Viewing Thread:
"Really fed up at the moment."

My wife and I were in the process of buying a house when the seller decided 2 weeks before the agreed date for exchanging contracts that the sale process was too stressful and pulled the house off the market.With surveyors costs,legal costs,mortgage set up fees,search fees etc.it has left us spending around £1800 for absolutely nothing.I found out a couple of days ago this seller had done exactly the same thing before (again 2 weeks before exchange date and with the same excuse).This practice should be logged on a register which flags up this kind of activity IMO.What was the point of paying for coal board,local government,land searches etc. whilst being unaware there was an increased risk of this happening ?.Apparently the would be seller is entitled to do this even in the 11th hour of the sale process.They have no legal obligation to reimburse the buyer for any of their costs.Surely this process needs looking at?.Apart from the huge amounts of time we invested in this phantom purchase,along with the stress it has caused us,we really are not in a position to lose this kind of money.Especially as there is currently nothing to prevent us being victims of this practice again.

I wouldn't cry too much about it. People have the right to change their minds. In terms of buying a house, I doubt the process can be changed too much in the seller's favour, as you'd be locking a buyer into a deal that might turn out to be a complete rotten tomato, which is significantly worse in terms of the potential for abuse.

Slightly irksome is the implication that because a person has changed their mind on more than one occasion, they are instantly some kind of fraudster, pulling a con trick on the world despite having nothing to gain personally from doing so.

Everpain wrote:
> I wouldn't cry too much about it. People have the right to change
> their minds. In terms of buying a house, I doubt the process can
> be changed too much in the seller's favour, as you'd be locking a
> buyer into a deal that might turn out to be a complete rotten
> tomato, which is significantly worse in terms of the potential
> for abuse.
>
> Slightly irksome is the implication that because a person has
> changed their mind on more than one occasion, they are instantly
> some kind of fraudster, pulling a con trick on the world despite
> having nothing to gain personally from doing so.

I'm not 'crying about it' but I ain't exactly jumping for joy either !.I don't believe I ever implied the seller was 'some kind of fraudster' merely that there is currently no way for a buyer to be aware of a sellers previous activity and I'm not convinced thats a good thing.You get that information before buying a 99p item on eBay!.As for being locked into a deal to buy a potentially 'rotten tomato' as you put it.This information would become known to you much earlier in the sale process and therefore you would not have racked up the legal fees,search costs,mortgage set up and property valuation fees as I have.Stamp duty and removal costs apart I am liable for the entire costs for the purchase of a property that I'm not actually going to buy.The point I was trying to make is that if I had been aware of the increased risk of this situation arising (as the seller had done this before) I would have been very wary of proceeding with the sale.

Well said Pete:)

cool woman wrote:
>

cool woman wrote:
>

Errrr...No I'm not.