To think there should be a fine for vendors pulling out of a property buy/sell process last minute?

DD is currently viewing property and I am guiding her towards vacant property with no chain to try and save her from awful experiences.like this. It happened to me in the past and it's just so wrong people can do this, I remember the heartbreak and stress all too well. I'm so sorry OP

I definitely think a way of improving things is reverting to the custom of a period of time between exchange/completion instead of this silly same day or 1 or 2 day. At least people can plan, give notice, book removals without stressing it’s going to collapse.

I agree with most of what you are saying.

Most of the points I am making are attempts to try to improve "the process" without biasing it towards either sellers or buyers.

But ultimately I don't think there is much that can be to improve it as it stands.

At the end of the day it is probably more about educating people about how it works and how their house cannot be considered sold until contracts are exchanged, and to make provision for that possibility if the sale gets stopped.

I think it is something like 30% of sales fall through between offer and completion, so people should see that as a very realistic possibility rather than something that is unlikely to occur.

In theory you make some good points but I think the downsides of db searches is there is a chance the data will be out of date unless there is a guaranteed constant updating on the information stored - IT systems are not always good enough.

Surveys in 7 days, many mortgage evaluations, or basic surveys are conducted, quite wrongly imo, by drive by or even just looking at the prices of recently sold properties, insisting on 7 days would mean more of them are conducted by not even visiting the property for sale. All this would do is mean any issues are found further down the line in the buying/selling process.

Too many people instruct solicitors, surveyors etc and do not chase. The people who chase and keep on top of the process most likely do not experience as many delays as though who don't.

Unless moving considerable distance and therefore not viable, I always use the professionals local to the property, not only do they know the area, but it means I can go into their offices to collect and drop off important documents which always saves times, even if using email. I know they have been delivered.

I think you are 100% right that people get annoyed when something goes wrong in their purchase or sale, considering the amount of house sales during the year many proceed without any issues - just as in life you only hear about those that go wrong.

The fact other countries have managed to evolve property sales mechanisms that avoid this problem suggests that it's there by design and unlikely to be changed without a clear demonstration of benefit.

Bearing in mind benefitting the masses rarely achieves changes as much as benefitting those in power.

I genuinely believe that if something could be done to improve the process it should be.

But I don't see it is possible without somehow biasing towards either sellers or buyers.

My guess is that people will just post that they have been pissed off in different ways. This week its a seller. Next week it will be a buyer. Knee jerk reactions you see on here - the process must be fixed ! They never have any sensible solutions once they are considered.

One thing I do think the government could do is maybe help speed up the process. They could do this for example by having a national register for searches that responds immediately rather than taking time. They could also make it so that a mortgage company must be capable of doing a survey at 7 days notice for example. Thus the ability to survey would be implicit in being offered a mortgage. Of course in order to do this, mortgage fees would go up, which would be a cost on the buyer.

You have answered the question.

It should always be caveat emptor when making such an expensive purchase such as property, in fact for every purchase. Making the process quicker should not be an aim, making it more efficient should be - rushing a purchase or sale will likely lead to mistakes or missed issues, this is not in anyone's interest.

The efficiency should come from such issues as quicker turn round of searches, solicitors and surveyors dealing with issues quicker - too many people use cheap online conveyancers and wonder why problems occur.

People should also educate themselves (the internet has vast amounts of information) so they are aware, for example an older house (even just a year old) may not meet the latest building regulations rather than insisting the vendors do work to ensure it does etc.

If I am buying or selling, I will instruct my solicitor to exchange contracts when I have fully satisfied everything is in order to proceed, up until that point I reserve the right to withdraw from the sale or purchase. Just adding financial penalties and more regulations is likely to cause more delays.

Why didn't it work ?

I mean I get the idea that it would be unpopular with sellers as they don't want the extra cost.

I get the idea that mortgage issuers would not want to rely on survey information provided by a vested interest and would probably commission their own survey anyway.

But I do think it would speed up the process, to at least provide some up front information that buyers could take as a general impression, and not discover major horrors some way down the line.

My guess is it was abandoned because it was not in sellers interest. Costing money, and also making it more difficult for them to cover up various problems.

There is of course nothing to stop a seller today compiling their own "homebuyers pack" to issue to potential purchasers, although there may be some issues with information sharing of things like surveys to be resolved.

There was a change not that long ago with the Home Packs (or whatever they were called) it didn't work. When people are probably undertaking the largest financial transaction in their lifetime they should only be committed to purchase or sell when a legally binding contract is in place - we have that when contracts are exchanged, up until that point each party can withdraw for whatever reason.

The fact there has never been a serious move to change the system can't always be taken as proof the system works or is equitable.

There is nothing wrong with how houses are purchased and sold in the UK, it only becomes bad when someone is affected by the sale or purchase falling through.

Read the numerous MN threads when the answers given are "pull out". Too many people want to stop people pulling out if it affects them, but to have flexibility themselves to withdraw if they wish.

It is a business transaction which once contracts are exchanged is legally binding with penalties for breach of contract. The only change I would suggest is a move back to a longer period between exchange and completion, but even that should not be mandatory rather advised to be sensible.

No, because one side wants the survey to be as good as possible to maximise the value of their asset, whereas the other wants it to be as correct as possible to ensure that they are getting what they are paying for.

I certainly think once mortgage ( if needed) sorted, survey done, searches all back, enquiries completed then cost of the buyers solicitors and searches non refundable needs to be handed over- any pulling out then they lose that money - if it completes ok then that comes off the monies due.

But that can happen whichever side does the checking. Loads of cheapskate conveyancers who don't do proper checks, and surveyors with pre-filled survey forms are out there. I think having a full survey with a reputable company would be a selling point, if it was made law that sellers had to create a pack. Just like having certificates for building work. It would be a simpler system, no more open to fraud than the current one, if it was properly set up, and a whole lot quicker and more reliable.

I quite agree OP. For our last house sale, the buyers had pulled out of a few previous house purchases, and so the estate agent put forward the idea that we would only accept their offer on the proviso that, failing a survey indicating a certain amount needed spending on the house, they would be held liable for our costs. This was drawn up with solicitors, and made the whole process easier. I think this should always be the case.

It's the same thing in the respect that anywhere where there are large sums of money at stake there is fraud and corruption.

The only variation is how much the government decides to do about it.

I’ve been looking at houses in Scotland for the past year, toying at first, more seriously now and there are a lot falling through. They are on Rightmove etc for sale, then going to closing date, Under Offer, then SOLD subject to conditions. They disappear, to reappear soon after . Often at a lower price. The house I’m living in did that in 2016/ 17 . I bought it when it came back on after the sale fell through.

I don’t see how that can be the same thing. Only one person gets to see the MOT. It only says the car was in roadworthy condition on the day it was tested.

The HomeReport is seen by maybe dozens of potential purchasers, and most people go to view anyway, so if the scabby roof, damaged render, damp patches, rotting planks in the garage or whatever aren’t in the Home Report on which authority they decided to view, there will be repercussions. The solicitor also goes through the Home Report. No surveyor will put his name to a fraudulent HR. It’s a set form with the EPC and a questionnaire filled in by the home owner. I’m house hunting just now, and it’s the same 2 surveyors companies for the hundreds of houses I’ve looked at online.

But even after offers are accepted, either side can pull out until the missives are actually signed

I am glad for you.

The system in Scotland has changed significantly in the last 15 years or so (since the 2008 crash )
Missives used to be concluded at a very early stage
Thst is certainly not the case now
There is still a culture in Scotland that people don't pull out ,but legally now they can ,and do
I said in my last post that it did not happen as often as it does in England (where I am also qualified )
You don't have to believe me ,but my experience and knowledge of what is actually happening might be useful to others

"Surely".

In the same way no one has surely ever got a dodgy MOT.