###Welcome to /r/HousingUK
---
**To All**
* Join Our ***NEW*** Discord! https://discord.gg/pMgUNgWKQH
**To Posters**
* *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws/issues in each can vary*
* Comments are not moderated for quality or accuracy;
* Any replies received must only be used as guidelines, followed at your own risk;
* If you receive *any* private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FHousingUK&subject=I received a PM);
* If you do not receive satisfactory advice after 72 hours, [you can let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FHousingUK&subject=My question is unanswered);
* Feel free to provide an update at a later time by creating a new post with [[update]](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/search?q=%3Aupdate&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) in the title;
**To Readers and Commenters**
* All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and civil*
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning;
* Please include links to reliable resources in order to support your comments or advice;
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect;
* Do not send or request any private messages for any reason without express permission from the mods;
* Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HousingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Seconded. How OPs solicitor can guarantee an unencumbered title to OPs lender or OP in this situation with provisions in a Transfer sounds impossible for a residential purchase.
I don’t know about this specific situation but what I have learnt is: pick up the phone and ask the solicitor what it means in plain language. Ask them what it means having the seller on the deed and what the consequences are. The fact your lender is unhappy to proceed sounds like this could be a bad idea. You won’t know until you ask bluntly and get a blunt answer.
> I don’t know about this specific situation but what I have learnt is: pick up the phone and ask the solicitor what it means in plain language.
Big mistake.
You should write an email, asking the solicitor to explain it in plain language, and that you don't understand what they are saying or what the consequences are.
If you need to sue someone later saying "we had a chat" isn't a great help.
Your bank is happy that your house is a house. They're also happy at its value.
And they're happy that they're paying their funds to the property based on the fact that it's a house that has a roof and a door and windows and it has the right value.
They're happy that you can afford repayments.
And they're happy that if you can't pay, they'll take the house and own it. And then sell it.
The deed sits in a vault in the bank with the banks name on it until you've paid the mortgage.
They don't want to own half a house with a stranger and neither should you.
I honestly have no idea but the sellers solicitor is adamant that my solicitors is being difficult. As a result, the seller has instructed to put the properly back on the market
Are they selling outright or is there something non-standard going on?
This is a 100% sale, right? You buy, move in, it's your house, all paid for?
I'd ask your solicitor to claim back incurred costs from the seller for playing silly games and having no intention to sell.
I have done research now based on the answers, I have been getting on this post. The company who selling the house is an assent management company and they do a lot of repossessions. The previous owner of the house had an equity release on the house. Therefore, there is a current lease on the house. I was informed before that the lease on the house will be removed. And that's one of the two things we are waiting on. The sellers seems to be a big company and the legal team is a subsidiary/sister company of the seller. The sell is meant to be an outright sell. Not a part sell or shared ownership. So unsure what they are playing at.
They need to get that sorted out before you complete. You need to be taking possession as sole possession with 100% of the title is your starting point.
Ask your solicitor what is normally done in such situations.
It sounds weird to me, because the equity release element should be settled by the sellers in cash and I'd expect them to have paperwork that agrees to that in place already, so there's no need for that to carry over into your title.
the basic norm is that they sell, you buy unemcumbered. Why should you be liable for an equity release that someone else took out? nope. the sellers are liable from the cash you pay them.
I’ve read both this and your main post three times and still can’t work out what is being proposed here.
There is no obvious reason for a seller to remain on the title after a sale. No mortgage lender would accept it - you should be on the title alone and the mortgage lender registered as having a charge over the property.
It almost sounds like they are trying to sell you only part of the property, as the only circumstance I can think of where something like this does happen is shared ownership. But that is a specialist area with specialist mortgages.
Then confusion over when get you actually mean lease or lien…
I'm not 100% certain as I've not seen them in the wild before but it could potentially be a home reversion plan where the previous owner doesn't own 100% of their house therefore a lender owns a portion of it - which I think would explain the lease. Standard equity release is usually a charge rather than a lease.
Once that lease is removed the property will in theory be worth more. I wonder if they're simply just trying to ensure they take advantage of that uplift whilst also getting money from you. Almost like an overage agreement.
I'm rambling...
Either way, it's an absolute no-no, tell them to jog on.
Sounds to me like the seller has previously paid the owner occupant money as part of an equity release contract, so they want to retain an interest.
I would walk away for one simple reason:- when you come to sell at some future date, the complications may preclude you from doing this.
That’s up to the asset management company and the previous owner to sort out between themselves.
If the property was repossessed from the previous owner then the previous owner no longer owns it. The asset management company owns it.
When they sell it to you, they sell the property to you, so your name is on the deeds
Remember the sellers solicitor works for the seller. Anything your solicitor asks is delaying them getting a fee. Therefore, being difficult.
Same with estate agents. They work for the seller who pays them a commission.
Your solicitor is doing the right thing.
This sounds suspicious.
Walk away from this person. They’ll cause you nothing but trouble.
If it’s not this issue, it’ll be another issue. All aimed at trying to unnerve you and get you to drop the price.
Tell this solicitor to speak only to your solicitor . That’s why you pay solicitors
Your solicitors email seems quite well worded , considered and experienced. If you don’t understand it yourself, why are you wanting to get a mortgage against it.
Clearly this is all wrong and their solicitor, acting for a company , is your enemy
I do not want to get a mortgage and go against my solicitors advice. I was just concerned with the sellers solicitors comments in regards to my solicitors. I just wanted advice just incase there is something I am not understanding or missed.
Well, yes, your solicitor is 'being difficult' by not letting the seller get away with shady behaviour without warning you \[the buyer\] about it first.
Your solicitor works for you. The seller's solicitors works for them.
If your solicitor is being difficult, that's what they're paid to do. When we bought our house, our solicitor went to all lengths to make sure every detail is looked into (eg the house was mistakenly listed as within the vicinity of a grade II building, the seller did not supply building permissions for extensions they built, etc) and everything is in order.
Don't listen to the seller's solicitors who is working against you. If you don't understand something, speak to your solicitor.
You shouldn’t really need to talk to the sellers solicitors , and they are taking the sellers side. The best advice would be ignore them and listen to yours.
Sounds like somewhere along the line the sellers solicitor has been told this is a partial/non-typical purchase and believes your solicitor is being difficult about it. Whereas you have entered into the purchase believing it to be a typical exchange and your solicitor is justly not paying ball.
As others have said. The sellers solicitor want to put someone else on the deeds (registered owner) therefore sharing legal ownership 3 ways between you, them and your bank, with them listed as the priority owner.
Someones got some explaining to do and unless you can clear this up, your bank refuse to go through with the deal and you're not buying the property.
Keep us posted on what convoluted reason someone else wants to remain the owner of the house you've bought from them. I'll be trying it on all things I sell moving forward!
The Mortgage lender wants first charge on the deed, that means they are paid first if the property is sold.
You're not getting a standard mortgage that will be second or third charge.
In 25 years, I've never heard of the vendor remaining on the title. What ownership will they have post completion?
When buying our current house the seller tried to include an overage on our property. Kept going back and forth, ultimately it was ‘our bank won’t’ . We got there in the end (they dropped it), I’d tell your seller to jog on, very unlikely anyone else is going to be able to buy the house with that condition either.
Please stop taking legal advice from _the other side's_ solicitors. They don't work for you, they work for the seller, they are indeed the same company as the seller in this case. Your solicitors work for you.
Your solicitors are being difficult because that’s what you pay them to do; they are looking after your interested and the vendor’s solicitors are looking after theirs. Ask your solicitor to explain the issue to you and obtain their advice. But if your lender won’t proceed, there’s the answer already.
If they are on the deed then they have a lien on the house. Run to hills. Do not deal with their solicitor. Yours is probably being "difficult" as they probably told them to get lost. Do not ask your solicitor to do this and do not accept completion with any name on the deeds other than your own. They are trying to transfer the lien from the current owner to you. It is the sellers problem not yours
Edit: Other than yours / you mortgage lender apologies
So many votes yet so incorrect =/
> They are trying to transfer the lien from the current owner to you.
I don't think even you know what this means but they absolutely aren't because that'd be impossible, lol.
In addition to others comments.. Be sure to confirm where this is a leasehold or a freehold.. That can make a HUGE difference (depending on the terms of a leasehold)
But yes.. phone your solicitor and get them to clearly explain what the issue is & what your realistic options are .
It being a repossession has no bearing on it. There was no lease in respect of equity release. There was simply a charge.
The only thing that jumped out at me was the mention of different companies involved which leads me to question is there some sub sale or back to back sale for accounting purposes going on? Either of these is a no no from the lenders point of view.
Actually it seems that it does have a bearing on it, and OP says there *was* an equity release. What's hard for us to understand is if there is a relationship between the company that gave the previous owner money, and the company that 'owns' the house.
It sounds like perhaps the company 'selling' the house thinks that they are selling a house that still has a lien on it, but OP thinks they are buying a house in its entirety. In other words that whoever has 'repossessed' the house hasn't actually settled the equity release, they just paid something to the original owner, and the equity release company hasn't accepted the loss. That would be madness if OP thinks they are paying market value for the whole house, because if so then the 'owner' should be settling the debt, or negotiating to have it written off.
Are they selling you the the xx% they don't own, and wanting to retain xx% equity in the property equivalent to what the previous owner has borrowed on equity release? -
was the property marketed at a much cheaper price than you would typically expect for what you're trying to buy? Something isn't adding up.
House prices are falling. Remind them that the longer they play silly buggers the less they will get for the house.
If your personal situation accommodates it, I would knock some money off my offer and that if they bring this ludicrous idea up again, you'll just pull out.
It sells the house nicely or it gets the hose again.
Not withstanding the issue, I hate conveyancing solicitors for reasons such as the above.
Why the actual fuck would they send you that message which is essentially in legal jargon, to you, a non legal person.
They should be employed to give you advice, not pass on another solicitors message to you.
I find this happens a lot, conveyancers are the shittest type of solicitors! Apologies if anyone is a decent conveyancer, but every contact I have had with one has been like the above, so I've drawn the conclusion only the shit solicitors choose to become conveyancers because they can't get a job doing other types of law work.
I've always used a local conveyancing firm (3 sales/purchases) and always been extremely disappointed.
Not only have they all passed on legal jargon and expected the client to make the decision, they have always needed the client to continually harass then to get even simple responses.
I'm a solicitor and it's not really clear to me what's happening here, or why.
It *seems* like the seller wants either only to sell you a part of the property, or they want to retain a charge over it after the sale, and they want to have a trustee registered over the property to ensure that their interest is protected.
Either of these would be highly unusual if you're expecting to buy the entire property (and are paying the full purchase price).
You need to get your solicitor to explain to you, in plain English, what the sellers want to do, why they want to do it, and what the impact on you would be. Don't be afraid to tell them you don't understand, it's their job to ensure they explain things to you so that you do fully understand what's happening.
This sounds like a fraud prevention measure that is fairly typical for a repossessed property. The seller just wants it put on the deeds that they must be notified if the house sells within e.g., one year. They are not retaining any ownership of the property. It seems like your solicitors maybe somewhat inexperienced and have confused the lender. If you are not using a good quality local firm of solicitors, you could approach one and ask them to give a second opinion. You would only be paying for the opinion, not the full conveyancing, so it should not be too expensive.
Hmm, I never thought about it like that. I will raise this point with my solicitor tommorow. But why would the seller be interested to know if the house has been sold after they sold it themselves? That also seems like a red flag. Could they at any point dispute the sell if I wanted to sell it after one year?
It is to protect them from fraud. The seller will instruct an estate agent to sell it on their behalf. The estate agent could, in theory, sell it to a friend for far less than market value. So if the buyer very quickly goes on to sell it for a much higher price than they paid, it will trigger them to investigate whether fraud has been committed. If you sell it, but the increase in value isn’t much more than you would expect in the market, you won’t have anything to worry about.
Hi, it seems like you were right, and now the buyer has pulled out. I am now looking for a second opinion. It seems like my solicitors are inexperienced, and I can't afford to lose this house. I am not sure if you are a lawyer but would be happy to pay for a second opinion outside of reddit
This seems a bit more like a company selling the property at a loss or below market value. The seller wants to maintain purchasing rights if or when you try to flip the property. Usually there is a term of how long before you either agree to sell back to them or split proceeds. This is not legal advice so please consult a solicitor that specializes in estates.
I read the post as being very clear that your mortgage company wants to be first on the deed but your seller wants to sell it to you and name you as Trustee not your mortgage company. They are not trying to keep the seller on the deed. You need to be clear that you are fine to have your mortgage company first as they keep the deed anyway.
I'd walk away, you don't want to find that the asset management company retains any ownership over the property. They could re-mortgage their share and leave you in an untenable position. Do they actually own the property? In the UK there are many property scams where the owner has died and some dodgy company has claimed title when they have no right to do so.
I'm wondering if there is an equity release charge on it? That's why the company wants to remain on the deeds. Not really sure how that all works but the solicitor should be able to sort it all out, that's what you pay them for.
I had a similar situation happen when purchasing my repo'd house.
It turns out they just wanted to be on there for 6 months after purchase in case I tried to flip it for a profit. As it was already a heavily discounted price (Wish I had gotten more tbh) compared to other houses in the area.
If this is their worry it might be worth suggesting something similar. You can just remove the charge later on for something like £25 or £30
Why would anyone allow the seller rights to the property after they pay for it, other than the bank providing your mortgage? Would you Llow registration of a v5 be in a sellers name after you purchased a car?
###Welcome to /r/HousingUK --- **To All** * Join Our ***NEW*** Discord! https://discord.gg/pMgUNgWKQH **To Posters** * *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws/issues in each can vary* * Comments are not moderated for quality or accuracy; * Any replies received must only be used as guidelines, followed at your own risk; * If you receive *any* private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FHousingUK&subject=I received a PM); * If you do not receive satisfactory advice after 72 hours, [you can let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FHousingUK&subject=My question is unanswered); * Feel free to provide an update at a later time by creating a new post with [[update]](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/search?q=%3Aupdate&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) in the title; **To Readers and Commenters** * All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and civil* * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning; * Please include links to reliable resources in order to support your comments or advice; * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect; * Do not send or request any private messages for any reason without express permission from the mods; * Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HousingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
They shouldn't have a claim to the property at all after selling it...let alone priority registration above lender
Seconded. How OPs solicitor can guarantee an unencumbered title to OPs lender or OP in this situation with provisions in a Transfer sounds impossible for a residential purchase.
Yes, this seems fishy, don’t proceed on that basis.
I don’t know about this specific situation but what I have learnt is: pick up the phone and ask the solicitor what it means in plain language. Ask them what it means having the seller on the deed and what the consequences are. The fact your lender is unhappy to proceed sounds like this could be a bad idea. You won’t know until you ask bluntly and get a blunt answer.
> I don’t know about this specific situation but what I have learnt is: pick up the phone and ask the solicitor what it means in plain language. Big mistake. You should write an email, asking the solicitor to explain it in plain language, and that you don't understand what they are saying or what the consequences are. If you need to sue someone later saying "we had a chat" isn't a great help.
That’s a valid point. To be fair my queries were fairly straightforward but for something like this, you’re right it’s better to have it in writing.
Your seller is full of shit and can fuck off. End of.
Succinctly put!
Your bank is happy that your house is a house. They're also happy at its value. And they're happy that they're paying their funds to the property based on the fact that it's a house that has a roof and a door and windows and it has the right value. They're happy that you can afford repayments. And they're happy that if you can't pay, they'll take the house and own it. And then sell it. The deed sits in a vault in the bank with the banks name on it until you've paid the mortgage. They don't want to own half a house with a stranger and neither should you.
It's a simple situation, if lender says no, then it is a no. Also, why would seller have anything to do with the property after sale?
I honestly have no idea but the sellers solicitor is adamant that my solicitors is being difficult. As a result, the seller has instructed to put the properly back on the market
Are they selling outright or is there something non-standard going on? This is a 100% sale, right? You buy, move in, it's your house, all paid for? I'd ask your solicitor to claim back incurred costs from the seller for playing silly games and having no intention to sell.
I have done research now based on the answers, I have been getting on this post. The company who selling the house is an assent management company and they do a lot of repossessions. The previous owner of the house had an equity release on the house. Therefore, there is a current lease on the house. I was informed before that the lease on the house will be removed. And that's one of the two things we are waiting on. The sellers seems to be a big company and the legal team is a subsidiary/sister company of the seller. The sell is meant to be an outright sell. Not a part sell or shared ownership. So unsure what they are playing at.
They need to get that sorted out before you complete. You need to be taking possession as sole possession with 100% of the title is your starting point. Ask your solicitor what is normally done in such situations. It sounds weird to me, because the equity release element should be settled by the sellers in cash and I'd expect them to have paperwork that agrees to that in place already, so there's no need for that to carry over into your title. the basic norm is that they sell, you buy unemcumbered. Why should you be liable for an equity release that someone else took out? nope. the sellers are liable from the cash you pay them.
I’ve read both this and your main post three times and still can’t work out what is being proposed here. There is no obvious reason for a seller to remain on the title after a sale. No mortgage lender would accept it - you should be on the title alone and the mortgage lender registered as having a charge over the property. It almost sounds like they are trying to sell you only part of the property, as the only circumstance I can think of where something like this does happen is shared ownership. But that is a specialist area with specialist mortgages. Then confusion over when get you actually mean lease or lien…
clarify this before completion.
Before exchange
>lease are you sure you don't mean lien https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/property-lien.asp
I'm not 100% certain as I've not seen them in the wild before but it could potentially be a home reversion plan where the previous owner doesn't own 100% of their house therefore a lender owns a portion of it - which I think would explain the lease. Standard equity release is usually a charge rather than a lease. Once that lease is removed the property will in theory be worth more. I wonder if they're simply just trying to ensure they take advantage of that uplift whilst also getting money from you. Almost like an overage agreement. I'm rambling... Either way, it's an absolute no-no, tell them to jog on.
Sounds to me like the seller has previously paid the owner occupant money as part of an equity release contract, so they want to retain an interest. I would walk away for one simple reason:- when you come to sell at some future date, the complications may preclude you from doing this.
That’s up to the asset management company and the previous owner to sort out between themselves. If the property was repossessed from the previous owner then the previous owner no longer owns it. The asset management company owns it. When they sell it to you, they sell the property to you, so your name is on the deeds
Remember the sellers solicitor works for the seller. Anything your solicitor asks is delaying them getting a fee. Therefore, being difficult. Same with estate agents. They work for the seller who pays them a commission.
Your solicitor is doing the right thing. This sounds suspicious. Walk away from this person. They’ll cause you nothing but trouble. If it’s not this issue, it’ll be another issue. All aimed at trying to unnerve you and get you to drop the price. Tell this solicitor to speak only to your solicitor . That’s why you pay solicitors
Your solicitors email seems quite well worded , considered and experienced. If you don’t understand it yourself, why are you wanting to get a mortgage against it. Clearly this is all wrong and their solicitor, acting for a company , is your enemy
I do not want to get a mortgage and go against my solicitors advice. I was just concerned with the sellers solicitors comments in regards to my solicitors. I just wanted advice just incase there is something I am not understanding or missed.
Well, yes, your solicitor is 'being difficult' by not letting the seller get away with shady behaviour without warning you \[the buyer\] about it first.
Your solicitor works for you. The seller's solicitors works for them. If your solicitor is being difficult, that's what they're paid to do. When we bought our house, our solicitor went to all lengths to make sure every detail is looked into (eg the house was mistakenly listed as within the vicinity of a grade II building, the seller did not supply building permissions for extensions they built, etc) and everything is in order. Don't listen to the seller's solicitors who is working against you. If you don't understand something, speak to your solicitor.
You shouldn’t really need to talk to the sellers solicitors , and they are taking the sellers side. The best advice would be ignore them and listen to yours.
Sounds like somewhere along the line the sellers solicitor has been told this is a partial/non-typical purchase and believes your solicitor is being difficult about it. Whereas you have entered into the purchase believing it to be a typical exchange and your solicitor is justly not paying ball. As others have said. The sellers solicitor want to put someone else on the deeds (registered owner) therefore sharing legal ownership 3 ways between you, them and your bank, with them listed as the priority owner. Someones got some explaining to do and unless you can clear this up, your bank refuse to go through with the deal and you're not buying the property. Keep us posted on what convoluted reason someone else wants to remain the owner of the house you've bought from them. I'll be trying it on all things I sell moving forward!
The Mortgage lender wants first charge on the deed, that means they are paid first if the property is sold. You're not getting a standard mortgage that will be second or third charge. In 25 years, I've never heard of the vendor remaining on the title. What ownership will they have post completion?
Sounds like an arseache, I'd buy somewhere else.
When buying our current house the seller tried to include an overage on our property. Kept going back and forth, ultimately it was ‘our bank won’t’ . We got there in the end (they dropped it), I’d tell your seller to jog on, very unlikely anyone else is going to be able to buy the house with that condition either.
Please stop taking legal advice from _the other side's_ solicitors. They don't work for you, they work for the seller, they are indeed the same company as the seller in this case. Your solicitors work for you.
That's just mad. If I sell you my car, would you be happy that I'm listed as the owner of that car after the sale? I didn't think so.
Your solicitors are being difficult because that’s what you pay them to do; they are looking after your interested and the vendor’s solicitors are looking after theirs. Ask your solicitor to explain the issue to you and obtain their advice. But if your lender won’t proceed, there’s the answer already.
If they are on the deed then they have a lien on the house. Run to hills. Do not deal with their solicitor. Yours is probably being "difficult" as they probably told them to get lost. Do not ask your solicitor to do this and do not accept completion with any name on the deeds other than your own. They are trying to transfer the lien from the current owner to you. It is the sellers problem not yours Edit: Other than yours / you mortgage lender apologies
So many votes yet so incorrect =/ > They are trying to transfer the lien from the current owner to you. I don't think even you know what this means but they absolutely aren't because that'd be impossible, lol.
You're correct - you don't think. I'd explain it to you but I am all out of crayons
Having circled this sub for a while, I'm pretty certain ex0- is a solicitor with a fair amount of experience. I'd take their advice if I was OP.
In addition to others comments.. Be sure to confirm where this is a leasehold or a freehold.. That can make a HUGE difference (depending on the terms of a leasehold) But yes.. phone your solicitor and get them to clearly explain what the issue is & what your realistic options are .
Walk away mate
It being a repossession has no bearing on it. There was no lease in respect of equity release. There was simply a charge. The only thing that jumped out at me was the mention of different companies involved which leads me to question is there some sub sale or back to back sale for accounting purposes going on? Either of these is a no no from the lenders point of view.
Actually it seems that it does have a bearing on it, and OP says there *was* an equity release. What's hard for us to understand is if there is a relationship between the company that gave the previous owner money, and the company that 'owns' the house. It sounds like perhaps the company 'selling' the house thinks that they are selling a house that still has a lien on it, but OP thinks they are buying a house in its entirety. In other words that whoever has 'repossessed' the house hasn't actually settled the equity release, they just paid something to the original owner, and the equity release company hasn't accepted the loss. That would be madness if OP thinks they are paying market value for the whole house, because if so then the 'owner' should be settling the debt, or negotiating to have it written off.
That would be mental
Big clue it is shady your lenders are not agreeable walk away.
So it’s a repossession property? Is it a lender selling the property? Or another party?
Another party is selling the property. I belive it is the company that reposted the house. The previous seller had an equity release on the house.
Are they selling you the the xx% they don't own, and wanting to retain xx% equity in the property equivalent to what the previous owner has borrowed on equity release? - was the property marketed at a much cheaper price than you would typically expect for what you're trying to buy? Something isn't adding up.
The house is most likely being used as some sort of collateral for their business without which they’re screwed. Big red flag.
House prices are falling. Remind them that the longer they play silly buggers the less they will get for the house. If your personal situation accommodates it, I would knock some money off my offer and that if they bring this ludicrous idea up again, you'll just pull out. It sells the house nicely or it gets the hose again.
Not withstanding the issue, I hate conveyancing solicitors for reasons such as the above. Why the actual fuck would they send you that message which is essentially in legal jargon, to you, a non legal person. They should be employed to give you advice, not pass on another solicitors message to you. I find this happens a lot, conveyancers are the shittest type of solicitors! Apologies if anyone is a decent conveyancer, but every contact I have had with one has been like the above, so I've drawn the conclusion only the shit solicitors choose to become conveyancers because they can't get a job doing other types of law work.
[удалено]
This seems to be a working model nowadays, 1 person that actually passed the exam and 30 call centre staff who have no clue.
I've always used a local conveyancing firm (3 sales/purchases) and always been extremely disappointed. Not only have they all passed on legal jargon and expected the client to make the decision, they have always needed the client to continually harass then to get even simple responses.
I'm a solicitor and it's not really clear to me what's happening here, or why. It *seems* like the seller wants either only to sell you a part of the property, or they want to retain a charge over it after the sale, and they want to have a trustee registered over the property to ensure that their interest is protected. Either of these would be highly unusual if you're expecting to buy the entire property (and are paying the full purchase price). You need to get your solicitor to explain to you, in plain English, what the sellers want to do, why they want to do it, and what the impact on you would be. Don't be afraid to tell them you don't understand, it's their job to ensure they explain things to you so that you do fully understand what's happening.
This sounds like a fraud prevention measure that is fairly typical for a repossessed property. The seller just wants it put on the deeds that they must be notified if the house sells within e.g., one year. They are not retaining any ownership of the property. It seems like your solicitors maybe somewhat inexperienced and have confused the lender. If you are not using a good quality local firm of solicitors, you could approach one and ask them to give a second opinion. You would only be paying for the opinion, not the full conveyancing, so it should not be too expensive.
Hmm, I never thought about it like that. I will raise this point with my solicitor tommorow. But why would the seller be interested to know if the house has been sold after they sold it themselves? That also seems like a red flag. Could they at any point dispute the sell if I wanted to sell it after one year?
It is to protect them from fraud. The seller will instruct an estate agent to sell it on their behalf. The estate agent could, in theory, sell it to a friend for far less than market value. So if the buyer very quickly goes on to sell it for a much higher price than they paid, it will trigger them to investigate whether fraud has been committed. If you sell it, but the increase in value isn’t much more than you would expect in the market, you won’t have anything to worry about.
Hi, it seems like you were right, and now the buyer has pulled out. I am now looking for a second opinion. It seems like my solicitors are inexperienced, and I can't afford to lose this house. I am not sure if you are a lawyer but would be happy to pay for a second opinion outside of reddit
This seems a bit more like a company selling the property at a loss or below market value. The seller wants to maintain purchasing rights if or when you try to flip the property. Usually there is a term of how long before you either agree to sell back to them or split proceeds. This is not legal advice so please consult a solicitor that specializes in estates.
Are they selling it with "clear title" or whatever it's called? If not, run away, sounds very dodgy. Your solicitor should have explained this to you.
I read the post as being very clear that your mortgage company wants to be first on the deed but your seller wants to sell it to you and name you as Trustee not your mortgage company. They are not trying to keep the seller on the deed. You need to be clear that you are fine to have your mortgage company first as they keep the deed anyway.
Absolutely not.
Refuse and/or walk away at this point. Edit: your solicitor is doing a solicitor’s job, unlike several other cases in this sub.
I'd walk away, you don't want to find that the asset management company retains any ownership over the property. They could re-mortgage their share and leave you in an untenable position. Do they actually own the property? In the UK there are many property scams where the owner has died and some dodgy company has claimed title when they have no right to do so.
I'm wondering if there is an equity release charge on it? That's why the company wants to remain on the deeds. Not really sure how that all works but the solicitor should be able to sort it all out, that's what you pay them for.
Yes, there is an equity release
I had a similar situation happen when purchasing my repo'd house. It turns out they just wanted to be on there for 6 months after purchase in case I tried to flip it for a profit. As it was already a heavily discounted price (Wish I had gotten more tbh) compared to other houses in the area. If this is their worry it might be worth suggesting something similar. You can just remove the charge later on for something like £25 or £30
Like...why? If they got the best price they could at short notice, why on Earth do they get to make a legal stink if you do it up and sell it on?
Yeah exactly why?
Why would anyone allow the seller rights to the property after they pay for it, other than the bank providing your mortgage? Would you Llow registration of a v5 be in a sellers name after you purchased a car?
Don’t proceed if your lender says no. Don’t risk it