Advice please: cost caused by seller's delay

[moniack]

Hi, I'm a first time buyer in London. BF and I had our offer accepted on a house at the beginning of Dec 2015. We were told there was no chain but the seller was very, very slow with providing legal documents (only got them by the end of Feb and still some outstanding questions). It turned out that there is not only a chain, but a very complicated one with selling two to buy one, family inheritance issues blablabla... The seller said twice that they were going to exchange but then later cancelled because their seller couldn't exchange with them that day. From what the agent told us, they missed the April 1st stamp duty deadline because of their seller's fault. They had to re-negotiate and their seller agreed to compensate for that. It seems that if we pull out now, it's going to leave them over a shit creek without a paddle. But both BF and I are really pissed off, they just assume that we are desperate and never going to change our mind so they would only exchange when it's completely safe for them, not to mention lying to us from the very beginning. We are now thinking of asking for a reduction, not a greedy one, just to cover the last two months rent, something 3k, less than 1% of the house price.

People who have sold houses before, could you be so kind to advise if it's a reasonable thing to do. We can afford to lose the house as we actually budged higher than this current house and the stamp duty thing may cool down the market a little bit now. But I don't want to create bitterness and worried they might accept and then do some damage to the house before they leave. (they seem to be quite selfish people judged from their behaviour).

Thanks again.

I agree with the others. Staggeringly hypocritical.

Tell the people who's houses you have no intention of buying that your offer isn't real. You can't just hold on to them as insurance options. Remember these are real people who are trying to move house.

Honestly OP you are the buyer from every seller's nightmares. If this sale falls through (and may well do since you're so keen on playing dirty), you'll probably discover that you've made a name for yourself with the local EAs, who will probably advise other sellers to avoid you like the plague if you do offer on their houses.

I've just read the whole thread and I can't believe how hypocritical you have been, OP.

You spent weeks ranting about your sellers mucking you around and costing you time and money, about how unfair this was and how you wanted compensation for it and then... You put in offers on four properties at the same time and shafted those sellers in exactly the same way? What, is it ok because it's not you being caused any loss or time delay? Your seller shouldn't lie to you, but it's fine for you to lie to all those other sellers?

What's even more impressive is that from the way you've written your update you genuinely don't see at all what you've done here.

I admit it's not ideal, but I think it's a bit simplistic to say I'm "hypocritical" without taking the following factors into consideration: 1)Where I'm buying. It's in a nice area in London, although things look a bit different now but it's still a seller's market. If you wait for a couple of days when your only offer is being considered, it's very likely that other properties you are genuinely interested in got snapped up. (I don't know if you have bought in London recently, seriously, so many houses are gone in a week.) 2) The length of time it took us to go back to them. In both two cases we went back to them within three days, I don't think loss of three days market exposure is that significant, or they could have made very serious financial commitment based on the sale in such a short period of time. 3) Most importantly, we are open with them about making other offers, and our offers are still accepted.

To be honest if when you sold your houses before, you didn't just go with the first acceptable offer without waiting for a couple more days to see if something more interesting coming up, then you are being "staggering hypocritical". I think it's a bit like applying for a job or university: a person can apply to different places, and choose the best one and turn down others. As for a company or uni, they would have a waiting list in case the top candidates drop out. I don't know why it's so hard to accept when it comes to properties, maybe because it's kind of more personal and people are more emotional about it?

In an ideal world, one house receives one offer, and that offered will be accepted. But in reality, houses (especially good ones in London) may well receive 5-6 offers at the same time, I simply can't see why in that case buyers can't make multiple offers at the same time.

You are hypocritical OP. It's a seller's market here too (not in London). Things sell very quickly and there are multiple bids. It doesn't make it OK to keep putting in offers while pretending that you are actually going to buy other houses.

In your UCAS analogy, the sellers are the applicants. They have multiple offers from several universities (you are a university) and they have to decide which one to accept. They can only accept one offer and decline the rest. The universities don't then pull out and leave them stranded (which is what you're doing).

It's different because individual people selling their houses are not large organisations who have thousands of places to offer or large numbers of employees. They generally have one house that they are trying to sell so that they can buy another one.

It makes little difference to a university if an individual applicant accepts a place but never takes it up. They have sufficient volume that a single student doesn't make or break things (and a course wouldn't be running that year if a single student would make all the difference between it being viable or not).

The single offer that a seller accepts does make or break things for them, and that buyer having wasted their time (on purpose) and pulling out may mean that they lose out on a property they wanted to buy. Also, given everything else you've said on this thread (and your latest response), there's no reason to believe that you wouldn't let them (possibly multiple thems) move along the process and then pull out on a whim or try to gazunder them.

As I said, you are exactly what every seller dreads. I would wish you luck, but actually I think anyone else who encounters you needs the luck not you.

Seriously, I found so many of you are just so emotional and, well, I don't quite know the way you look at things, perhaps subjective, or simplistic, even a bit extreme?

As I already posted, we made it clear that we had other offers when we were negotiating, EA didn't have a problem, our offer still got accepted. So those who said we would be avoided like a plague among local EAs probably don't live in a real world. We told them within three days, so not holding on them as insurance options. And I don't believe some of you are comparing me to our precious seller as doing exactly the same thing. That's 2-3 days versus four months (120 days), seriously, that difference in number doesn't make any sense to you? And do you know within 24 hours after your offer being accepted, the EA can present other offers to the vendor (we didn't go back to them in 24h but not for much longer)? So an offer accepted is really not the final thing, even in the unwritten rules.

I do wish to see point to point argument against my position, but not general ranting ignoring all the factors of the market, the length of time and the honesty when we made our offers.

StepAwayFromTheThesaurus:

You are exactly that kind of people who I describe as emotional and subjective. I told you I already told other sellers "sorry we are not buying", but you said "there's no reason to believe that you wouldn't let them (possibly multiple thems) move along the process and then pull out on a whim or try to gazunder them." Seriously, is there any need for me to lie here?

I hope you all calm down, and probably bother to consider the story here, which is the genuine story. We have been looking for a while, it has been such a crazy seller's market, where so many houses are snapped up in a week and have open days and go to auctions. We finally found 4 properties we really liked and can just about to afford, but we don't know if we are going to get outbid ruthlessly. We offered less than the asking price, not even putting our hope high they were going to be accepted! Luckily, perhaps thanks to the new stamp duty policy, three out of four are accepted. We are very happy and told other two that we are sorry WITHIN 3 WORKING DAYS SINCE THE FIRST ONE WAS ACCEPTED. I feel being very misunderstood that so many of you are saying I'm "playing dirty" "messing people around" "without genuine intention to buy" "wasting time".

HIGHLIGHT I can't help asking those people who said I'm wasting other people's time a question. I really hope you could think carefully and answer that first, before calling me a hypocrite. When you are selling, you need a couple of days to consider an acceptable offer, after that you may accept it or not, but at the same time, you expect your buyer to put their single offer on your house, essentially "take themselves out of the market", and they may lose another property in the meanwhile. Why do you think this is acceptable, while a buyer making your house "on hold" for a couple of days is not? Please answer this question first before we enter any further discussion.

I'm honestly not over emotional. I just think people should play fair and, based on your attitude throughout this entire thread, I can say that I would not want you as a buyer. That's not failing to keep a distance; it's about wanting to deal with trustworthy people.

When selling my house I didn't expect buyers to stop looking and all that involved while I was considering their offers. But I would have been very unimpressed to find out that they were continuing to do so. Accepting the offer means turning down other offers and taking the house off the market. I'd expect my buyers to take themselves off the market too. Tbh, I wouldn't have accepted an offer from someone who told the EA that they were putting in offers elsewhere, and I'd certainly have gone with another offer if the buyers had told me that they were still waiting to see how the other offers went and then decide which to take forward. I'd rather go with a serious buyer.

When buying we have only put in one offer at a time and have waited to see how that goes. It's much better to be straightforward with people and not play games.

And, yes, I'd expect my EA to tell me if an offer came from a buyer who had form for playing the system. They tend to advise sellers of this and it's extremely off putting.

Oh this is the thread that just keeps on giving OP has a moan and rant and asks if she's entitled to compensation, most responses no but good luck, OP you're all a bunch of meanies runs off fingers in ears thread dies. OP returns with passive aggressive I'm better than anyone normal manners don't apply to me yah boo to you and get told again she's behaving badly the next step in true mumsnet tradition is surely to ask for the thread to be removed as you're being bullied.

Moniack - you really don't seem to understand the process.

Lets say a vendor gets 3 offers, couples 1, 2 and 3 (you are couple 1). As others have said, a seller accepts one offer - your offer. The EA then tells couples 2 and 3 that they have not been successful.

Couples 2 and 3 who are trustworthy have seen 3 or 4 properties, liked them all, but only offered on one property. Given that they've not been successful, they quickly offer on Properties 2 and 3, and given that they've previously lost out, offer the asking price. Both offers are accepted. Both properties are taken off the market, potential viewings cancelled.

You then pull out. EA then goes back to Couples 2 and 3 who say, sorry, no longer interested, we've found something else. All the other interested parties may think they've been messed about and look elsewhere.

So whilst in your head, you might think it is 3 days, it may actually cause a significant delay. Vendors may have to pull out of their purchase etc etc.

Please stop and think and stop telling people they're unreasonable / emotional about house buying. Its just about integrity. You think you're in the right but everyone on here thinks you're not.

To StepAwayFromTheThesaurus (again):

I still think the seller is the university/job, as a house exists first, then buyers come to offer, just as the uni/job exists first, then applicants come to apply. The opposite wouldn't work.

For some reason, you all seem to think that all uncertainties should be carried by the buyer. Once we make their offer, it's all up to the seller to decide. If accepted then we have to buy it, if not we have to move on and "that the way it is". On the other hand, if the seller's offer (by accepting the offer you are like offering your house, so it's kind of an offer, too) is turned down, suddenly it's the end of the world and all your plans are ruined. Plus I don't appreciate the argument that "sellers are individuals trying to move houses", because buyers are, too. And they are buying somewhere they are going to live, so wouldn't it be understandable that they probably need a bit more time? In a word, it's very unfair to expect your buyer to put only one offer without knowing if you are going accept it or not.

I think all the argument we have here is from the really poorly regulated system. In a more reasonable world, the system should be like this: once an offer is accepted, both sides have another week to reconsider, then there should be a provisional contract that no one can pull out just because they feel like it, then people start to pay for surveys and legal fees. But in this totally faith-based system, people get very apprehensive, so I understand where you are coming from. Of course we all hate buyers who pull out after the sell has gone quite far, and there is no punishment waiting for them. But is it exactly the same thing as what we did?

In your analogy, the buyer is the university because they are the ones who make offers. The applicant decides whether to accept or not. The university has no control over that and can only make the offer. Once the seller accepts an offer they then lose any other offers. As namechange has explained, the other offers don't necessarily hang around and sales that fall through cam impact on how others perceive the house. That's why sellers need to consider offers carefully and choose the one that seems most likely to proceed successfully.

However, it's a totally silly analogy because universities are offering multiple places on every course. So many applicants can be successful at the same time. The universities are not screwed over if an individual student messes them around (indeed the planning expects a certain percentage of flakiness).

Vendors have one house (which is often their home) and can only sell it to one buyer. If their buyer messes then around then it all falls apart and they need to start again. The seller can't build in contingency for buyer flakiness. The risk is not all on the buyer.

You are forgetting that buyers have time before they offer to consider whether they want to buy the house and what to offer. They don't and shouldn't need additional time because they've already thought about it and made the decision that they're willing to buy a house for a certain price (provided a survey doesn't devalue the house). The sellers only hear about offers after they're made, so they obviously need time to think but the buyer should have already decided. A sensible system would make offers binding, and form a contract when the seller accepts them.

The fact the system allows people to speculate and behave badly doesn't mean that they should.

The fact the system allows people to speculate and behave badly doesn't mean that they should This.

StepAwayFromTheThesaurus:

"I didn't expect buyers to stop looking and all that involved while I was considering their offers. But I would have been very unimpressed to find out that they were continuing to do so."

Based on the context, I think your answer is, you don't expect them to stopping looking while you are considering, including putting other offers. But once you accepted you expect them to turn down others.

So first of all, you don't mind about putting different offers. but it's contradictory to what you said next:

"Tbh, I wouldn't have accepted an offer from someone who told the EA that they were putting in offers elsewhere."

Could you explain this contradiction?

Also, we got all replies within 2 days, which one we should turn down, then? Just accept the first one and turn down others? Yes that would be better, but we are making a really big financial commitment, we would rather wait our favourite for ONE extra day, and hope that's not the end of the world of the seller.

To Lighteningirll

Sorry, I''m a foreigner, I don't understand this very colloquial and hardly punctuated language.

To namechangedtoday15,

I do see what you are trying to say here, and it's a possible scenario, but it's very idealised and somehow self-contradictory. You have to assume the another two couples both got their offers accepted within 3 days, which I think is a very strong assumption, to start off with.

To take a step further, let's assume what you said is correct, that because of our fault, the seller lost couple 2 and 3. And then do the calculation of how much time the seller has lost.

Let's say it takes 3 days to consider an offer, so let's put the day we made our offer as day 0. Couple 2 and 3 could only have made offers within three days before day 0, otherwise it has nothing to do with us, let's say they receive their first "trustworthy" offer on day -3. In that case, they got three acceptable offers in three days.Then us, the untrustworthy buyers pull out at day 3. The property is back on the market, let's say this time they got very unlucky and only got one acceptable offer in a week, they accepted it, that's day 10.

So, even in your really idealised world, the seller lost two weeks from the very beginning to end, at the longest. Is it that significant in house buying?

Also, I can make a story of a buyer putting down only one offer, waited, rejected, and their other options are gone in the meanwhile. It's exactly the same story, just the other way around. So you haven't answered my question.

StepAwayFromTheThesaurus and namechangedtoday15:

So how do you define "bad behaviour"? Putting down multiple offers? Or making offers after one is accepted?

Ooh it's mumsnet bingo who had spelling and grammar?

You should have only offered on the one you actually wanted. I bet you didn't say 'oh this is just a back up offer. We actually want to buy another house that we like better but we're worried they might not choose our offer' when you put the other offers in.

I said that I didn't expect the buyers to stop looking. But I'd have expected them to have actually meant their offer on my house. If I'd known they were putting in multiple offers at the same time as mine, I would have written them off as time wasters/problem buyers and looked at the other offers instead. That's not contradictory, it's an expectation that when someone says, 'I'd like to buy your house for X amount', they actually mean that.

As I explained, buyers don't need additional time to consider the outcomes of their offers. They're supposed to consider whether they want to buy that house for that price before they put in the offer. If the house is popular and they're competing with multiple other buyers, they simply need to do so quickly. (And, as a buyer, I can totally accept that).

It's simply poor behaviour to take advantage of the system and mess people around. Putting down multiple offers simultaneously is not great (but if you are genuinely clear that you're just speculative rather than serious the the seller can be aware - I doubt you were that clear because no one puts in an offer while being honest that it's just a punt they don't intend to stick to). Speculative offers for houses you don't actually intend to buy but want to keep as 'insurance' is pretty bad behaviour. Putting in additional offers after you've had one accepted is simply awful behaviour. Pull out of the purchase you've agreed if you don't want to buy it; don't just keep speculating until you maximise your position.

Also: lightning's post is perfectly clear. Being foreign isn't an excuse for being rude.

OP, you do actually make a few reasonable points. The system in England is far from ideal and could be improved.

However most of us 'play within the rules of the system', including the rules of fair play. We don't try to manipulate situations to get an unfair advantage, or try to get what we want by using a technical loophole.

You actions may be legally correct, but they are certainly not what most would call morally correct.

I honestly hope you soon get settled in your first home and are very happy there. But I am also grateful that I am not selling to an arrogant buyer like you appear to be.

StepAwayFromTheThesaurus:

It's not clear for my level of English, it's simply not for you to decide if it's clear or not to ME. And my level of English tells me "colloquial and hardly punctuated" has nothing to do with rudeness, if that's what you are referring to.

I don't know why you are so extreme. Putting multiple offers doesn't mean I have no intention to buy your house at X price. It means I like your house among others, but don't know which one(s) we can get, especially in London. Don't you understand that? Is it such a crime that your house is not the only house the buyer wants in the world? Why should saying "we want your house at X price" mean "we don't want any another house at all?"

As for your "bad behaviour" definition: 1)Putting down multiple offers simultaneously is not great but ok if you are open with them. We were very clear during negotiation, they accepted it. They are different sellers than you are, but please don't doubt it because it was things I did so I know better than you do.

2)"Speculative offers for houses you don't actually intend to buy but want to keep as 'insurance' is pretty bad behaviour." Self-Contradictory, insurance means if others fall though I will still buy it, no one want to put any offer on a house they are not interested in the least.

3. "putting in additional offers after you've had one accepted is simply awful behaviour" We didn't.

Your argument of buyers need no time to consider is so awful and arrogant. It's a very important decision, involves huge amount of money and is the place we are going to live in for a long time. And in a market like London properties are gone in a few days, yet you "expect" them to put all their eggs in your basket, while you got other eggs in your basket. You have answered my question, and to be honest I think you opinions are very hypocritical, inconsiderate, biased and selfish. You are probably very spoiled by a seller's market, but I have to say here, very genuinely, even if someone is going to report me, that I don't want to have anything to do with you as a person, even in real life. So I'm not relying to you anymore.

To Gazelda,

Well, in our last attempt we moved everything as quickly as possible, and were patient enough to wait for 4 months when told no chain. If you were indeed dealing with me you would find I'm not such a bad buyer, really.

OP - well, you have absolutely no idea of what a delay of 2 weeks might mean (even on the basis that it is 2 weeks). It might be that as a result of a 2 week delay, and starting the process from scratch again, they won't be in new house / area in time for school applications say, it might mean that their mortgage offer runs out and they have to re-apply (and their rate goes up or their circumstances have changed and they don't get a mortgage offer at all). The point is that you don't know what impact it has, none of us does, so dismissing any problems is naïve. Of course, it might not be that much of an inconvenience to the sellers, it might just be frustrating and cause no upset really, but you don't know that. And however you look at it, you are messing people about.

I'm not sure the OP cares about other people namechange.

By which I mean, I think she's bought into the supremely individualistic, dog-eat-dog aspects of the English property system. It's a shame the her original sellers weren't as upfront with her as they should have been (and also a shame that she didn't just walk away from the complex chain when she discovered it in February) because it seems to have encouraged her to not care about anyone else on the process.

Step I know, we had had 6 houses in 9 years before we bought our current house, so I know how frustrating / stressful it can be, particularly when you're trying to secure a house / flat you love (have been to sealed bids twice too!). The OP is right that the house buying process in England is less than ideal but I just think if you've had issues with other people messing you about, and you know how that feels, the last think you should be doing in going on to mess others about!

Thank goodness we're in our almost-forever house and I don't have to go through it!!

I totally agree with you.

We're buying what I would like to be our last house at the moment. It's such a horrible process (and we've been messed around by sellers too). I never want to do this again!

namechangedtoday15

I appreciate what you said, and I totally admit what I did was not ideal. But I feel that what you are suggesting here is, because those things you mentioned could happen (and even you admitted they might well not happen) to other people, we should faithfully make only one offer each time, despite the low odds it gets accepted, despite the high odds that other places we like get snapped up when the seller is considering it.(and all those awful things you mentioned happen to us). I'm just not that self-sacrificing.

I may have messed about people this time, but really just a little bit, and we tried hard to minimise the loss by getting back to them as soon as we could. I'm very surprised to find your people are so unforgiving. It's even more interesting to think that when I complained about our seller messing us about for four (now five) bl*dy months, I got replies like "oh that kind of things just happen""you have to accept any crap in a chain""we offered our house chain-free but that might change (that's simply shameless)". No one seemed to give a sht about our mortgage offer may expire, our child may miss the school application (well I don't have one), and we are being unreasonable to even negotiate any kind of compensation. You all assumed as we would still get that place then the giant delay was nothing, but when it comes to a seller, who you know damn well will get their nice property in London sold in a week time, that 3 days delay suddenly becomes a huge problem that I should try to avoid at my cost. That's just utter hypocrisy..