Confused can anyone explain property I am buying is empty but vendor is apparently now saying there is a chain?

[starpatch]

Hi wondering if anyone can throw some light. I am buying a property that is empty, selling my shared ownership flat to a first time buyer so thought I was in a very short chain. Property I am buying was buy to let, vendor has never lived there. I was ready to exchange but now solicitor states vendor says enquiries are not complete further up the chain. Wondering why this would be or has my solicitor just got mixed up? Thanks if anyone can explain. DS I has said good bye to his school friends so this happening now is not great.

Presumably your vendor is using the money from the sale to buy another property. The house being unoccupied doesn’t mean there isn’t a chain. I would ask your solicitor how many other properties are in the chain above you.

But vendor selling/receiving proceeds sooner surely isn’t a problem. OP is ready to go.

The house being occupied or not is wholly unrelated to whether or not there is a chain. The latter is about the sale proceeds being needed for another purchase.

But OP’s vendor doesn’t need to wait to buy another place before he/she can sell their BTL, surely?

Lucia that's what I would think. Thanks for the different perspective s.

If the BTL is in negative equity they will need the proceeds from another house to settle their mortgage.

He might be buying another and has to sell and buy on the same day (or very close together) to avoid an early repayment penalty on his new mortgage?

but OP vendor might need the money from the sale to fund a purchase?

OP I would check, it sounds like you've been told there's no chain when there is one. I hate the way it works with buying property.

Thanks the early repayment idea sounds possible. I know he is not in negative equity property has almost doubled in value.