Drat it all to heck

[lnr]

The standard terms and condition of sale (fourth edition) as published by the Law Society say:

5. Pending Completion
5.1 Responsibility for property
5.1.1 The seller will transfer the property in the same physical state as
it was at the date of the contract (except for fair wear and tear), which
means that the seller retains the risk until completion.
5.1.2 If at any time before completion the physical state of the property 
makes it sustainable for its purpose at the date of the contract: a) the 
buyer may rescind the contract b) the seller may rescind the contract 
where the property has become unusable for that purpose as a result of 
damage against which the seller could not reasonably have insured, or 
which it is not legally possible for the seller to make good.

Our contract for buying our house says it incorporates these standard terms and conditions, but adds:

3) The Standard Conditions of Sale shall be amended as follows:
i) Standard conditions 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 shall not apply and the following 
condition shall be substituted: if the Property is destroyed or damaged 
prior to actual completion and the proceeds of any insurance policy 
effected by the Buyer are reduced by reason of the existence of any 
policy of effected by the Seller the purchase price of the Property shall 
be abated by the amount of the reduction but this special condition shall 
not apply if the proceeds of the Seller's policy are applied towards the 
reinstatement of the Property pursuant to any statutory or contractual 
obligation

The latter means that if the house were to burn down between exchange and completion, and our insurance refused to pay out because their insurance existed, they'd reduce the price of the burning hole in the ground from 200K to 125K. But we'd still be obliged to buy it at this new price, and somehow persuade our mortgage company they still wanted to not only lend us the money to buy the wreck but also the money to rebuild the house on it. Our solicitor being sceptical of the generosity of mortgage companies suggested that we insist that they remove this clause, and that if the wouldn't do so we will exchange and complete instead on the same day.

We expected to exchange today, if they'd remove the clause, and hadn't heard anything until a letter in today's post setting out the amount we need to transfer to the solicitor on the 22nd for exchange and completion on the 23rd. Which means we have to make all the remaining preparations for the move in the full knowledge that there's still no binding contract on us to buy or the seller to sell. Which is incredibly frustrating given our landlord wants to be able to advertise the place, and a potential new tenant who was keen to move in pretty immediately after we move out is left without any guarantee the place is going to be available. Argh.

And the stupid thing is I should have really expected it, and not be so bowled over by it today at all, but somehow I'd let myself assume all would go according to the most convenient plan. Sometimes I could do to be a bit less optimistic. I just wish the solicitor had rung or mailed us to confirm that the earlier exchange date definitely wasn't on.

Comments

[simont]

That sounds faintly familiar. I think my seller's solicitor snuck a similarly unpleasant clause into the contract when I bought last year. My solicitor also pushed back on them to get it changed, which apparently happened without too much hassle – IIRC he thought they'd most likely just stuck it in on a "worth a try" basis. He might also have muttered "muppets" or words to that effect.

So it sounds as if your seller was more insistent about it? Or perhaps they were just unresponsive.

[hoiho.livejournal.com]

Why do solicitors try to pull these stupid stunts? Something like that has happened with every house I've bought. (The best being the bunch of muppets who requested deletion a clause in my solicitor's offer missive, and in the very next paragraph attempted to amend the deleted clause.)

I so hope it all comes good for you.

[new-brunette.livejournal.com]

Because it's REALLY CLEVER to mess around a purchaser in the current climate. Tsk. They've incurred big costs too - are they in a chain? I mean, what the hell?

I don't know anyone who's bought a house with no kind of hiccup along the way. I hope that this is your only hiccup and that it's resolved quickly. It sounds resolveable.

[crazyscot.livejournal.com]

*hugs*

Frustrating, isn't it?

[covertmusic.livejournal.com]

Oh, that sucks. :(

[tigerfort.livejournal.com]

*hugs* Seems about the usual level of house-buying legal stupidity, alas. There's a lot to be said for contract-and-exchange on the same day, even if it does cause a little panic in other ways (it did for us!).

[tigerfort.livejournal.com]

By which ("panic in other ways") I mean the "no binding contract" thing, since I don't think I made that very clear :)