 |
|
| UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
| Reply |
|
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Pulling out of a purchase before exchange
Do I have to give any reason? Or are "gut feelings", "warning bells"
enough? MM |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
"MM" wrote in message ... Do I have to give any reason? Or are "gut feelings", "warning bells" enough? MM No reason needed. Either party can pull out of a sale/purchase at anytime before the contracts are signed. However, if you do decide to pull out of a purchase, you would have just wasted money on searches/legal fees/surveys S |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
"MM" wrote: Do I have to give any reason? Or are "gut feelings", "warning bells" enough? MM If there's an obvious reason then you could tell them, but if it's just that you don't want to buy the house then that is enough. They may think you're planning to offer less money, so they may be slightly acrimonious. Make sure you don't plan on changing your mind, as they probably won't be too keen on accepting an offer from someone who has already pulled out once. Al |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:00:30 -0000, "Al Reynolds"
wrote: "MM" wrote: Do I have to give any reason? Or are "gut feelings", "warning bells" enough? MM If there's an obvious reason then you could tell them, but if it's just that you don't want to buy the house then that is enough. They may think you're planning to offer less money, so they may be slightly acrimonious. Make sure you don't plan on changing your mind, as they probably won't be too keen on accepting an offer from someone who has already pulled out once. I have at least two concrete facts before me that were not made known to me at the time I made my offer: (1) The property is advertised as brand-new and appears to be so. However, it is not. It has already been purchased, therefore it is now secondhand. No one told me this at the time. The original estate agent's sales report listed the developer as vendor. This was corrected by the agent some five days later to replace the developer's name with that of the actual purchaser, a relative of the developer. The registration of the title with the Land Registry on that first purchase is still being processed by the LR. (2) The property's services as listed in the brochure include "mains drainage". But the drainage is in fact to a privately run sewage treatment plant that will be maintained via a "Management Company" which is to be formed by all residents on the development. This is not my idea of being on mains drainage. MM |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
MM wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:00:30 -0000, "Al Reynolds" wrote: "MM" wrote: Do I have to give any reason? Or are "gut feelings", "warning bells" enough? MM If there's an obvious reason then you could tell them, but if it's just that you don't want to buy the house then that is enough. They may think you're planning to offer less money, so they may be slightly acrimonious. Make sure you don't plan on changing your mind, as they probably won't be too keen on accepting an offer from someone who has already pulled out once. I have at least two concrete facts before me that were not made known to me at the time I made my offer: (1) The property is advertised as brand-new and appears to be so. However, it is not. It has already been purchased, therefore it is now secondhand. No one told me this at the time. The original estate agent's sales report listed the developer as vendor. This was corrected by the agent some five days later to replace the developer's name with that of the actual purchaser, a relative of the developer. The registration of the title with the Land Registry on that first purchase is still being processed by the LR. (2) The property's services as listed in the brochure include "mains drainage". But the drainage is in fact to a privately run sewage treatment plant that will be maintained via a "Management Company" which is to be formed by all residents on the development. This is not my idea of being on mains drainage. MM Your solicitor should have advised you not to pay any attention to anything told to you by anyone other than in answer to a question he put to the vendor via *his* solicitor. Without more information I wouldn't have thought either of them was particularly problematic. On point 1) you could try to get the 10 year warranty to run from the completion of your purchase or ask for a reduction. Point 2) was dealt with earlier, I think, and as recommended you could seek assurances that the costs associated with drainage are (for example) pegged to those of the local sewerage co. or ask for a reduction. Depending on your local market conditions you will either get your guarantees, your reduction, or a raspberry. Once you have a response you are in a position to decide whether to withdraw, or not. HTH Neil |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Neil Jones" writes: Point 2) was dealt with earlier, I think, and as recommended you could seek assurances that the costs associated with drainage are (for example) pegged to those of the local sewerage co. or ask for a reduction. If the sewage plant goes tits-up, the residents will have to fork out to fix or replace it. If they hesitate/moan/whatever, the local environmental health departent takes out an injunction forcing them. I've seen this happen with private sewers. Maybe there's some provision for forcing payment of insurance to cover repairs and forcing regular piggy bank contributions to cover plant replacement every x years? Still pretty impossible to give any guarantees about future charges. -- Andrew Gabriel |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
In message , Neil Jones
writes MM wrote: On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:00:30 -0000, "Al Reynolds" wrote: "MM" wrote: Do I have to give any reason? Or are "gut feelings", "warning bells" enough? MM If there's an obvious reason then you could tell them, but if it's just that you don't want to buy the house then that is enough. They may think you're planning to offer less money, so they may be slightly acrimonious. Make sure you don't plan on changing your mind, as they probably won't be too keen on accepting an offer from someone who has already pulled out once. I have at least two concrete facts before me that were not made known to me at the time I made my offer: (1) The property is advertised as brand-new and appears to be so. However, it is not. It has already been purchased, therefore it is now secondhand. . (2) The property's services as listed in the brochure include "mains drainage". But the drainage is in fact to a privately run sewage treatment plant that will be maintained via a "Management Company" which is to be formed by all residents on the development. This is not my idea of being on mains drainage. Your solicitor should have advised you not to pay any attention to anything told to you by anyone other than in answer to a question he put to the vendor via *his* solicitor. Without more information I wouldn't have thought either of them was particularly problematic. snip No, neither of these things are necessarily a deal breaker, it very much depends on the negotiations. I would try to give reasons if possible, esp. if I thought I might be buying via the same estate agents again - you don't want a reputation with them as someone not to be taken seriously. -- Chris French, Leeds |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ABC" wrote in message ... "MM" wrote in message ... Do I have to give any reason? Or are "gut feelings", "warning bells" enough? MM No reason needed. Either party can pull out of a sale/purchase at anytime before the contracts are signed. However, if you do decide to pull out of a purchase, you would have just wasted money on searches/legal fees/surveys It could be due to those findings that he wants to pull out, so I would say that it could have been money well spent ! |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Huge wrote:
Your solicitor should have advised you not to pay any attention to anything told to you by anyone other than in answer to a question he put to the vendor via *his* solicitor. Which is why seller's packs are such a dumb idea. Surely the opposite? I had assumed that the information in a sellers pack was to be taken as contractual - so if the SP says mains drainage and it's not you have a right of action against the seller if the info is wrong, same as with the current questionnaires that solicitors send you when you sell a property. -- Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:41:19 +0000, MM wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:00:30 -0000, "Al Reynolds" wrote: "MM" wrote: Do I have to give any reason? Or are "gut feelings", "warning bells" enough? MM If there's an obvious reason then you could tell them, but if it's just that you don't want to buy the house then that is enough. They may think you're planning to offer less money, so they may be slightly acrimonious. Make sure you don't plan on changing your mind, as they probably won't be too keen on accepting an offer from someone who has already pulled out once. I have at least two concrete facts before me that were not made known to me at the time I made my offer: (1) The property is advertised as brand-new and appears to be so. However, it is not. It has already been purchased, therefore it is now secondhand. No one told me this at the time. The original estate agent's sales report listed the developer as vendor. This was corrected by the agent some five days later to replace the developer's name with that of the actual purchaser, a relative of the developer. The registration of the title with the Land Registry on that first purchase is still being processed by the LR. (2) The property's services as listed in the brochure include "mains drainage". But the drainage is in fact to a privately run sewage treatment plant that will be maintained via a "Management Company" which is to be formed by all residents on the development. This is not my idea of being on mains drainage. MM Having bought a fair few houses over the years, I think your "gut feelings", "warning bells", may have been fully justified, particularly about the strange sewage works. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:41:19 +0000, MM wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:00:30 -0000, "Al Reynolds" wrote: "MM" wrote: Do I have to give any reason? Or are "gut feelings", "warning bells" enough? MM If there's an obvious reason then you could tell them, but if it's just that you don't want to buy the house then that is enough. They may think you're planning to offer less money, so they may be slightly acrimonious. Make sure you don't plan on changing your mind, as they probably won't be too keen on accepting an offer from someone who has already pulled out once. I have at least two concrete facts before me that were not made known to me at the time I made my offer: (1) The property is advertised as brand-new and appears to be so. However, it is not. It has already been purchased, therefore it is now secondhand. No one told me this at the time. The original estate agent's sales report listed the developer as vendor. This was corrected by the agent some five days later to replace the developer's name with that of the actual purchaser, a relative of the developer. The registration of the title with the Land Registry on that first purchase is still being processed by the LR. (2) The property's services as listed in the brochure include "mains drainage". But the drainage is in fact to a privately run sewage treatment plant that will be maintained via a "Management Company" which is to be formed by all residents on the development. This is not my idea of being on mains drainage. MM If you're really in doubt and you're looking for an excuse then they've possibly given you two. It's a big commitment. If you're not happy just listen to yourself. You're not obliged to follow things through until the point you exchange. norm |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
MM wrote in message news:
I have at least two concrete facts before me that were not made known to me at the time I made my offer: If you consider these good reasnos to pull out, youre going to waste a lot of peoples time, and your own. NT |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
MM wrote:
On 16 Nov 2004 14:14:22 -0800, (N. Thornton) wrote: MM wrote in message news: I have at least two concrete facts before me that were not made known to me at the time I made my offer: If you consider these good reasnos to pull out, youre going to waste a lot of peoples time, and your own. I've spoken to several people and they all agree that it smells fishy the way I was not told up front about these points (and one or two others). Why did they only inform me five days after I made the offer (and had had it accepted) that the house had actually already been sold to someone else already? They could have explained this. The agent must have known. You can't offer a property for sale without knowing who the true owner is. So why try and keep it secret? Same goes for the sewage treatment plant. Why say 'mains drainage' when it is not? You shouldn't rely on the estate agents for anything other than the most basic factors regarding the property. Their description should be accurate (within limits), but will be covered with a truly prodigeous number of get-out clauses. And as long as they have someone who they can charge for the sale, then they won't bother to look too deeply at the ownership aspects. After all, the legalities of the purchase are down to the solicitors. I certainly wouldn't worry too much that they didn't let you know how the vendor was until the offer was made. As for the mains drainage, well effectively it is. You don't have a septic tank, and all the properties sewage is taken by mains sewers, along with that from the other properties, to a treatment works. That this isn't a major treatment plant, but is instead a dedicate unit for the development doesn't invalidate the statement regarding mains sewage. Now the maintenance aspects and related costs of the private treatment plant should be a concern, and one for your solicitor to check, though still not necessarily a reason to pull out (unless costs are going to be significant). And the people I have consulted have all said that a future buyer might have exactly the same kinds of questions as me, e.g. why was the property initially bought and sold so quickly and at such a difference in price? What will I be able to say? The honest answer is, I don't know. Many buyers on hearing that would just walk away, as I am now tempted to do myself. This is not time wasting, this is making darned sure what one is letting oneself in for before signing on the dotted line. I doubt that any future buyer is going to be too concerned over the purchase history prior to your aquisition of the property. And if it was ever questioned, then you can make reference to possible tax dodge by the builder (emminently plausible reason), or localised property boom :^) Seriously though, there's nothing apart from the potential future cost of the sewage treatment plant that would give me any concerns. Even the low NHBC value wouldn't bother me too much. To put you mind at rest, it might be worth contacting one or two of your potential new neighbours to see how they feel. After all, they also bought properties from this builder, and are using the treatment plant. hth Clive |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ABC" wrote in message ...
"MM" wrote in message ... Do I have to give any reason? Or are "gut feelings", "warning bells" enough? MM No reason needed. Either party can pull out of a sale/purchase at anytime before the contracts are signed. However, if you do decide to pull out of a purchase, you would have just wasted money on searches/legal fees/surveys S You can sell the searches on and recoup some of this. We bought the searches for one of our properties from a potential purchaser who was unable to proceed. Andrew |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
MM wrote in message . ..
On 16 Nov 2004 14:14:22 -0800, (N. Thornton) wrote: MM wrote in message news: I have at least two concrete facts before me that were not made known to me at the time I made my offer: If you consider these good reasnos to pull out, youre going to waste a lot of peoples time, and your own. I've spoken to several people and they all agree that it smells fishy the way I was not told up front about these points (and one or two others). Why did they only inform me five days after I made the offer (and had had it accepted) that the house had actually already been sold to someone else already? They could have explained this. The agent must have known. You can't offer a property for sale without knowing who the true owner is. So why try and keep it secret? Same goes for the sewage treatment plant. Why say 'mains drainage' when it is not? Well, it is more "mains" than having a tank in the garden. It still sounds odd, though. Ask the agent if they've corrected the sales particulars and whether the property disdescription act would be relevent here. It may be the vendor who has misled the agent. And the people I have consulted have all said that a future buyer might have exactly the same kinds of questions as me, e.g. why was the property initially bought and sold so quickly and at such a difference in price? What will I be able to say? The honest answer is, I don't The chances are that no one will know or even think to ask. We've *never* been asked about previous ownership of the five houses we've sold. Andrew |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Andrew" wrote in message m... snip You can sell the searches on and recoup some of this. We bought the searches for one of our properties from a potential purchaser who was unable to proceed. I would have thought that would be a legal mine field, who does one blame if, later, facts come to light that were missed in the search ? |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
probably the relative that bought it purchased it off plan and is
making a tidy sum at the expense of the next purchaser. bet theyve never set foot in it but are expecting to be laughing all the way to the bank soon. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
N. Thornton wrote:
MM wrote in message news: I have at least two concrete facts before me that were not made known to me at the time I made my offer: If you consider these good reasnos to pull out, youre going to waste a lot of peoples time, and your own. NT I'm with MM on this. One house I bought I was put under a lot of pressure by the absentee vendor to complete. I was resisting wanting to take things at a sensible rate, I very nearly pulled out as I was sure there was something odd going on. Two years later I was visited by the Police, I ended up as a prosecution witness against the estate agent who actually owned the house. Turned out they were spotting vendors who were desperate to sell, waiting for them to get to exchange then telling both vendor and purchasor that the other had pulled out, the Agants alias steps in and buys at a very low price. Then the house would appear on the market again. Trust your instinct. Also try and get direct contact with your vendor/purchasor. That was how the eastate agent got caught. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
MM wrote in message . ..
And the people I have consulted have all said that a future buyer might have exactly the same kinds of questions as me, e.g. why was the property initially bought and sold so quickly and at such a difference in price? What will I be able to say? The honest answer is, I don't know. Many buyers on hearing that would just walk away, as I am now tempted to do myself. This is not time wasting, this is making darned sure what one is letting oneself in for before signing on the dotted line. MM Ther's a lot of dodgey dealing that goes on in the building tade, just like in the motor trade. Sometimes builders can make money (avoid tax) buy selling to a friend/relative then selling on again. It doesn't necessarily mean that the house is a bad one. No doubt the estate agent's details said something to the extent of "all details are preliminary & are subject to confirmation etc etc." The mains drainage probably just meant that there wasn't a septic tank etc. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clive Summerfield wrote:
I doubt that any future buyer is going to be too concerned over the purchase history prior to your aquisition of the property. And if it was ever questioned, then you can make reference to possible tax dodge by the builder (emminently plausible reason), or localised property boom :^) Seriously though, there's nothing apart from the potential future cost of the sewage treatment plant that would give me any concerns. Even the low NHBC value wouldn't bother me too much. To put you mind at rest, it might be worth contacting one or two of your potential new neighbours to see how they feel. After all, they also bought properties from this builder, and are using the treatment plant. aolMe too/aol Mike, if I remember right you're new to this house-buying game, though no longer in the first flush of youth, right? I think you're being understandably over-cautious. You're looking at a new build on a partly-already-settled estate, right? So other buyers haven't found anything major to worry about in the sewerage arrangements (and ISTR you've already asked a couple of them outright). The likeliest sort of buyer you'll be reselling to in 5? 10? years time would be one or two adults, maybe with a young kid or two - or a couple of people sharing. It's quite unlikely that they'll be anything like as picky as you are being - if it's got a scrap of garden, close enough to shops and work, it'll sell. The minor discrepancy in NHBC-vs-sale values similarly seems like a non-issue from where I sit. I call it "minor" because as a proportion of the sale value it's not huge - the absolute amount might seem like a lot to thee or me, but for the developer it's down in the small change ;-) Unless your solicitor spontaneously tells you it's a deal-breaker, I wouldn't lose sleep over it. Stefek |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:54:47 GMT, "Clive Summerfield"
wrote: Seriously though, there's nothing apart from the potential future cost of the sewage treatment plant that would give me any concerns. Even the low NHBC value wouldn't bother me too much. To put you mind at rest, it might be worth contacting one or two of your potential new neighbours to see how they feel. After all, they also bought properties from this builder, and are using the treatment plant. I have spoken to two neighbours, one in person, the other on the phone, and both assured me without prompting that they were thoroughly happy with their properties, that the latter were solidly built, and that there was no problem they knew of in respect of the sewage treatment plant. I suppose it's just because where I currently live in the shires close to London such private sewage treatment plants are unheard of. But where I am moving to they are commonplace. The estate agent said that they are so good that nowadays they are even being used for very small developments of two to three bungalows instead of a septic tank for each. MM |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:07:27 +0000, Mike wrote:
N. Thornton wrote: MM wrote in message news: I have at least two concrete facts before me that were not made known to me at the time I made my offer: If you consider these good reasnos to pull out, youre going to waste a lot of peoples time, and your own. NT I'm with MM on this. One house I bought I was put under a lot of pressure by the absentee vendor to complete. I was resisting wanting to take things at a sensible rate, I very nearly pulled out as I was sure there was something odd going on. Two years later I was visited by the Police, I ended up as a prosecution witness against the estate agent who actually owned the house. Turned out they were spotting vendors who were desperate to sell, waiting for them to get to exchange then telling both vendor and purchasor that the other had pulled out, the Agants alias steps in and buys at a very low price. Then the house would appear on the market again. Trust your instinct. Also try and get direct contact with your vendor/purchasor. That was how the eastate agent got caught. My solicitor is making enquiries as to the bona fides of and reason for the previous transaction followed by immediate sale. MM |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
In message , N.
Thornton writes (Tone) wrote in message . com... probably the relative that bought it purchased it off plan and is making a tidy sum at the expense of the next purchaser. bet theyve never set foot in it but are expecting to be laughing all the way to the bank soon. what do you mean by 'off plan'? It means buying the house before it is built - when all you have are the plans (hence 'off plan') -- Chris French, Leeds |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
"MM" wrote
| ... I suppose it's just because where I currently live in | the shires close to London such private sewage treatment | plants are unheard of. But where I am moving to they are | commonplace. The estate agent said that they are so good | that nowadays they are even being used for very small | developments of two to three bungalows instead of a | septic tank for each. They are being used because (a) public sewage plant has no spare capacity and planning permission is being refused unless private sewage arrangments are made (b) the Environment people are enforcing more stringent requirements on effluents, so septic tanks are prohibited in many locations They are being used because they have to be, not because theyr'e "so good". Not that there's anything wrong with them technically, but ownership and maintenance is an issue with any communal system, particularly one which has the possibility of going as offensively and expensively wrong as Drains. I would probably be happy with one if the ownership and maintenance was co-operatively owned by the householders using it and a majority decision on maintenance was binding on the others (ie one stubborn owner can't hold up essential work or refuse to pay their share) but less happy if it was, say, the developer's own management company operating at a profit and unaccountable to the householders. Owain |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
My solicitor is making enquiries as to the bona fides of and reason
for the previous transaction followed by immediate sale. There's plenty of possible reasons. It could be as simple as using up a relative's capital gains allowance, or giving them money without potential inheritance tax. Christian. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
but less happy if it was, say, the developer's own management company
operating at a profit and unaccountable to the householders. But what difference if it is a developer running a for-profit sewage system than a water company? Is there a size limit to come under OFWAT or OFTURD or whoever is responsible? Christian. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Christian McArdle" wrote
| but less happy if it was, say, the developer's own management | company operating at a profit and unaccountable to the householders. | But what difference if it is a developer running a for-profit sewage | system than a water company? Is there a size limit to come under OFWAT | or OFTURD or whoever is responsible? The developer may not come under Ofturd :-) by virtue of being a private supplier to a limited development rather than a statutory undertaking for public supply. Also, a 200% hike in charges affecting a few dozen homes is less likely to attract Parliamentary scrutiny than one affecting a few million. Owain |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:20:06 -0000, "Owain"
wrote: "MM" wrote | ... I suppose it's just because where I currently live in | the shires close to London such private sewage treatment | plants are unheard of. But where I am moving to they are | commonplace. The estate agent said that they are so good | that nowadays they are even being used for very small | developments of two to three bungalows instead of a | septic tank for each. They are being used because (a) public sewage plant has no spare capacity and planning permission is being refused unless private sewage arrangments are made (b) the Environment people are enforcing more stringent requirements on effluents, so septic tanks are prohibited in many locations They are being used because they have to be, not because theyr'e "so good". Not that there's anything wrong with them technically, but ownership and maintenance is an issue with any communal system, particularly one which has the possibility of going as offensively and expensively wrong as Drains. I would probably be happy with one if the ownership and maintenance was co-operatively owned by the householders using it and a majority decision on maintenance was binding on the others (ie one stubborn owner can't hold up essential work or refuse to pay their share) but less happy if it was, say, the developer's own management company operating at a profit and unaccountable to the householders. The residents on the development will all form the "Management Company". This is the latest little extra nugget of knowledge I recently obtained. All good fun! (But you're not completely correct in (a) in that many of the far off-the-beaten-track places (e.g. in Lincs) simply have no sewers anywhere near them, and the cost to lay same would be prohibitive. Put it this way, I'd rather have a sewer, but I also do want to live off-the-beaten-track, away from it all. There's not much point going to all this hassle, then moving to Boston or Spalding. I might as well stay put instead. I want wide open spaces, and the nearest major conurbation to me in a seawardly direction will be Norway. MM |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:14:39 -0000, "Owain"
wrote: "Christian McArdle" wrote | but less happy if it was, say, the developer's own management | company operating at a profit and unaccountable to the householders. | But what difference if it is a developer running a for-profit sewage | system than a water company? Is there a size limit to come under OFWAT | or OFTURD or whoever is responsible? The developer may not come under Ofturd :-) by virtue of being a private supplier to a limited development rather than a statutory undertaking for public supply. Also, a 200% hike in charges affecting a few dozen homes is less likely to attract Parliamentary scrutiny than one affecting a few million. Owain They'd probably invoke the Parliament Act since the issue wouldn't actually justify parliamentary attention. I can just see Michael Martin brandishing a toilet plunger........ -- ..andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:50:20 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote: but less happy if it was, say, the developer's own management company operating at a profit and unaccountable to the householders. But what difference if it is a developer running a for-profit sewage system than a water company? Is there a size limit to come under OFWAT or OFTURD or whoever is responsible? I've always been waiting for the Govt to come up with a new Office for Effluent, or OfEff. MM |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:12:30 +0000, MM wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:50:20 -0000, "Christian McArdle" wrote: but less happy if it was, say, the developer's own management company operating at a profit and unaccountable to the householders. But what difference if it is a developer running a for-profit sewage system than a water company? Is there a size limit to come under OFWAT or OFTURD or whoever is responsible? I've always been waiting for the Govt to come up with a new Office for Effluent, or OfEff. MM Or better yet, the Effluent Office - EffOff. -- ..andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
"chris French" wrote in message ... In message , Neil Jones writes MM wrote: On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:00:30 -0000, "Al Reynolds" wrote: "MM" wrote: Do I have to give any reason? Or are "gut feelings", "warning bells" enough? MM If there's an obvious reason then you could tell them, but if it's just that you don't want to buy the house then that is enough. They may think you're planning to offer less money, so they may be slightly acrimonious. Make sure you don't plan on changing your mind, as they probably won't be too keen on accepting an offer from someone who has already pulled out once. I have at least two concrete facts before me that were not made known to me at the time I made my offer: (1) The property is advertised as brand-new and appears to be so. However, it is not. It has already been purchased, therefore it is now secondhand. . (2) The property's services as listed in the brochure include "mains drainage". But the drainage is in fact to a privately run sewage treatment plant that will be maintained via a "Management Company" which is to be formed by all residents on the development. This is not my idea of being on mains drainage. Your solicitor should have advised you not to pay any attention to anything told to you by anyone other than in answer to a question he put to the vendor via *his* solicitor. Without more information I wouldn't have thought either of them was particularly problematic. snip No, neither of these things are necessarily a deal breaker, it very much depends on the negotiations. I would try to give reasons if possible, esp. if I thought I might be buying via the same estate agents again - you don't want a reputation with them as someone not to be taken seriously. I'd tend to agree that none of these things are a deal breaker, just an opportunity for negotiation. i.e. a) Your worried that any snagging that may be required by the developer will not be carried out as it is not the developer that your buying from, as you were led to believe. Get the correct reassurances and/or a discount b) You were led to believe that the property was on main sewerage, thats not the case, get a discount (a new system is unlikely to need a lot of maintenance for quite a few years) Its not a problem to say that your first instinct was to pull out of purchasing the house, but you want to give them the opportunity to solve the problems/reassure you, before doing so. We had a perceived problem with the roof of the house we were purchasing, it wasn't a deal breaker, but it could have been if we hadn't got the correct documentation from the vendor. Good Luck. -- Big Al - The Peoples Pal http://www.berkswelldirect.com/index.html Gowns for Gorgeous Women |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
"MM" wrote
| The residents on the development will all form the | "Management Company". This is the latest little extra | nugget of knowledge I recently obtained. All good fun! I think that is reassuring. | (But you're not completely correct in (a) in that many of the | far off-the-beaten-track places (e.g. in Lincs) Well, yes, but Lincs isn't really off-the-beaten-track. I speak as someone who endured childhood holidays in Cape Wrath. I bet there's even a Waitrose in Lincs. | I want wide open spaces, and the nearest major conurbation | to me in a seawardly direction will be Norway. Reminds me of the story of a soldier or sailor based on Shetland during the war, filling in a docket for travel warrant, wrote in Oslo for "nearest railway station" Owain |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Porter Cable Router Purchase Question | Woodworking | |||
| HELP! Brick siding pulling away | Home Repair | |||
| Thickness planer purchase dilemma- Ryobi or Dewalt? | Woodworking | |||
Linear Mode
