On Fri, 21 May 2010 17:01:50 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 20/05/2010 18:33, Steve Walker wrote:
On 20 May 2010 15:51:04 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2010-05-20, Tim wrote:

Trading houses is at least fractured if not bust, IMO.

All that is required is for the offer/acceptance to be legally
binding with appropriate penalties for withdrawal by either party.

The trouble is that you'd then have to write in every conceivable
circumstance (or a catch all) to allow people to back out (such as if they
were suddenly told they were going to be made redundant; their
spouse/partner became seriously ill; their buyer pulled out; etc.) It's not
fair to punish someone who is pulling out because of suddenly changed
circumstances by making their circumstances even worse is it?

In most things in life, if you enter into a binding contract, there is
no onus on the other party to release you from it arbitrarily just
because you have changed your mind (cooling off periods or explicit
clauses excepted).

If these things had happened a week after completion, would you expect
to backtrack on the deal then?

Once you've bought, then it's just your bad luck, but until the day you've
completed, it would generally be far less damaging to the seller to lose
the sale than for the buyer to have suddenly lost his income and at the
same time be required to pay out tens of thousands of pounds in
compensation. Sellers frequently have more than one buyer interested and
may lose a small amount, the buyer could lose their family home, which
often leads to relationship breakups and illness. Like many things in life,
putting a law in place to stop one thing can have severe unintended
consequences for innocent people and it would probably be more practical
for the seller to take out insurance for the smaller loss, with the costs
being added to the house price.

SteveW

On Fri, 21 May 2010 15:25:52 +0100 Grimly Curmudgeon wrote :
The Scottish system is also (as in England) plagued with time-wasters
who spend their entire hobby hours going round houses for sale just
so they can gawp at others' dwellings/decor/kitchens/etc, with no
intention of actually ever buying a place.

Here, for the most part, most viewings are publicly advertised half-
hour slots where anyone can show up - some agents ask for photo-ID
(driving licence), a few even take your name and phone number. From the
agents pov a few extra browsers just make the really interested think
that there's more competition than perhaps there is.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.eurobeam.co.uk www.greentram.com

in 742450 20100521 121430 Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 03:34:10 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"
wrote:
On May 20, 6:33�pm, Steve Walker wrote:

The trouble is that you'd then have to write in every conceivable
circumstance (or a catch all) to allow people to back out (such as if they
were suddenly told they were going to be made redundant; their
spouse/partner became seriously ill; their buyer pulled out; etc.) It's not
fair to punish someone who is pulling out because of suddenly changed
circumstances by making their circumstances even worse is it?

Any/all of which can happen between exchange of contracts and
completion in the current system. There's nothing (other than
laggardly solicitors) preventing exchange of contracts happening much
earlier.


I have been involved in two property transactions where exchange of
contracts and completion happened on the same day.

Same here, when I bought my previous house, but that was 1966.
We moved in on the same day.
They do things differently now :-(

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 May 2010 15:25:52 +0100 Grimly Curmudgeon wrote :
The Scottish system is also (as in England) plagued with time-wasters
who spend their entire hobby hours going round houses for sale just
so they can gawp at others' dwellings/decor/kitchens/etc, with no
intention of actually ever buying a place.

Here, for the most part, most viewings are publicly advertised half-
hour slots where anyone can show up - some agents ask for photo-ID
(driving licence), a few even take your name and phone number. From the
agents pov a few extra browsers just make the really interested think
that there's more competition than perhaps there is.


And it's surprising how many drop by the wayside.

I've been to several auction viewings where about 30 people turned up (on 1
out of 4 viewings) and on auction day only two people are bidding.

tim

On Sat, 22 May 2010 01:30:28 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 21/05/2010 22:56, Steve Walker wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 17:01:50 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 20/05/2010 18:33, Steve Walker wrote:
On 20 May 2010 15:51:04 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2010-05-20, Tim wrote:

Trading houses is at least fractured if not bust, IMO.

All that is required is for the offer/acceptance to be legally
binding with appropriate penalties for withdrawal by either party.

The trouble is that you'd then have to write in every conceivable
circumstance (or a catch all) to allow people to back out (such as if they
were suddenly told they were going to be made redundant; their
spouse/partner became seriously ill; their buyer pulled out; etc.) It's not
fair to punish someone who is pulling out because of suddenly changed
circumstances by making their circumstances even worse is it?

In most things in life, if you enter into a binding contract, there is
no onus on the other party to release you from it arbitrarily just
because you have changed your mind (cooling off periods or explicit
clauses excepted).

If these things had happened a week after completion, would you expect
to backtrack on the deal then?

Once you've bought, then it's just your bad luck, but until the day you've

Well just adjust your viewpoint to "signed a binding contract" in place
of "bought" and there you go.

completed, it would generally be far less damaging to the seller to lose
the sale than for the buyer to have suddenly lost his income and at the
same time be required to pay out tens of thousands of pounds in
compensation. Sellers frequently have more than one buyer interested and
may lose a small amount, the buyer could lose their family home, which
often leads to relationship breakups and illness. Like many things in life,
putting a law in place to stop one thing can have severe unintended
consequences for innocent people and it would probably be more practical
for the seller to take out insurance for the smaller loss, with the costs
being added to the house price.

The damage for the seller could be equal or worse though depending on
the circumstances (and buyers may be keen to offer on several
properties). Note also that a contract can always be cancelled by mutual
agreement of both parties. So if you enter a binding contract, it does
not prevent you from asking the other party if they would agree to a
break, however I can see no reason for their being any legal right for
you to insist on it. Otherwise you make a legal nonsense of having a
contract in the first place.

To me, a house, like most things in life is something that you buy after
looking at it properly - searches, surveys, details of the deeds,
covenants, etc. are all part of the looking at it phase. Only once you have
the details should you be signing a contract, when you can seriously know
whether to go ahead or not. Now there is no reason that the time to do this
couldn't be reduced considerably ... surely with today's databases, it
shouldn't take more than a week to check title, planning issues, etc. (if
things were properly organised, all except the survey could be done
immediately and at very low cost).

Asking the other party to let you back out is relying upon their goodwill -
many people are not going to agree when they know that they'll be owed 10%
of the offer price if the buyer is unable to complete!

SteveW

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...

Here, for the most part, most viewings are publicly advertised half-
hour slots where anyone can show up - some agents ask for photo-ID
(driving licence),

That's me out then, I still have a paper license.

On Sat, 22 May 2010 18:12:33 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

That's me out then, I still have a paper license.

Me too and it is becoming a bit of PITA sometimes to prove ones
identity for "money laundering" reasons etc. Not having a current
passport (and the invalid ones are the nice big black ones not the
silly little red one we have now) and being freelance I don't have
works photo ID.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 18:12:33 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

That's me out then, I still have a paper license.

Me too and it is becoming a bit of PITA sometimes to prove ones
identity for "money laundering" reasons etc. Not having a current
passport (and the invalid ones are the nice big black ones not the
silly little red one we have now) and being freelance I don't have
works photo ID.

My wife and I had a significant amount of cash in a bond with Halifax. It
came to fruition and we wished to reinvest. Realising that the numskulls
would want proof of identity we went prepared with passports, driving
licences and recent utility bills.

"That's insufficient. We require your bank account details and evidence of
income." We both felt a little more than annoyed about this. I walked out
and visited Nationwide next door to explain the situation. No problem. A few
minutes later, Halifax were light of several £k and we had placed those
savings with Nationwide without any of the nonsense.

We had many different accounts with Halifax. Now we have but two. In the
next couple of months, we will have withdrawn our savings account and the
house insurance to elsewhere.

Pillocks!

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 21/05/10 14:32, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...

Cameron has the balls, but they are firmly gripped by Clegg. ;-)

They are at each others throats already!




Only the media (who are bored and/or too lazy to do some proper
investigative journalism somewhere else) claim that.

I don't expect the first coalition for decades to be an easy ride, but I
will be quite pleased if they can make it work as it will be a new age of
politics, possibly for the better.

What will be better? The incompetent Tories are still in charge. Will we
have PR? Er, er, no. What we needs is:

* PR introduced at Westminster - although to their credit Labour introduced
them elsewhere.
* House of Lords fully democratic using PR - although to their credit Labour
started the process
* Impose a limit or equal election budgets - the Tories had more
than the Lib Dems and Labour combined. The election was not fair.
* Prevent foreign companies owning UK media - the USA will not
have this at all in the US.
* Oxbridge prevented from ruling the corridors of power in government,
military, judiciary, etc - we do not have a meritocracy despite having 99
universities, ruled by an elite privileged private school clique as the
recent cabinet proved.
* Attack the landed aristocracy who own most of the UKs land -
Land Valuation Tax, a Lib Dem favourite, would have sorted them out,
naturally redistributed land and evened out the wealth in the UK.
* Revamp the appalling planning system - only 7.5% of the land is settled.

I can't see any of that done above by the self-interest Tories.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andrew Gabriel wrote:


EU never required the EPC. It merely required governments to gather
some overall statistics on the energy efficiency of the housing stock.
This could be based on the sampled surveys local authorities have to
do anyway. However, it was converted into gold plated ******** in this
country, as is very often the case.

yes.

The BBC was whingeing on about how '75% of the cabinet come from Oxbridge'

They hit the nail on the head. These inbreds have no idea. HIPS is a great
idea and should have been tightened to what it was originally intended.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 May 2010 12:46:23 +0100, "Fredxx" wrote:

Overall after buying and selling a house, switching some of the search
requirements from the potential multiple buyers to one seller I found an
good thing. The energy survey was always at most a finger in the air
waving thing.

So while I was initially negative about HIPs, I thought there were some
positive aspects. A buyer's solicitor would also charge more for making
the
same searches.

The problem is that the buyer's solicitor will automatically ignore
anything in the HIP and do the searches anyway.

Nonsense. An approved, independent company doing the survey, CORGI, Part P,
water, searches, etc can do the lot for both. Many houses have TWO surveys
done, when one can do the lot. The HIPs will be costed into the price. It
will also prevent people putting houses on the market for speculative
reasons with no intention of selling. It guarantees that all is well to the
buyer the prime point.

The HIPs company does it all, it is just paid for by the seller. The seller
cannot dictate what is in the HIPs or not because they are paying, no more
that telling a CORGI inspection what to put on the report, it is a set
format.

Look at a surveyors report it is full of exclusion: gas, elec, water, etc.
to the point the biggest rip-off is the survey. HIP is a one point company
doing it all for you - they get the experts to do the checks.

What was potentially the best aspect of the HIP was deleted before
they became law. That was the requirement for a condition survey of
the property. Without that, the HIP was basically useless.

...and gas.elect, water. Many homes have hopeless water system with a cheap
24kW combi thrown in and they have 2 bathrooms.

They should have tightened HIPS not scarp it.It is great thing when done
properly.

Of course, as with any "new" Labour idea,
there was no attention to detail.

The original HIPs was highly comprehensive. They took too much notice of
estate agents and RICS. They should have told that bunch of rip-off artists
to **** off instead of trying to be accommodating.

On Sat, 22 May 2010 23:45:41 +0100, Clot wrote:

Me too and it is becoming a bit of PITA sometimes to prove ones
identity for "money laundering" reasons etc.

My wife and I had a significant amount of cash in a bond with Halifax.
It came to fruition and we wished to reinvest. Realising that the
numskulls would want proof of identity we went prepared with passports,
driving licences and recent utility bills.

"That's insufficient. We require your bank account details and evidence
of income."

That was just a dumb **** sat behind the desk not understanding and
blindly following the script. I find if you already have any account
with a bank/building society they don't want *any* further proof of
identity. This I find more worrying than having to jump through hoops
to open a new account with a new to me bank/building society.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes
On Sat, 22 May 2010 23:45:41 +0100, Clot wrote:

Me too and it is becoming a bit of PITA sometimes to prove ones
identity for "money laundering" reasons etc.

My wife and I had a significant amount of cash in a bond with Halifax.
It came to fruition and we wished to reinvest. Realising that the
numskulls would want proof of identity we went prepared with passports,
driving licences and recent utility bills.

"That's insufficient. We require your bank account details and evidence
of income."

That was just a dumb **** sat behind the desk not understanding and
blindly following the script. I find if you already have any account
with a bank/building society they don't want *any* further proof of
identity. This I find more worrying than having to jump through hoops
to open a new account with a new to me bank/building society.

Like when I opened one of those limited "high interest " accounts with
Abbey / Santander last year

I wanted to put the 2.5k or whatever into it from another account I had
at the same branch

now ... given that the accounts had the same name, the same address and
I had my passport with me, I had put £5000 into the account the previous
day ...

they wouldn't transfer the money - I couldn't prove who I was


Err ... what ?

--
geoff

On Sun, 23 May 2010 13:34:57 +0100, geoff wrote:

Like when I opened one of those limited "high interest " accounts with
Abbey / Santander last year

I wanted to put the 2.5k or whatever into it from another account I had
at the same branch

now ... given that the accounts had the same name, the same address and
I had my passport with me, I had put £5000 into the account the previous
day ...

they wouldn't transfer the money - I couldn't prove who I was
Err ... what ?

The whole money laundering thing has just become an excuse.

I recently received three separate calls from NatWest inviting me to an
'account review' (aka 'sales session'). On one of them, I started off by
being un-keen. At which point, the woman said: "Oh, I see you are
receiving child benefit. We didn't know you have children". The oldest is
15! She then said "We need to update our records because of money
laundering; we legally have to see you". I said "Fine, but be advised
that I will NOT buy anything, least of all a 'packaged account'. Do you
still want to meet?". She said "It's up to you", rather changing her
tone. I said "No", and that was the end of the conversation!

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 23:45:41 +0100, Clot wrote:

Me too and it is becoming a bit of PITA sometimes to prove ones
identity for "money laundering" reasons etc.

My wife and I had a significant amount of cash in a bond with
Halifax. It came to fruition and we wished to reinvest. Realising
that the numskulls would want proof of identity we went prepared
with passports, driving licences and recent utility bills.

"That's insufficient. We require your bank account details and
evidence of income."

That was just a dumb **** sat behind the desk not understanding and
blindly following the script. I find if you already have any account
with a bank/building society they don't want *any* further proof of
identity. This I find more worrying than having to jump through hoops
to open a new account with a new to me bank/building society.

We had similar problems when wishing to invest in the bond, despite being
with Halifax for over 30 years. When we moved the money to Nationwide, my
wife received a call from Halifax. A polite FO was her response.

geoff wrote:
In message o.uk,
Dave Liquorice writes
On Sat, 22 May 2010 23:45:41 +0100, Clot wrote:

Me too and it is becoming a bit of PITA sometimes to prove ones
identity for "money laundering" reasons etc.

My wife and I had a significant amount of cash in a bond with
Halifax. It came to fruition and we wished to reinvest. Realising
that the numskulls would want proof of identity we went prepared
with passports, driving licences and recent utility bills.

"That's insufficient. We require your bank account details and
evidence of income."

That was just a dumb **** sat behind the desk not understanding and
blindly following the script. I find if you already have any account
with a bank/building society they don't want *any* further proof of
identity. This I find more worrying than having to jump through hoops
to open a new account with a new to me bank/building society.

Like when I opened one of those limited "high interest " accounts with
Abbey / Santander last year

I wanted to put the 2.5k or whatever into it from another account I
had at the same branch

now ... given that the accounts had the same name, the same address
and I had my passport with me, I had put £5000 into the account the
previous day ...

they wouldn't transfer the money - I couldn't prove who I was


Err ... what ?

Quite!

Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 13:34:57 +0100, geoff wrote:

Like when I opened one of those limited "high interest " accounts
with Abbey / Santander last year

I wanted to put the 2.5k or whatever into it from another account I
had at the same branch

now ... given that the accounts had the same name, the same address
and I had my passport with me, I had put £5000 into the account the
previous day ...

they wouldn't transfer the money - I couldn't prove who I was
Err ... what ?

The whole money laundering thing has just become an excuse.

I recently received three separate calls from NatWest inviting me to
an 'account review' (aka 'sales session'). On one of them, I started
off by being un-keen. At which point, the woman said: "Oh, I see you
are receiving child benefit. We didn't know you have children". The
oldest is 15! She then said "We need to update our records because of
money laundering; we legally have to see you". I said "Fine, but be
advised that I will NOT buy anything, least of all a 'packaged
account'. Do you still want to meet?". She said "It's up to you",
rather changing her tone. I said "No", and that was the end of the
conversation!

I've had my bank account with the N Provincial for over 40 years and a few
years ago experienced the same issues. Polite "Sod Offs" sorted that out.
I'm one of their esteemed customers with a Gold Card/ Private Account
(whatever it's called) which resulted in me having so much junk mail. I rang
and wrote telling them to desist ... and they did!

It is a bank and I want banking services, not points for a holiday that I do
not wish. Focus on banking!