"Chris" wrote in
message ...
Just watching 'Property Chain' on Ch4 at the moment. Family at the top
of the chain are in Switzerland. Contracts have not been exchanged.
Woman buying house at top of chain has got hold of key (to 'measure up
with builders') and redecorated the house, torn up the lawn, laid a
hardstanding, etc, all without the knowledge of the family who's house
it is! Looking forward to some fireworks...


Hilarious isn't it. Purchaser from hell.

Hate to think what the poor cameramen thought filming her tresspassing like
this.

Just watching 'Property Chain' on Ch4 at the moment. Family at the top
of the chain are in Switzerland. Contracts have not been exchanged.
Woman buying house at top of chain has got hold of key (to 'measure up
with builders') and redecorated the house, torn up the lawn, laid a
hardstanding, etc, all without the knowledge of the family who's house
it is! Looking forward to some fireworks...

Chris

--
cut along the dotted line to reply

"G&M" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in
message ...
Just watching 'Property Chain' on Ch4 at the moment. Family at the top
of the chain are in Switzerland. Contracts have not been exchanged.
Woman buying house at top of chain has got hold of key (to 'measure up
with builders') and redecorated the house, torn up the lawn, laid a
hardstanding, etc, all without the knowledge of the family who's house
it is! Looking forward to some fireworks...


Hilarious isn't it. Purchaser from hell.

Hate to think what the poor cameramen thought filming her tresspassing
like
this.


His film being used as evidence, and it might be a good idea to make a few
copies of the camera tape !...

G&M wrote:

"Chris" wrote in
message ...
Just watching 'Property Chain' on Ch4 at the moment. Family at the top
of the chain are in Switzerland. Contracts have not been exchanged.
Woman buying house at top of chain has got hold of key (to 'measure up
with builders') and redecorated the house, torn up the lawn, laid a
hardstanding, etc, all without the knowledge of the family who's house
it is! Looking forward to some fireworks...


Hilarious isn't it. Purchaser from hell.

If everything fell apart, who would own stuff put onto the owners
property?

The estate agent involved was rather negligent in my opinion - they should
know what is happening. When we were purchasing an empty house the agent
would only release the key to tradesmen on proof of identity to enable us to
obtain quotes. A nuisance, but unobjectionable good practice in my opinion.

"Chris" wrote in
message ...
Just watching 'Property Chain' on Ch4 at the moment. Family at the top
of the chain are in Switzerland. Contracts have not been exchanged.
Woman buying house at top of chain has got hold of key (to 'measure up
with builders') and redecorated the house, torn up the lawn, laid a
hardstanding, etc, all without the knowledge of the family who's house
it is! Looking forward to some fireworks...

Chris

--
cut along the dotted line to reply

Just watching 'Property Chain' on Ch4 at the moment. Family at the top
of the chain are in Switzerland. Contracts have not been exchanged.
Woman buying house at top of chain has got hold of key (to 'measure up
with builders') and redecorated the house, torn up the lawn, laid a
hardstanding, etc, all without the knowledge of the family who's house
it is! Looking forward to some fireworks...

The estate agent and solicitor are grossly negligent. The woman needs a
reality transplant.

Peter Crosland wrote:
Just watching 'Property Chain' on Ch4 at the moment. Family at the top
of the chain are in Switzerland. Contracts have not been exchanged.
Woman buying house at top of chain has got hold of key (to 'measure up
with builders') and redecorated the house, torn up the lawn, laid a
hardstanding, etc, all without the knowledge of the family who's house
it is! Looking forward to some fireworks...

The estate agent and solicitor are grossly negligent. The woman needs a
reality transplant.


Fortunately for her it all came right in the end though. Unfortunate for
us though as it would have made interesting viewing had it not :-)

BTW, doe nayone know where the houses were? One of the shots looked
suspiciously like somewhere near me (I only switched on after Chris
started this thread)?

Parish

Parish wrote:
Peter Crosland wrote:
Just watching 'Property Chain' on Ch4 at the moment. Family at the
top of the chain are in Switzerland. Contracts have not been
exchanged. Woman buying house at top of chain has got hold of key
(to 'measure up with builders') and redecorated the house, torn up
the lawn, laid a hardstanding, etc, all without the knowledge of
the family who's house it is! Looking forward to some fireworks...

The estate agent and solicitor are grossly negligent. The woman
needs a reality transplant.


Fortunately for her it all came right in the end though. Unfortunate
for us though as it would have made interesting viewing had it not :-)

BTW, doe nayone know where the houses were? One of the shots looked
suspiciously like somewhere near me (I only switched on after Chris
started this thread)?

At least one of the villages was mentioned and the full street names (and
house numbers/names) were given, I'm not entirely sure this is a good idea
though.
Can't remember what they were though.

--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk

The Address of the property is

1 Tilden Cottages
Tilden Lane Marden
TONBRIDGE
Kent
TN12 9AY
"James Hart" wrote in message
...
Parish wrote:
Peter Crosland wrote:
Just watching 'Property Chain' on Ch4 at the moment. Family at the
top of the chain are in Switzerland. Contracts have not been
exchanged. Woman buying house at top of chain has got hold of key
(to 'measure up with builders') and redecorated the house, torn up
the lawn, laid a hardstanding, etc, all without the knowledge of
the family who's house it is! Looking forward to some fireworks...

The estate agent and solicitor are grossly negligent. The woman
needs a reality transplant.


Fortunately for her it all came right in the end though. Unfortunate
for us though as it would have made interesting viewing had it not :-)

BTW, doe nayone know where the houses were? One of the shots looked
suspiciously like somewhere near me (I only switched on after Chris
started this thread)?

At least one of the villages was mentioned and the full street names (and
house numbers/names) were given, I'm not entirely sure this is a good idea
though.
Can't remember what they were though.

--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk

Sploop wrote:

The Address of the property is

1 Tilden Cottages
Tilden Lane Marden
TONBRIDGE
Kent
TN12 9AY

Ah, so it wasn't near me then, unless not all the properties were in
Kent. What looked familiar was the shot, near the end of the programme,
of a white horse (the chalk on a hill variety). It looked like one here
in Wilts.

Anyway, since you've revealed the full postal address maybe all of us on
uk.d-i-y should send them a "Welcome to your new home" card ;-)

Parish

"James Hart" wrote in message
...
Parish wrote:
Peter Crosland wrote:
Just watching 'Property Chain' on Ch4 at the moment. Family at the
top of the chain are in Switzerland. Contracts have not been
exchanged. Woman buying house at top of chain has got hold of key
(to 'measure up with builders') and redecorated the house, torn up
the lawn, laid a hardstanding, etc, all without the knowledge of
the family who's house it is! Looking forward to some fireworks...

The estate agent and solicitor are grossly negligent. The woman
needs a reality transplant.


Fortunately for her it all came right in the end though. Unfortunate
for us though as it would have made interesting viewing had it not :-)

BTW, doe nayone know where the houses were? One of the shots looked
suspiciously like somewhere near me (I only switched on after Chris
started this thread)?

At least one of the villages was mentioned and the full street names (and
house numbers/names) were given, I'm not entirely sure this is a good idea
though.
Can't remember what they were though.

--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:46:23 +0000, Chris
wrote:

Just watching 'Property Chain' on Ch4 at the moment. Family at the top
of the chain are in Switzerland. Contracts have not been exchanged.
Woman buying house at top of chain has got hold of key (to 'measure up
with builders') and redecorated the house, torn up the lawn, laid a
hardstanding, etc, all without the knowledge of the family who's house
it is! Looking forward to some fireworks...

Some people are incredibly nit-picky, though. That woman who
negotiated a substantial reduction on the price of the property she
was buying, then quibbled about the owner wanting her to pay for the
oil in the central heating tank, for example. She also moaned about
having the hedges cut on the property she was selling. Honestly, we
are talking about relatively trivial amounts (£300 for the oil maybe?)
when the actual properties are costing a couple of hundred thousand or
more. Another thing was the stove that the vendor was now going to
take, instead of leaving behind as per the original fixtures and
fittings list. I understand that, before exchange, the vendor has a
perfect right to do this, and if the price of the property had been
whittled down, it's no wonder if the vendor is then going to say,
fine, but you're not getting the stove. Any silly little quibbles like
these could easily run the risk of breaking the chain. She could have
bought a new stove for a grand or less, no doubt. I bet she didn't
choose the property in the first place based soley on keeping the
stove!

It seems the main problem with chains is that no one TALKS to anyone
else! Everyone kind of assumes that the other side is doing their bit.
I could not *believe* that lady who carpeted the floor and placed her
Teddy Bear toy house in the garden! Rarely am I truly astounded by
what I see on the box, but I was incredulous that she, an apparently
sane, though pushy, woman, could possibly have thought that what she
was doing was acceptable. Well, indeed, later on she began to have
doubts, but I could see many a vendor pulling out of the sale and
sueing her bony ass off all the way to the bankruptcy court if need
be. With court costs she could have been facing a bill of £100,000 no
problem.

It just shows how many utterly stupid people there are out there.

MM

Mike Mitchell wrote:
Another thing was the stove that the vendor was now going to
take, instead of leaving behind as per the original fixtures and
fittings list. I understand that, before exchange, the vendor has a
perfect right to do this, and if the price of the property had been
whittled down, it's no wonder if the vendor is then going to say,
fine, but you're not getting the stove. Any silly little quibbles like
these could easily run the risk of breaking the chain. She could have
bought a new stove for a grand or less, no doubt. I bet she didn't
choose the property in the first place based soley on keeping the
stove!


In contrast to the cottage with the water leak where the owner, despite
trying to move out, was mopping up and desperately trying to get a
plumber and, when she finally got one, stayed behind after completion
(technically she should have been out) until it was fixed even though,
as the presenter pointed out, problems pass to the new owner.

Has anyone any experience of house buying/selling in other countries? Do
they have the same problems with pettiness or is it a British thing?
When I sold my late father's house a year ago I got those declaration
forms you have to complete detailing _exactly_ what you are taking or
leaving (or the house doesn't have). This was the first time I'd had to
fill one of these in and I was amazed by some of the listed items; light
switches and fittings, sockets, door handles, etc., etc. but then there
have been numerous instances of people taking such things and not
replacing them - ISTR that happening on a programme like Property Chain,
where the new owners arrived to find just about everything that could be
taken had been. I'm sure I've read/heard about a case where they even
took the CH programmer!! Do people mortgage themselves to the point
where they can't even afford to buy a few dimmer switches?

It seems the main problem with chains is that no one TALKS to anyone
else!

Possibly because people assume that they should only communicate through
Solicitors and EAs?

Everyone kind of assumes that the other side is doing their bit.
I could not *believe* that lady who carpeted the floor and placed her
Teddy Bear toy house in the garden! Rarely am I truly astounded by
what I see on the box, but I was incredulous that she, an apparently
sane, though pushy, woman, could possibly have thought that what she
was doing was acceptable. Well, indeed, later on she began to have
doubts, but I could see many a vendor pulling out of the sale and
sueing her bony ass off all the way to the bankruptcy court if need
be. With court costs she could have been facing a bill of £100,000 no
problem.

It just shows how many utterly stupid people there are out there.

MM

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 10:28:17 +0000, Parish wrote:

Has anyone any experience of house buying/selling in other countries?

I know that in Germany it is more common (up until a few years ago,
just about the only way) to build one's own house on a plot of ground.
Everyone I knew or know in Germany, including my late sister and her
family, had done this. However, once Germans have built their dream
home they tend to stay there for a very long time. Also, family
properties are often much more spacious than in Britain, with large
plots for seclusion, plus a basement which is effectively a third
storey.

It really takes the biscuit when I can now afford to buy a new house
in the Hamburg region, based on the value of my ex-LA semi in the home
counties! When I lived in Germany (in the 1970s) there was no way I
could have afforded to build there, even though I was earning a pretty
respectable salary. ISTR that one had to save a considerable amount
first before a mortgage company would even consider lending anything.

MM

Parish wrote:
Mike Mitchell wrote:

Another thing was the stove that the vendor was now going to
take, instead of leaving behind as per the original fixtures and
fittings list. I understand that, before exchange, the vendor has a
perfect right to do this, and if the price of the property had been
whittled down, it's no wonder if the vendor is then going to say,
fine, but you're not getting the stove. Any silly little quibbles like
these could easily run the risk of breaking the chain. She could have
bought a new stove for a grand or less, no doubt. I bet she didn't
choose the property in the first place based soley on keeping the
stove!


In contrast to the cottage with the water leak where the owner, despite
trying to move out, was mopping up and desperately trying to get a
plumber and, when she finally got one, stayed behind after completion
(technically she should have been out) until it was fixed even though,
as the presenter pointed out, problems pass to the new owner.

IIRC, the woman who quibbled about the paying for the oil etc was the
same woman who got the plumber in and stayed behind (when she had no
reason to). To be honest, I thought her vendor was being extremely
childish - who in their right mind takes the toilet roll holders and
washing line?

Regardless of the legalities, she negotiated a price based on the
details she was given. If the details are changed then fine, time to
renegotiate. I would have turned round and said, fine, take the stove,
that'll be £1000 (or however much) off the asking price. Pay for the
oil? No thanks (presumably if she replaced the stove with a solid fuel /
lpg / whatever stove she wouldn't need the oil anyway?). OK it means
descending to his level but it might give him a wakeup call - at the end
of the day, he needs her as much as she needs him.

Anyway, just my £0.02,

Cheers,

Chris

--
cut along the dotted line to reply

Chris wrote:
Parish wrote:
Mike Mitchell wrote:

Another thing was the stove that the vendor was now going to
take, instead of leaving behind as per the original fixtures and
fittings list. I understand that, before exchange, the vendor has a
perfect right to do this, and if the price of the property had been
whittled down, it's no wonder if the vendor is then going to say,
fine, but you're not getting the stove. Any silly little quibbles
like these could easily run the risk of breaking the chain. She
could have bought a new stove for a grand or less, no doubt. I bet
she didn't choose the property in the first place based soley on
keeping the stove!


In contrast to the cottage with the water leak where the owner,
despite trying to move out, was mopping up and desperately trying to
get a plumber and, when she finally got one, stayed behind after
completion (technically she should have been out) until it was fixed
even though, as the presenter pointed out, problems pass to the new
owner.

IIRC, the woman who quibbled about the paying for the oil etc was the
same woman who got the plumber in and stayed behind (when she had no
reason to). To be honest, I thought her vendor was being extremely
childish - who in their right mind takes the toilet roll holders and
washing line?

Regardless of the legalities, she negotiated a price based on the
details she was given. If the details are changed then fine, time to
renegotiate. I would have turned round and said, fine, take the stove,
that'll be £1000 (or however much) off the asking price. Pay for the
oil? No thanks (presumably if she replaced the stove with a solid
fuel / lpg / whatever stove she wouldn't need the oil anyway?). OK it
means descending to his level but it might give him a wakeup call -
at the end of the day, he needs her as much as she needs him.

Anyway, just my £0.02,

Cheers,

Chris

There was something wrong here. In 2 recent purchase/sales I've been
involved in there were very detailed sellers docs that had to be completed.
Every fixture and fitting had to be accounted for. In one case the seller
stated they wanted to replace all the internal door handles that were there
at the viewing because they were a present from a deceased father! The buyer
being forewarned did accept this..
The vendor can't change their mind after this stage...
Its got to be the case though that these TV progs pick the most
stupid/awkward of subjects else it wouldn't be of interest.
It gives the rest of us a cheap laugh at the idiots expense

BillV wrote:
Chris wrote:
Parish wrote:
Mike Mitchell wrote:

Another thing was the stove that the vendor was now going to
take, instead of leaving behind as per the original fixtures and
fittings list. I understand that, before exchange, the vendor has a
perfect right to do this, and if the price of the property had been
whittled down, it's no wonder if the vendor is then going to say,
fine, but you're not getting the stove. Any silly little quibbles
like these could easily run the risk of breaking the chain. She
could have bought a new stove for a grand or less, no doubt. I bet
she didn't choose the property in the first place based soley on
keeping the stove!


In contrast to the cottage with the water leak where the owner,
despite trying to move out, was mopping up and desperately trying to
get a plumber and, when she finally got one, stayed behind after
completion (technically she should have been out) until it was fixed
even though, as the presenter pointed out, problems pass to the new
owner.

IIRC, the woman who quibbled about the paying for the oil etc was the
same woman who got the plumber in and stayed behind (when she had no
reason to). To be honest, I thought her vendor was being extremely
childish - who in their right mind takes the toilet roll holders and
washing line?

Regardless of the legalities, she negotiated a price based on the
details she was given. If the details are changed then fine, time to
renegotiate. I would have turned round and said, fine, take the
stove, that'll be £1000 (or however much) off the asking price. Pay
for the oil? No thanks (presumably if she replaced the stove with a
solid fuel / lpg / whatever stove she wouldn't need the oil
anyway?). OK it means descending to his level but it might give him
a wakeup call - at the end of the day, he needs her as much as she
needs him.

Anyway, just my £0.02,

Cheers,

Chris

There was something wrong here. In 2 recent purchase/sales I've been
involved in there were very detailed sellers docs that had to be
completed. Every fixture and fitting had to be accounted for. In one
case the seller stated they wanted to replace all the internal door
handles that were there at the viewing because they were a present
from a deceased father! The buyer being forewarned did accept this..
The vendor can't change their mind after this stage...
Its got to be the case though that these TV progs pick the most
stupid/awkward of subjects else it wouldn't be of interest.
It gives the rest of us a cheap laugh at the idiots expense

Beware sneaky sellers though. I remember a pub that changed hands a few
years back where (amongst other things) the wall-lights mysteriously changed
from the decent ones with CFL bulbs in each to cheap and nasties with
ordinary bulbs instead. The outgoing landlord was known as being a bit tight
but I though that took the biscuit. The ingoing people (managers for a
pubco) didn't know anything about it 'til one of the regular customers asked
why they'd changed the lighting.
My own house buying story (on a sample of 1 house buying experience) is that
I gained a whirlygig washing line that was listed as being taken on the
paperwork, being rusted into the ground may have dissuaded the vendors from
taking it though.

--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 21:32:33 -0000, "James Hart"
wrote:

BillV wrote:
Chris wrote:
Parish wrote:
Mike Mitchell wrote:

Another thing was the stove that the vendor was now going to
take, instead of leaving behind as per the original fixtures and
fittings list. I understand that, before exchange, the vendor has a
perfect right to do this, and if the price of the property had been
whittled down, it's no wonder if the vendor is then going to say,
fine, but you're not getting the stove. Any silly little quibbles
like these could easily run the risk of breaking the chain. She
could have bought a new stove for a grand or less, no doubt. I bet
she didn't choose the property in the first place based soley on
keeping the stove!


In contrast to the cottage with the water leak where the owner,
despite trying to move out, was mopping up and desperately trying to
get a plumber and, when she finally got one, stayed behind after
completion (technically she should have been out) until it was fixed
even though, as the presenter pointed out, problems pass to the new
owner.

IIRC, the woman who quibbled about the paying for the oil etc was the
same woman who got the plumber in and stayed behind (when she had no
reason to). To be honest, I thought her vendor was being extremely
childish - who in their right mind takes the toilet roll holders and
washing line?

Regardless of the legalities, she negotiated a price based on the
details she was given. If the details are changed then fine, time to
renegotiate. I would have turned round and said, fine, take the
stove, that'll be £1000 (or however much) off the asking price. Pay
for the oil? No thanks (presumably if she replaced the stove with a
solid fuel / lpg / whatever stove she wouldn't need the oil
anyway?). OK it means descending to his level but it might give him
a wakeup call - at the end of the day, he needs her as much as she
needs him.

Anyway, just my £0.02,

Cheers,

Chris

There was something wrong here. In 2 recent purchase/sales I've been
involved in there were very detailed sellers docs that had to be
completed. Every fixture and fitting had to be accounted for. In one
case the seller stated they wanted to replace all the internal door
handles that were there at the viewing because they were a present
from a deceased father! The buyer being forewarned did accept this..
The vendor can't change their mind after this stage...
Its got to be the case though that these TV progs pick the most
stupid/awkward of subjects else it wouldn't be of interest.
It gives the rest of us a cheap laugh at the idiots expense

Beware sneaky sellers though. I remember a pub that changed hands a few
years back where (amongst other things) the wall-lights mysteriously changed
from the decent ones with CFL bulbs in each to cheap and nasties with
ordinary bulbs instead. The outgoing landlord was known as being a bit tight
but I though that took the biscuit. The ingoing people (managers for a
pubco) didn't know anything about it 'til one of the regular customers asked
why they'd changed the lighting.
My own house buying story (on a sample of 1 house buying experience) is that
I gained a whirlygig washing line that was listed as being taken on the
paperwork, being rusted into the ground may have dissuaded the vendors from
taking it though.

When I leave I'm not going to quibble about the lampshades, bulbs, and
other trivia. I'm also going to leave the incomers (whoever they may
be) a box of choccies and a bottle of sparkling wine.

MM

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 01:12:53 +0000, Parish wrote:

Ah, so it wasn't near me then, unless not all the properties were in
Kent. What looked familiar was the shot, near the end of the programme,
of a white horse (the chalk on a hill variety). It looked like one here
in Wilts

They weren't all in Kent. That White Horse is also in sight (just)
from our garden! However, it is not exactly near the house that was
being sold, so presumably it was being used to indicate 'Wiltshire' in
general. The house sale was in Gastard (near Chippenham I think) and
the solicitor shown used to live next door to us - the practice he is
in is based in Trowbridge.

Regards, VivienB

VivienB wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 01:12:53 +0000, Parish wrote:

Ah, so it wasn't near me then, unless not all the properties were in
Kent. What looked familiar was the shot, near the end of the programme,
of a white horse (the chalk on a hill variety). It looked like one here
in Wilts

They weren't all in Kent. That White Horse is also in sight (just)
from our garden! However, it is not exactly near the house that was
being sold, so presumably it was being used to indicate 'Wiltshire' in
general. The house sale was in Gastard (near Chippenham I think) and

Thanks.

Yes, Gastard is near Chippneham. I thought it was the Cherhill White
Horse, which I doubt would be visible from Gastard.

I hope C4 repeat the programme, I like to see the whole thing.

Parish

the solicitor shown used to live next door to us - the practice he is
in is based in Trowbridge.

Regards, VivienB

Mike Mitchell wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:46:23 +0000, Chris
wrote:


It just shows how many utterly stupid people there are out there.

MM

No it doesn't. This is TV. Like all reality shows they pre-select the
stupid ones. Otherwise there's no story worth telling.

MBQ

"BillV" wrote in message .. .

There was something wrong here. In 2 recent purchase/sales I've been
involved in there were very detailed sellers docs that had to be completed.
Every fixture and fitting had to be accounted for. In one case the seller
stated they wanted to replace all the internal door handles that were there
at the viewing because they were a present from a deceased father! The buyer
being forewarned did accept this..
The vendor can't change their mind after this stage...

Depends what you mean by "this stage". You can change your mind
anytime up until the contracts are signed. Only then do the lists
become binding. You might lose the sale by changing your mind but
that's a different issue.

MBQ

Mike Mitchell wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:46:23 +0000, Chris
wrote:

Just watching 'Property Chain' on Ch4 at the moment. Family at the top
of the chain are in Switzerland. Contracts have not been exchanged.
Woman buying house at top of chain has got hold of key (to 'measure up
with builders') and redecorated the house, torn up the lawn, laid a
hardstanding, etc, all without the knowledge of the family who's house
it is! Looking forward to some fireworks...

Some people are incredibly nit-picky, though. That woman who
negotiated a substantial reduction on the price of the property she
was buying, then quibbled about the owner wanting her to pay for the
oil in the central heating tank, for example. She also moaned about

I would have quibbled too. Chances are they're not going to syphon it
out and take it with them. If they do and spill any on the garden then
I'd sue them for the clean-up. It's a battle of wills. On the other
hand, as a vendor, I did manage to get £250 (with no quibbling) for a
large shed I had absolutely no intention of taking with me.

MBQ

MBQ wrote:
Mike Mitchell wrote in message . ..

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:46:23 +0000, Chris
wrote:


It just shows how many utterly stupid people there are out there.

MM


No it doesn't. This is TV. Like all reality shows they pre-select the
stupid ones. Otherwise there's no story worth telling.

MBQ
Actually all you can do is hope that the potentially stupid ones will
actually do something rash. There was considerable investment in therms
of filming before she started being really wild and nobody could have
predicted how far she'd go.

The producers got lucky but would have been even luckier if the sale had
fallen through and she'd had to undo all the damage she'd done.

Nick

In article , Mike Mitchell wrote:

Some people are incredibly nit-picky, though. That woman who
negotiated a substantial reduction on the price of the property she
was buying, then quibbled about the owner wanting her to pay for the
oil in the central heating tank, for example.

That seemed perfectly reasonable to me. The vendor had already filled
in the property details form to say that the oil was included in the
sale. To decide later on that he wanted an additional payment for it
appears petty in the extreme.

Same with the stove, to be honest. It was listed in the estate agent's
particulars as being included in the sale and the vendor didn't appear
to have worried about it when agreeing the price (which would have been
the obvious time to say "Yes, I'll sell at that price but I won't be
leaving the stove").

Of course, the programme makers deliberately distort the facts when
it suits them in order to make what they believe will be a more
"interesting" programme, so it may well be that events haven't been
portrayed anything like the way they really happened.

James

Nick Brooks wrote:
MBQ wrote:
Mike Mitchell wrote in message
. ..

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:46:23 +0000, Chris
wrote:


It just shows how many utterly stupid people there are out there.

MM


No it doesn't. This is TV. Like all reality shows they pre-select the
stupid ones. Otherwise there's no story worth telling.

MBQ
Actually all you can do is hope that the potentially stupid ones will
actually do something rash. There was considerable investment in
therms of filming before she started being really wild and nobody
could have predicted how far she'd go.

The producers got lucky but would have been even luckier if the sale
had fallen through and she'd had to undo all the damage she'd done.

You have to wonder how the producers held off making a sly phonecall to the
vendors to tip them off, I know it's what most viewers would have wanted.

--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:54:07 -0000, "James Hart"
wrote:

You have to wonder how the producers held off making a sly phonecall to the
vendors to tip them off, I know it's what most viewers would have wanted.

I really wonder, though, just how truthful some of these programmes
are. I should think that the vendor would have had a good case against
Channel 4 or the programme maker if it transpired that they were
deliberately and knowingly exploiting this woman's stupidity - at the
expense of the genuine owner - in order to make a TV programme. The
correct course of action by the programme makers would have been to
advise the lady in question that what she was doing was illegal and
that she was therefore henceforth excluded from the filming. As this
would thus render the entire programme (hint: it's about property
chains!) a complete waste of time, the programme maker would
rightfully claim compensation. She could have ended up being sued not
only by the genuine owner, but also by Channel 4 and/or the programme
maker. Forget £100,000, we could be talking a lot more than that in
damages if the lawyers had pursued the illegal aspects of this
programme all the way. And it would have been a real lesson to all the
other stupid people out there. Instead, she got away with it, almost
with a s******.

MM

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:29:45 +0000 (UTC), James Fidell
wrote:

In article , Mike Mitchell wrote:

Some people are incredibly nit-picky, though. That woman who
negotiated a substantial reduction on the price of the property she
was buying, then quibbled about the owner wanting her to pay for the
oil in the central heating tank, for example.

That seemed perfectly reasonable to me. The vendor had already filled
in the property details form to say that the oil was included in the
sale. To decide later on that he wanted an additional payment for it
appears petty in the extreme.

Same with the stove, to be honest. It was listed in the estate agent's
particulars as being included in the sale and the vendor didn't appear
to have worried about it when agreeing the price (which would have been
the obvious time to say "Yes, I'll sell at that price but I won't be
leaving the stove").

Of course, the programme makers deliberately distort the facts when
it suits them in order to make what they believe will be a more
"interesting" programme, so it may well be that events haven't been
portrayed anything like the way they really happened.

I think it's ridiculously petty and shooting oneself in the foot by
nit-picking over such relatively trivial amounts or items, mainly, it
seems, in order to "get one over" on the wily vendor or buyer. Typical
British attitude, I have to say. The whole purpose about buying a
property is to acquire the property, not wasting everyone's time by
arguing over a couple of hundred quid's worth of heating oil. This is
childish in the extreme, especially because the risk exists at all
times that such puerile arguments will BREAK THE CHAIN when the
vendor/buyer pulls out in disgust at being ****ed about. There are
many more buyers out there who WON'T quibble about a tankful of
heating oil!

MM

Mike Mitchell wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:54:07 -0000, "James Hart"
wrote:

You have to wonder how the producers held off making a sly phonecall
to the vendors to tip them off, I know it's what most viewers would
have wanted.

I really wonder, though, just how truthful some of these programmes
are. I should think that the vendor would have had a good case against
Channel 4 or the programme maker if it transpired that they were
deliberately and knowingly exploiting this woman's stupidity - at the
expense of the genuine owner - in order to make a TV programme. The
correct course of action by the programme makers would have been to
advise the lady in question that what she was doing was illegal and
that she was therefore henceforth excluded from the filming. As this
would thus render the entire programme (hint: it's about property
chains!) a complete waste of time, the programme maker would
rightfully claim compensation. She could have ended up being sued not
only by the genuine owner, but also by Channel 4 and/or the programme
maker. Forget £100,000, we could be talking a lot more than that in
damages if the lawyers had pursued the illegal aspects of this
programme all the way. And it would have been a real lesson to all the
other stupid people out there. Instead, she got away with it, almost
with a s******.

MM

Any comeback on the tradesman that were working on the house?

--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:45:31 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:29:45 +0000 (UTC), James Fidell
wrote:

In article , Mike Mitchell wrote:

Some people are incredibly nit-picky, though. That woman who


snip stuff about heating oil

I've never had oil fired heating but I wondered; if she'd said she
didn't want the oil then what would the vendor be able to do with it ?

Is it realistic to pump it off into jerry cans or something, or is
taking the oil away more than two hundred quids worth of trouble ?

n

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 20:20:02 +0000, norm wrote:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:45:31 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:29:45 +0000 (UTC), James Fidell
wrote:

In article , Mike Mitchell wrote:

Some people are incredibly nit-picky, though. That woman who


snip stuff about heating oil

I've never had oil fired heating but I wondered; if she'd said she
didn't want the oil then what would the vendor be able to do with it ?

Is it realistic to pump it off into jerry cans or something, or is
taking the oil away more than two hundred quids worth of trouble ?

Maybe he would have just opened the windows, turned the boiler on full
blast and burned off all the oil. Some people are incredibly
small-minded.

MM

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:45:31 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:29:45 +0000 (UTC), James Fidell
wrote:

In article , Mike Mitchell wrote:

Some people are incredibly nit-picky, though. That woman who


snip stuff about heating oil

I've never had oil fired heating but I wondered; if she'd said she
didn't want the oil then what would the vendor be able to do with it ?

Is it realistic to pump it off into jerry cans or something, or is
taking the oil away more than two hundred quids worth of trouble ?

n



We got screwed right down on the selling price of our last house. When
it came to moving we had just had an oil fill. I bought 5 x 45 gallon
barrels, put them on trailer, and pumped the oil across to them using a
drill powered pump. Decanted it in a similar fashion. To be honest I was
only being petty and it was a messy operation but I got a little
satisfaction from it.

Paul Mc Cann

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 19:58:20 -0000, Paul Mc Cann
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:45:31 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:29:45 +0000 (UTC), James Fidell
wrote:

In article , Mike Mitchell wrote:

Some people are incredibly nit-picky, though. That woman who


snip stuff about heating oil

I've never had oil fired heating but I wondered; if she'd said she
didn't want the oil then what would the vendor be able to do with it ?

Is it realistic to pump it off into jerry cans or something, or is
taking the oil away more than two hundred quids worth of trouble ?

n



We got screwed right down on the selling price of our last house. When
it came to moving we had just had an oil fill. I bought 5 x 45 gallon
barrels, put them on trailer, and pumped the oil across to them using a
drill powered pump. Decanted it in a similar fashion. To be honest I was
only being petty and it was a messy operation but I got a little
satisfaction from it.

Ah, Paul! Just the man to answer a burning (!) question for me. In my
quest for the right property I am not excluding oil-fired CH but would
prefer gas. That oil fill you had, how much did it cost you and how
long would it have lasted you during the winter?

Thanks!

MM

In article ,
says...
snip
We got screwed right down on the selling price of our last house. When
it came to moving we had just had an oil fill. I bought 5 x 45 gallon
barrels, put them on trailer, and pumped the oil across to them using a
drill powered pump. Decanted it in a similar fashion. To be honest I was
only being petty and it was a messy operation but I got a little
satisfaction from it.

Ah, Paul! Just the man to answer a burning (!) question for me. In my
quest for the right property I am not excluding oil-fired CH but would
prefer gas. That oil fill you had, how much did it cost you and how
long would it have lasted you during the winter?

Thanks!

MM


We're talking 12 years ago and given I have trouble remembering what I
had for my breakfast I have no idea of the cost. It was about 300
gallons worth. I think we had about 2-3 fills a year in that particular
house.

IMHO oil is still the leader in home heating and consequently the price
setter, and usually the cheapest. Most other forms of heating tend to
follow the price fluctuations of oil. (Excluding the obvious ones such
as underground thermal etc)

Paul Mc Cann

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 20:03:02 -0000, Paul Mc Cann
wrote:

IMHO oil is still the leader in home heating and consequently the price
setter, and usually the cheapest. Most other forms of heating tend to
follow the price fluctuations of oil. (Excluding the obvious ones such
as underground thermal etc)

Now that's a surprise. I always thought that gas was the cheapest, and
that oil was quite expensive. Isn't oil central heating somewhat
messier, smellier?

MM

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 20:03:02 -0000, Paul Mc Cann
wrote:

IMHO oil is still the leader in home heating and consequently the price
setter, and usually the cheapest. Most other forms of heating tend to
follow the price fluctuations of oil. (Excluding the obvious ones such
as underground thermal etc)

Now that's a surprise. I always thought that gas was the cheapest, and
that oil was quite expensive.

Assuming typical modern high performance boilers, mains gas is cheapest (by
far), oil is next, LPG next, then wood chip burning and finally electric in
economy and then full flavour versions.

Electric driven heat pumps come out between mains gas and oil, but capital
investment is typically three times higher.
Why somebody doesn't do an oil or LPG driven one is beyond me.


Isn't oil central heating somewhat messier, smellier?

Not nowadays. And LPG smells just as bad sometimes if you haven't got mains
gas.

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:53:17 +0000, Parish wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 01:12:53 +0000, Parish wrote:

Ah, so it wasn't near me then, unless not all the properties were in
Kent. What looked familiar was the shot, near the end of the programme,
of a white horse (the chalk on a hill variety). It looked like one here
in Wilts

and I wrote:
They weren't all in Kent. That White Horse is also in sight (just)
from our garden! However, it is not exactly near the house that was
being sold, so presumably it was being used to indicate 'Wiltshire' in
general. The house sale was in Gastard (near Chippenham I think) and

so Parish wrote:

Yes, Gastard is near Chippneham. I thought it was the Cherhill White
Horse, which I doubt would be visible from Gastard.

Further info. from the local paper:
The first house in the chain (the one being bought unseen by the folks
returning from the US) was in Bratton, near Westbury. The White Horse
was therefore the one I can see, not Cherhill's. The lady selling the
house in Bratton (who was the one struck by the plumbing problem on
moving day) moved to Gastard.

Regards, VivienB