House Buying - comments on DIY conveyancing ?
Richard Robinson
I'm thinking about buying a house. It's a small, straightforward (I hope)
terraced house, and it strikes me that it'd be a lot simpler, to my twisted
mentality, to handle the conveyancing myself.
I did this once before, using Michael Joseph's "the Conveyancing Fraud" as a
guide - between the rants, it seems to contain a sufficient amount of useful
information, clearly explained. It worked last time, anyway, in that the
house was subsequently resold without anyone noticing any problems :)
That was 20 years ago, and I gather that the law's changed since. Can anyone
comment on the current (?? Sept '94) edition of this book ? Can it be
trusted ? Anything vital that it misses ?
In particular, the vendor's solicitor is asking me to note that he has no
authority to sign a memorandum under Sect 2 of the Law of Property (Misc.
Provisions) Act '89. Can anyone tell me if this means anything relevant ?
[ He also asks me to note that the matter will remain subject to contract
until an exchange of contracts takes place, which strikes me as a fun piece of
wording - I'd expect it to remain so afterwards, as well ;-) ]
TIA.
--
Richard Robinson, Leeds, UK.
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem
Nothing in the above should be read as suggesting that
I may wish to receive bulk mailshots. I do *NOT*.
David Levy
In article <5jnuqt$8...@beulah.demon.co.uk>, Richard Robinson <richard@be
ulah.demon.co.uk.nojunk> writes
>I'm thinking about buying a house. It's a small, straightforward (I
hope)
>terraced house, and it strikes me that it'd be a lot simpler, to my
twisted
>mentality, to handle the conveyancing myself.
>I did this once before,
>until an exchange of contracts takes place, which strikes me as a fun piece of
>wording - I'd expect it to remain so afterwards, as well ;-) ]
>
>
>TIA.
>
principles) you have demonstrated that you should not even make a
telephone call about buying a house until you have instructed a
solicitor to act for you.
--
David Levy
Andrew Nichols
In article <5jnuqt$8...@beulah.demon.co.uk>, Richard Robinson <richard@be
ulah.demon.co.uk.nojunk> writes
>until an exchange of contracts takes place, which strikes me as a fun piece of
>wording - I'd expect it to remain so afterwards, as well ;-) ]
"Subject to contract" means "all this correspondence is just
negotiation, until we have actually exchanged the formal written
contracts; after that, the terms are settled and merely have to be
carried out". Perfectly logical.
--
Andy
Richard Robinson
In article <uBfahFAZ...@ethel.demon.co.uk>,
David Levy <davel...@ethel.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>Sorry, but in the light of that final paragraph (as well as on general
>principles) you have demonstrated that you should not even make a
>telephone call about buying a house until you have instructed a
>solicitor to act for you.
By letter, I presume ?
You may be right. It does depend on being able to understand what's being said
and knowing what's important. Which is why I asked.
Richard Robinson
In article <RMpFCAA+...@ethel.demon.co.uk>,
David Levy <davel...@ethel.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
> Better all this hassle than *having* to see a solicitor when
>your purchaser, in the fulness of time, comes to sell and decides to sue
>you for having misled him (even innocently) in some way!
But, regardless of whether I buy through a solicitor or not, it is still
me that needs to know the situation, since, as you remark, it's my neck it
comes out of when I resell. Following the line of thought to the other
extreme, if I leave it all up to a solicitor and never know the issues,
I will then be unable to resell if that firm goes out of business. If
the vendors' solicitors' inability to sign a memorandum under S2 of the
LP(MP)A'89 represents a significantly increased risk of paying the purchase
money to someone other than the owner, or of buying subject to unusual
conditions that are not apparent until too late, it'd be as well to know
this as soon as possible.
Andrew Nichols
In article <5jp6d1$i...@beulah.demon.co.uk>, Richard Robinson <richard@be
ulah.demon.co.uk.nojunk> writes
>Why might I want the vendor's solicitor to sign something that might amount
>to a memorandum within the provisions of Sect. 2 of the Law of Property
>(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 ?
You wouldn't. What he is saying is that he can't be taken to have
created a binding contract by correspondence - only by exchange of the
separate contract document. Same thing as "subject to contract".
I don't use either sets of protective wording. Case law is quite clear
that on a residential conveyancing transaction, where a separate
document is submitted as a draft contract, there is no binding agreement
until formal exchange.
--
Andrew Nichols
Nichols & Sutcliffe tel -01226 295351
Solicitors fax -01226 293017
Barnsley DX -12253 Barnsley
Richard Robinson
In article <33606bb7...@news.lineone.net>,
Marc Living <m...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>The problem with buying a house is that 9 times out of 10 it is likely
>to be a fairly straightforward transaction. The remaining one time
>however is a potential nightmare unless it has been spotted and
>rectified by somebody who knows what ther are doing.
>
>It is no good posting a request for information about "what might be
>important". It is the same as asking "how long is a piece of string".
Well, it was a more specific attempt to assess whether this represents such
a problematical situation as you describe.
>And I must agree with the previous poster. That fact that you do not
>appreciate that you are *bound* to complete the purchase once you have
>exchanged contracts
That's an unfair construction. I'm sure you could keep me baffled for a
year of Sundays with things I *don't* know about the law on contracts, but
it was exactly becasue I *do* appreciate this that I am amused by a form of
words that suggests this is only the case before the contracts have been
signed & exchanged. It was a bad joke, okay ? I'm sorry I said it ...
>As David Swarbrick is fond of pointing out. Buying the house is easy:
>it is when you come to sell it that the problems start.
Indeed; as I noted in my original posting.
David Levy
In article <5jotho$h...@beulah.demon.co.uk>, Richard Robinson <richard@be
ulah.demon.co.uk.nojunk> writes
>In article <uBfahFAZ...@ethel.demon.co.uk>,
>David Levy <davel...@ethel.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>Sorry, but in the light of that final paragraph (as well as on general
>>principles) you have demonstrated that you should not even make a
>>telephone call about buying a house until you have instructed a
>>solicitor to act for you.
>
>By letter, I presume ?
>
>You may be right. It does depend on being able to understand what's being said
>and knowing what's important. Which is why I asked.
>
solicitor (get a recommendation from a friend or some person you can
trust, if possible), phone up and make an appointment to see him/her.
Preferably do this even before you go shopping for a place to live, or
before you put your present place on the market (certainly before you
visit any estate agent - you should get advice on that tricky
procedure). You are going to rely heavily on your solicitor for what
may be the most expensive transaction you will be making, at least at
this point in time and you need to establish a relationship of trust.
At that meeting you can ask all your questions, find out what the
procedures are and what it will all cost. If, when you meet, you think
you have made a mistake, you can always politely back out and look for
another. Better all this hassle than *having* to see a solicitor when
your purchaser, in the fulness of time, comes to sell and decides to sue
you for having misled him (even innocently) in some way!
David Levy
David Swarbrick
In article <5jnuqt$8...@beulah.demon.co.uk>, Richard Robinson <richard@be
ulah.demon.co.uk.nojunk> writes
>I'm thinking about buying a house. It's a small, straightforward (I hope)
>terraced house, and it strikes me that it'd be a lot simpler, to my twisted
>mentality, to handle the conveyancing myself.
>
>guide - between the rants, it seems to contain a sufficient amount of useful
>information, clearly explained. It worked last time, anyway, in that the
>house was subsequently resold without anyone noticing any problems :)
>That was 20 years ago, and I gather that the law's changed since. Can anyone
>comment on the current (?? Sept '94) edition of this book ? Can it be
>trusted ? Anything vital that it misses ?
>
>In particular, the vendor's solicitor is asking me to note that he has no
>authority to sign a memorandum under Sect 2 of the Law of Property (Misc.
>Provisions) Act '89. Can anyone tell me if this means anything relevant ?
>
>until an exchange of contracts takes place, which strikes me as a fun piece of
>wording - I'd expect it to remain so afterwards, as well ;-) ]
>
humour.
The biggest change in the last twenty years is that there is no point in
doing it yourself. Solicitors costs have been driven down to the point
where the difference in cost between doing it yourself (buying some up
to date books as well?) and paying the mortgagee's solicitors on the one
hand and paying a firm to do the whole lot is pretty marginal.
You may want to do it from a sense of fun. Fine.
I would advise against doing the thing yourself. You may get away with
it once or even a couple of times, but the risks are high.
--
David Swarbrick, Solicitor, 22 Bradford Rd Brighouse HD6 1RW UK
Tel: +44(0)1484 722531 Fax: +44(0)1484 716617
E-mail: da...@swarb.demon.co.uk
http://www.law-services.org.uk/swarbrick
swarb.co.uk Law Index. 6600+ case searchable database at the
web site.
colin
In article <5jr1d4$n...@beulah.demon.co.uk>, Richard Robinson <richard@be
ulah.demon.co.uk.nojunk> writes
>> Better all this hassle than *having* to see a solicitor
You don't *have* to see a solicitor. Why not try a Licensed Conveyancer,
the modern alternative to solicitors. IMHO and experience LC's are less
formal, yet carry out the work with the same professional ability.
They also appear to be more 'available' than solicitors as they are not
likely to be in court or at lunch for long periods.
Go on.....be a devil and break the mould.
--
colin
John de Rivaz
It is a good thing that all this complication does not apply to other second
hand goods. Bear in mind that the computers sold on <uk.adverts.computer>
cost as much as houses did in the 1930s, and large cars costs as much as
small houses in cheap areas. How does the buyer of a UKP50k second hand
roller know the seller owns it and it is not on HP, subject to divorce
litigation, etc?
I think a lot of the problem arises because A cannot say to B "I want to buy
your house here is UKP50k" or whatever, hand over the cheque and both have
completed the deal happily. If it is a car, oil painting or virtually
anything else, this is how the transaction would go.
As someone pointed out, during the long drawn out process of buying houses
people or their spouses can change their minds, or indeed have them changed
for them by external events.
--
*****************************************
Sincerely, * Longevity Report *
* http://www.longevb.demon.co.uk/lr.htm *
John de Rivaz * Fractal Report *
* http://www.longevb.demon.co.uk/fr.htm *
* Music I like - see homepage *
*****************************************
In the information age, sharing can increase world
wealth enormously, because giving information does
not decrease your information.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JohndeR
Fast loading, very few slow pictures
Rainer Thonnes
In article <167767...@longevb.demon.co.uk> Jo...@longevb.demon.co.uk writes:
>
>I think a lot of the problem arises because A cannot say to B "I want to buy
>your house here is UKP50k" or whatever, hand over the cheque and both have
>completed the deal happily.
>
>people or their spouses can change their minds, or indeed have them changed
>for them by external events.
Oh you poor buggers in the uncivilised South. Here in Scotland you can
do (almost) exactly what you suggest. The process is certainly not long
and drawn out. OK, it does still usually involve solicitors, but you
*can* complete a transaction in hours, if the two parties have
previously briefed their respective solicitors. Then it's simply a
matter of each party instructing their solicitors by phone, and the
solicitors thrashing out the details amongst themselves, initially by
phone or fax and subsequently on real paper delivered by courier.
Typically the prospective buyer will make a formal offer to purchase the
property for a certain sum, subject to a long list of fairly standard
conditions. Then the buyer will respond with a counter-offer "we offer
to accept your offer subject to (further conditions, some of which will
be that some of the initial offer's conditions are deleted or amended)".
As a rule there is not much to-ing and fro-ing, and once one side's
offer has been formally accepted by the other side unconditionally, then
that's it. The deal is struck. No ifs nor buts and no changing of
minds unless both sides agree.
Nevertheless it is usual to agree an entry date (which is also the date
on which insurance responsibility passes and the money and deeds are
handed over) of the order of six weeks hence, which just gives the
lawyers and bankers time to sort everything out, check deeds, etc. If
anything goes wrong during this period, either side can sue the other
for damages arising out of failure to complete.
Hmm, I wonder if it's possible to sell English property under Scots law?
John de Rivaz
But couldn't the same be said of any second hand goods. A car or hi-fi, for
example, may not show up faults until it has been used for a while. The buyer
of such goods may not find out for some time whether they have been stolen or
are part of a HP agreement.
In article: <5k0efd$j...@beulah.demon.co.uk> ric...@beulah.demon.co.uk.nojunk
(Richard Robinson) writes:
>
> In article <167767...@longevb.demon.co.uk>,
> John de Rivaz <Jo...@longevb.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >I think a lot of the problem arises because A cannot say to B "I want to
buy
> >your house here is UKP50k" or whatever, hand over the cheque and both have
> >completed the deal happily. If it is a car, oil painting or virtually
> >anything else, this is how the transaction would go.
>
> It would be nice to have some sort of intervening period in which you could
> find out a bit about it, surely ? Whether it gets knocked down next week to
> make way for an interstellar by-pass, whether the roof comes off next time
> the wind blows, that kind of thing ?
>
> --
> Richard Robinson, Leeds, UK.
> "The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem
> Nothing in the above should be read as suggesting that
> I may wish to receive bulk mailshots. I do *NOT*.
>
>
John Boyle
In article <478376...@longevb.demon.co.uk>, John de Rivaz
<Jo...@longevb.demon.co.uk> writes
>But couldn't the same be said of any second hand goods. A car or hi-fi, for
>example, may not show up faults until it has been used for a while. The
>buyer
>of such goods may not find out for some time whether they have been
>stolen or
>are part of a HP agreement.
I am not supporting the ludicrous land law in this country, but isn't
land the only asset that will always exist? Everything else
mentioned in this thread will eventually wear out, rust, degenerate,
or whatever, and will then cease to exist. Don't you think this is
relavant?
--
John Boyle
Rainer Thonnes
In article <OTAJzJAu...@chartw.demon.co.uk>,
John Boyle <jo...@chartw.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> I am not supporting the ludicrous land law in this country, but isn't
> land the only asset that will always exist? Everything else
> mentioned in this thread will eventually wear out, rust, degenerate,
> or whatever, and will then cease to exist. Don't you think this is
> relavant?
Well, acts of war and God apart, land may always *exist*, but your point
is predicated on the continuing *availability* of said land for specific
purposes. This cannot be guaranteed because of the vagaries of planning
controls and the possibility of compulsory purchase orders. So the "land"
beneath the M25 is still there, but of no use to anyone except as a
car park.
John de Rivaz
The point that I think Mr Boyle makes is that land exists far longer than
individual (natural) lifespans. But then so can other artifacts - antique
furniture is a good example. Antique cars if well maintained can also exist
far longer than the natural lifespan of people, as can jewelry and many other
items.
Therefore I suggest that the distinction is not on its own sufficient to
account for the way society is organised, requiring the purchase of
professional services for land transactions.
Tangentially -
Whilst it is true that land will exist for a long time, it will not exist
forever. As we understand the universe, eventually the sun will change such
that the earth will cease to exist. Maybe a technological civilisation could
pilot the earth to a new sun, but this is pure speculation. Less speculative
is the possibility of individual people having an indeterminate lifespan
and some even outliving the earth ...
In article: <OTAJzJAu...@chartw.demon.co.uk> John Boyle
<jo...@chartw.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> In article <478376...@longevb.demon.co.uk>, John de Rivaz
> <Jo...@longevb.demon.co.uk> writes
> >But couldn't the same be said of any second hand goods. A car or hi-fi,
for
> >example, may not show up faults until it has been used for a while. The
> >buyer
> >of such goods may not find out for some time whether they have been
> >stolen or
> >are part of a HP agreement.
>
> I am not supporting the ludicrous land law in this country, but isn't
> land the only asset that will always exist? Everything else
> mentioned in this thread will eventually wear out, rust, degenerate,
> or whatever, and will then cease to exist. Don't you think this is
> relavant?
>
> --
> John Boyle