I am selling a flat i used to live in before i met my now husband and moved into his flat. I had rented my flat out.
Originally it was being sold as Tenant in Situ with a fully furnished lease including sofa, beds, fridge freezer, television, microwave and everything. But 8 weeks into the sale the buyer's solicitors said they wanted it with vacant possession. so everything was held up and caused a lot of suffering and stress to both me and my tenants as they weren't honest from the start. They blamed the lawyer and changed the lawyer and than sat on their laurels not appointing a new lawyer for a further 5 weeks til i put the flat back on the market. It then took a further month for the contract to be passed to their lawyer as the agent supplied my lawyer with incorrect contact details.
I messaged by buyer to see if they wanted all the furniture and to see if we could agree a price. They now are saying we said it was fully furnished included in the price. I said the agreement changed when it went from tenants in situ (and they had a furnished lease so i couldn't be bothered to argue about the furnishing and was gonna throw it in fully furnished anyway).
I feel they've lost me a lot of money as i've had to evict the tenants and the delays to them having appointed a lawyer mean my flat will sit unoccupied for several weeks and take a bigger risk if it doesn't go through. And that doesn't even include the increased legal fees due to the change in contracts. As well as the extra funds I am having to borrow short term to cover the extra cost of stamp duty on my new home as my flat won't be sold before we move (we are moving into a new house and since i will still own the flat at the completion date i will have to pay an extra 3% on the full price for stamp duty and then claim it back once the flat is sold).
Therefore, not feeling as generous and wanting to charge extra for the furnishings (the fixtures and fittings forms were updated to state this when the sale changed).
Do you think I'm being unreasonable?