unusual 'problem' regarding new house sale?

[soldasseen]

We are buying a new house, the selling of the house is not simple and quiet horrible circumstances.

We have been waiting for the inventory for the new house and got an email from our solicitor today:

"They do not propose to send sellers property information forms and fixtures and fittings form as they say the property is sold as seen as the sellers have no personal knowledge of the property. They propose for the current occupiers to complete the forms however as they are not the sellers these could not be relied upon."

Is this a normal response? what does sold as seen mean? When we last saw it the house was full of furniture and beds etc - does it mean we get all of that?
We are concerned about this because if there is no fixture and fittings list, then what if when we get the keys they have gutted the place? we would have no come back.

Can anyone advise?

you are entitled to your opinion but when it is as unhelpful and useless as your own, do not be offended when i ignore it..

How strange I would say that devalues the house somewhat. So you are prevented from having a lodger?? I'm a council tenant and I'm allowed to have lodgers - I'm not even the home owner!!

I'd walk away, too.

NANP - that oversteps the line, don't you think? What a vile thing to say to someone you know nothing about

there is a clause stating that the house/ that particular part of the house can only be occupied by members of the owners family.

Yet you say she can't stay - that doesn't make sense.

I don't see why you would want her to stay anyway. A house is usually bought with vacant possession unless it's an investment property.

I think any normal buyer would definitely have found out as much about this situation as you have - some would probably have found out more. You could check with the Land Registry to see who actually owns the house. You could get a copy of the deceased's will to see where her share of the house went.

I would want to be 100% sure there were no nasties that I hadn't forseen. I always do that when I buy.

Ooops! Sorry - ignore the bit about the clause. I understand it now. I thought the clause meant could only be occupied by the existing family - I now understand it means owner of the property's family'.

Daft clause. I'd try to get it revoked.

Actually - I'd walk away even faster.

Well what would you call someone who has no conscience about turfing an 80yo woman out of her home in those circumstances?

Oh right I see what you mean. Could you not find out whether she benefits though, given your contacts?

However I like the sound of it less and less with that weird clause. It certainly should devalue the house somewhat. You have to think whether it would make it more difficult for YOU to sell one day.

I think I'd l pull out unless you are getting a FANTASTIC deal already.

wet, she wouldnt be able to stay because she would no longer be the owners family because we would be the owners!

We feel terrible about her having to more, so would have been happy for her to take her time looking for somewhere else to live.

NoArmani- sociopath? different i suppose. i dont mind because i happen to think you are a bit of a twat. now can you piss off my thread if you are not bringing any actual words of wisdom.

NoArmani: i would call them : her son in law

not really talkative, i dont want to be even more intrusive!

i hope it will devalue the house, so we can try and arrange a discount.

i do think that it is well priced for the size. The house has 7 bedrooms and the part of the house that can not be let has 3 of these bedrooms included in the clause.
this house is in the same price range as 3 bedroom houses in the county.
We was not specifically looking for a house this big, but when they are the same price and just as nice as smaller ones we decided that this gave us more opportunity.

It sounds from your last post that it has already been heavily discounted.

Strange clause though. Is it to stop B&B? What would happen if your DD or DS wanted to live in that area with their patners? The partner would not be owners family? Or would they?

How are they defining 'family'?

Every house purchase we've ever done has been a nightmare - and they were all fairly straightforward, without any of these complications.

This sounds like it could cause you an awful lot of problems - anything from the current residents refusing to leave, to moving into a house with bare floorboards, no light fittings, no cupboard doors etc.

I'd walk away (personally, I couldn't actually bring myself to be the cause of the GM having to move either). If you're desperate to go ahead because it's your dream house or whatever, you need to speak to the solicitor to find out if anything could be legally put in place to make sure the basic fittings are left, and where you stand if they're not. My dad bought a house and the previous owner stripped it of everything he possibly could (curtain rails, cooker, kitchen shelves, light bulbs) - even though he had been told they would be left.

I would think it extremely unlikely you'll get all the furniture- more likely you'll get a house stripped to it's bare bones.

I do have a lot of sympathy for the grandmother, but there again ... she presumably had the house put into her granddaughter's name to avoid inheritance tax ... and that is always risky, as she has found out with severe consequences. For the security of having the house her entire life she should have kept it in her own name.

The family situation is distressing but is really none of your business or concern and other than for your connections you would be none the wiser.

However now you know you must make sure that you do not exchange until you know the property is empty. Otherwise you could end up with the situation where they are still there in the house and you are obliged to complete and then have to go through eviction process yourself. You can then go view again prior to exchange after they have left to check condition of the house before going through exchange.

wet we have no children, and if we do i think that problem will be a long time coming!

By the way I think any adults in house have to sign something legal to confirm that they acknowledge the sale and will move .

that is what we are going to do now Sam. DH will speak to solicitor tomorrow and let her know that we will not be exchanging or completing until we have checked and photographed where necessary the fixtures and fitting and that the house is vacant.

Yes wet i think it is to stop b&b and separating the claused part off into a separate house possibly ?

Whatever about the rights and wrongs of the actual purchase, unless you can either have the exclusionary clause struck out, or get around it somehow (e.g. by you 'selling' it on to DP or you again after the initial purchase) then I wouldn't touch the place with a barge-pole no matter what the price.

yes i recall DH having to do that when i bought a flat before.

surely if the house is vacant on exchange and completion we would not have to worry about that? because they would be living there to have to be notified?

If you want an idea of how bad it can be, the repossessed wreck I bought:

shed had been stolen (as described above)

paving slabs had been taken

all floor coverings had been taken leaving bare concrete floors/boards

water all over the concrete floor from where washing machine had been removed before the stop cock had been turned off

all wallpaper peeling from the walls due to lying empty and unheated all winter

damp under the windows

27 seprate holes in the bathroom tiling as every fitting had been removed

exposed pipe and electrics where shower had been removed

mirror wardrobe doors left on the landing - obviously had run out of time /space but had been planning to take them

peeling wallpaper upstairs revealing walls painted in black gloss underneath

bathroom - loo had been used and not flushed - vomit inducing stench that permeated everything

boiler jacket taken

went to put sheets in the airing cupboard to find all the wooden slats had been taken

all lightbulbs had gone

I was lucky. They could have taken the copper piping for the central heating too.

why is that moonlight? the clause is because of planning permission rather then a condition of sale

bloody hell wet how awful! obviously that is our concern!

will will be making very sure with our solicitor before anything is signed and before any completion or exchange!

It's a pretty standard planning condition that is imposed when planning permission is granted for sizeable extensions that could potentially be severed to form self-contained dwellings or could be let as a separate unit.

The theory behind it is that two separate households within what was once one single dwelling is a more intensive use of the land/property. More likely to result in increased comings and goings, potentially more vehicles parked etc.

The residential annexe condition means that the annexe part of the house can only be used by persons related to the occupiers of the main dwelling. So as a granny annexe, or for children. If a child were to live there with a partner, then the partner and/or their children would still be 'related' to the occupiers of the main house and would comply with the terms of the condition. If they were to rent out the annexe to persons unrelated to the occupiers of the main house, or sever it to provide a new self-contained house, then that would contravene the planning condition.

One more to add to your list wet
All of the oak paneling was taken. Really did strip the house bare :(