On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 14:17:50 +0100, "RichardS" noone@invalid wrote:

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 10:45:50 +0100, Richard Faulkner
wrote:

snip
It is all very well taking the moral high road in relation to sellers
"ripping off" buyers but, in my time as an agent, I saw many many more
buyers trying to rip off sellers than the other way round.

Maybe that is because there is no formal legal agreement until
exchange. If the buyer had to find 10% deposit at the time of the
offer, then buyers would be a lot more circumspect and the time
wasters would stay home.

snip

I just don't get this.

That's a shame!

You're currently marketing your house and apparently dismayed at the lack of
offers, yet you would propose a system whereby a potential buyer would have
to cough up £20k in ready cash at the point of making an offer?

Yes. It would sort the market out. I am an altruistic person and while
such a change might not benefit some (including me in my own
particular predicament) I am sure that it would benefit the market
overall. Moreover, the effect would probably be a cooling of the
market, which would be a good thing as Britons have far too high a
personal debt as it is.

Well, it's surely one way to eliminate time-wasters, but you're also going
to eliminate an awful lot of perfectly serious and good buyers in one fell
swoop.

Please let me know when you come across any perfectly serious and good
buyers, because I'd like to see one! Just the one!

What surity should the buyer have in case you decide to pull out of the sale
(for whatever reason)?

Er, a contract, perhaps?

Would you be required to stump up £20k to be held in
escrow until the transaction is completed?

The deposit from the buyer would be held in escrow by the solicitor or
conveyancer handling the sale.

MM