Agent he would have had no way of knowing that his buyer did not have the cash to make the deposit , you can only ask the question and if the answer is 'yes I have the 10 or 20%' what can you do- ask to see bank statements etc ?
Yes they could, I've been asked for agreement in principal for a mortgage before being allowed to view a house before, makes sense to me, weeds out the time wasters (like the OPs idiot buyer)Whilst I appreciate your dissatisfaction with the Agent he would have had no way of knowing that his buyer did not have the cash to make the deposit , you can only ask the question and if the answer is 'yes I have the 10 or 20%' what can you do- ask to see bank statements etc ?
According to the agent that sold my house this was very common a couple of years ago because everyone was getting turned down for mortgages, not so much these days though.
I should ETA that all estate agents are
s.ILoveMondeo said:
Yes they could, I've been asked for agreement in principal for a mortgage before being allowed to view a house before, makes sense to me, weeds out the time wasters (like the OPs idiot buyer)
According to the agent that sold my house this was very common a couple of years ago because everyone was getting turned down for mortgages, not so much these days though.
I should ETA that all estate agents ares.
In my experience an agreement in principle from a lender is barely worth the paper it's written on. What the lender is effectively saying is:According to the agent that sold my house this was very common a couple of years ago because everyone was getting turned down for mortgages, not so much these days though.
I should ETA that all estate agents are
s."yes we'll lend you £x, on the basis you've told us the truth about what you earn and what else you've borrowed, but we won't do any checks until you submit a full application."
Not something I'd rely upon as confirmation a particular individual will be able to borrow a certain amount.
Some EAs are
s, but most are not, just like some buyers are complete liars, but most are not. 
rah1888 said:
In my experience an agreement in principle from a lender is barely worth the paper it's written on. What the lender is effectively saying is:
"yes we'll lend you £x, on the basis you've told us the truth about what you earn and what else you've borrowed, but we won't do any checks until you submit a full application."
Not something I'd rely upon as confirmation a particular individual will be able to borrow a certain amount.
Some EAs ares, but most are not, just like some buyers are complete liars, but most are not.
Fair enough, it would at least weed out the complete dreamers and fantasists though?"yes we'll lend you £x, on the basis you've told us the truth about what you earn and what else you've borrowed, but we won't do any checks until you submit a full application."
Not something I'd rely upon as confirmation a particular individual will be able to borrow a certain amount.
Some EAs are
s, but most are not, just like some buyers are complete liars, but most are not. russ_a said:
Not one to stick up for your agent, but the buyer of our house took a letter from the bank to prove he had the funds.
Not sure how but he didn't actually have the funds until another sale had gone through. Luckily for us the cash came through about 3 days before we exchanged.
I was asked to do this to prove I had the deposit available, not sure why the agent wouldnt have doent he same in this instance. Sorry to hear of your story OP. Not sure how but he didn't actually have the funds until another sale had gone through. Luckily for us the cash came through about 3 days before we exchanged.
rah1888 said:
ILoveMondeo said:
Yes they could, I've been asked for agreement in principal for a mortgage before being allowed to view a house before, makes sense to me, weeds out the time wasters (like the OPs idiot buyer)
According to the agent that sold my house this was very common a couple of years ago because everyone was getting turned down for mortgages, not so much these days though.
I should ETA that all estate agents ares.
In my experience an agreement in principle from a lender is barely worth the paper it's written on. What the lender is effectively saying is:According to the agent that sold my house this was very common a couple of years ago because everyone was getting turned down for mortgages, not so much these days though.
I should ETA that all estate agents are
s."yes we'll lend you £x, on the basis you've told us the truth about what you earn and what else you've borrowed, but we won't do any checks until you submit a full application."
Not something I'd rely upon as confirmation a particular individual will be able to borrow a certain amount.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff