Another stealth tax???

[John Galt]

Anything that is "fixed", ie unchangeable over period of time (which can be small as when house is on sale it can have lots of interested parties over short period of time) should be paid once and for all rather than have buyers pay it more than once: its inefficiency in the system that only benefits parasites that provide no added value.

But this has just passed the burden of the survey costs from the buyer to the seller - if we adopted the Scottish system so there was no chance of gazzumping the cost would only be paid once.

[MrsGoof]

But this has just passed the burden of the survey costs from the buyer to the seller .

Except that the level of the Survey may be only the simplist and least probong of the building.

I Certainly would not jsut accept this. I'd always want a survey that said more that 'I looks Ok from across the road"

I don't thik this wil stop gazzumping either, it willjust speed up gazzumpig as potential buyers will have more informatino to hand immediatly so can get their fat contractor walletts and upset the poorer peopl;e in society.


Note to pedants: I know I can't type and spell at the same time

[Fungus]

They have them in Denmark. Wish I'd read mine a bit closer and got the conversion from hectares to acres the right way round. Wanted a big garden, ended up buying a big farm (came with staff luckily).

I assume you got "Droits de seigneur"?

[Fungus]

I'm not keen. Not many buyers would trust a survey commissioned by the seller. And nor would the lender. So they will have to commission their own. And if the house takes time to sell, the original survey could be a year or more out of date. So a new one would be needed.

But it does have the advantage that the house will not go on the market without some assurance that it is okay. I had to sell my late mother's house, and the first buyer pulled out when his house failed the survey after he had found a buyer.

I agree that Gazumping laws are needed. Apparently you can drop out of a sale right up until you exchange contracts.

[sunnysan]

Its great

Well they are OK in principle

So Tony,.....

Under you we have eroded civil liberties, turned a foreign reserve surplus into a deficit, bloated public services with no improvement, disincentivised eutrapeneurship, increased taxes by stealth, involved us an illegal war, let crime increase..... BUT .... we now have HIP so everything is OK. Thanks dude

[AtW]

But this has just passed the burden of the survey costs from the buyer to the seller

Which is perfectly logical because seller has got same real estate that many buyers may want.

[bogeyman]

They have them in Denmark. Wish I'd read mine a bit closer and got the conversion from hectares to acres the right way round. Wanted a big garden, ended up buying a big farm (came with staff luckily).

Well, who else could buy a farm by accident?

Do you race your 'lambos' around a dirt track like that lottery-winning 'king of chavs' ?

You're so full of sh17 it hurts

[OwlHoot]

I'm not keen. Not many buyers would trust a survey commissioned by the seller. And nor would the lender. So they will have to commission their own. And if the house takes time to sell, the original survey could be a year or more out of date. So a new one would be needed.

But it does have the advantage that the house will not go on the market without some assurance that it is okay. I had to sell my late mother's house, and the first buyer pulled out when his house failed the survey after he had found a buyer.

I agree that Gazumping laws are needed. Apparently you can drop out of a sale right up until you exchange contracts.

You can drop out right up to completion, except that once contracts have been exchanged if the purchasor drops out then they generally lose their deposit.

[Joe Black]

Gazumping...

Actually the only law that needs to be passed is the one that makes accepting a verbal offer binding.

Its just a joke how you can spend so much time in trying to buy a house only to have the owner turn around at a seconds notice to say they are selling to someone else.

Agree. If they wanted to do something useful re the housing market, it wouldn't be some gimmicky brochure, which you might end up having to pay someone else to verify in the first place, it would be to reform the whole gazumping, conditional offers, dependant upon financing b*llocks in the UK.

[Pondlife]

My £0.02

The idea of a seller having to prove that their house is worth what they're selling it for is a good thing. Buyers have far more security in getting the ridiculous mortgage they need to buy the place if it’s already been surveyed. It of course won’t stop gazzumping unless we adopt the Scottish system but it doesn’t look likely at the moment.

The problem is that the ‘just drove past and had a quick look’ survey will only be based on recent prices of homes sold in that postcode and will have no real reflection on the condition of the home, so the more conscientious buyer will still get their own survey anyway.


Just my £0.02 though.