Keeping for sale property on market after accepting an Offer

The Home Information packs involved sellers in expense and they had sell by dates as I understand it (I wasn’t a conveyancer).

Stamp duty is only paid by people buying houses over £250k. I would rather that than the lost revenue be paid by everyone, home owners or not. In 2023 it brought in £3.3bn of tax revenue.

£250k is well below average though, so most people will pay it on houses other than their first homes, which are exempt anyway, I think.

Sell by dates on packs makes sense, as they would need to cover guarantees, and things could go wrong after a survey was carried out. People would only get a survey when they were selling, so that wouldn't really matter in most cases, would it?

Yes, packs would involve expense for the seller, but they wouldn't have to pay for a survey on their purchase, so it's swings and roundabouts, I suppose.

W've only bought three houses ever, and the last was 25 years ago, so I'm speaking from memory of a time that may well be different from now, but from that perspective it does seem sensible to me for only one survey to be carried out on a property, rather than one for every interested party.

We're in the middle of this whole process again, and it's so stressful!

Last year, we found a property, and had our offer accepted, without having to go back and forth with negotiations. There was no chain on either side. We were cash buyers with proven funds in the bank. We agreed to pay a refundable 'holding deposit' to the EA, to show we were serious buyers, and the property was taken off the market.

We paid for the higher level survey as it was an older property, and due to some issues that were flagged in the report, we followed this with a structural engineer's survey. All at great expense. We decided to press on with the purchase. On the day before 'Exchange of Contracts', having transferred our deposit to our solicitor, an issue came to light with the Title Deeds and we were unable to exchange. I guess it should've been noticed much sooner by our solicitor, but thank goodness it was noticed before we exchanged. We decided to wait it out for this problem to be sorted with Land Registry Dept., which ended up taking months, during which time we had other obstacles with the vendor. At this point, with great disappointment, we decided it was all too much stress to continue, and we decided to pull out, losing a great deal of money already paid to solicitors, surveyor and structural engineer.

Now, here we are, going through the whole process again with another property! Solicitor deposit paid, surveyors fees paid (awaiting report). Once again, there is no chain, and the house is marked as 'Sold Subject to Contract'. However, reading all the stories here, it doesn't fill me with any kind of confidence in the whole house buying procedure.

What should be a happy, exciting time, looking forward to buying what we hope will be our future home during retirement, is filled with stress and dread that someone else could potentially come along and snatch it from us. I'll be so glad once we've actually exchanged contracts, at least then I'll feel a bit more confident that it's hopefully going to be ours one day! Fingers crossed!!

I hope it goes well, Nansnet. It is stressful, but will be worth it when you're in your new home.

Surely, once an offer has been accepted by the vendors and their solicitors informed, then it should be illegal to continue to have the property advertised.

I think the property should still be advertised to protect against people pulling out because of financing, surveys, etc. I know our holiday home was not sold until money actually changed accounts.

It's an old home on a beach way North of Norfolk - we brought our to builders have a look. Process worked as it should, many years ago, imo.

Labour indicated it would raise Stamp Duty for overseas purchasers by 2%

Overseas buyers already pay a 2% surcharge OldFrill. I wonder what effect doubling that might have.

Keeping the housing stock for people to actually live in? I'd like to see measures to stop Air B&Bs and holiday homes pushing prices up too. As well as pricing out locals and reducing people's chances of home ownership they reduce whole areas to the status of ghost towns out of season.

If you’re following on from the comments on foreign purchasers, there’s nothing to stop local people buying the properties they buy if they want to and can afford to. Foreign buyers don’t push up prices. The problem with holiday homes and Air Bnbs is caused by British people. Some local authorities are taking steps to stipulate that new homes must be owner-occupied and to clamp down on Air Bnbs.

Germanshepherdsmum

If you’re following on from the comments on foreign purchasers, there’s nothing to stop local people buying the properties they buy if they want to and can afford to. Foreign buyers don’t push up prices. The problem with holiday homes and Air Bnbs is caused by British people. Some local authorities are taking steps to stipulate that new homes must be owner-occupied and to clamp down on Air Bnbs.

I am not an "economics" wizard by a long shot but surely the housing stock being brought by anyone, foreign, Air BNB's or not, will put up the prices on the basis of supply and demand. The more demand the higher the price. So, property is demanded by international buyers and Air BnB Buyers it puts the prices up and local people may find that they don't have the income to get the mortgages to buy, especially as incomes have fallen and mortgage qualification has got tougher. I think we probably need to overhaul the way we do mortgages as well as other measures to allow youngsters to get on the ladder. It now takes a typical Londoner 30 years to save a deposit and get the income to qualify for a mortgage!

Foreign buyers and people with Air BnBs don’t create such demand as to put prices up.

I don’t know what you’re suggesting about mortgages, but nobody is going to get a mortgage if they don’t earn enough to make the repayments on top of paying the usual bills. And a deposit is essential - borrowing 100% of the purchase price can quickly lead to negative equity, as we have seen before. Even 95% is risky. Lenders are allowing longer mortgage terms - into your seventies - which lowers the repayments.

'Foreign' buyers who only want to live in the houses for a couple of weeks a year will, along with UK buyers with similar intentions, push out those who need somewhere to live and who (by dint of living in the area) keep villages and small towns in many areas alive when holiday makers depart. There are villages near me which used to be thriving communities from where people commuted since the traditional occupations declined, but now have no local shops, no school, no library and even the WI and Scouts have folded as there are so few residents. People arrive on Friday evenings and leave on Sunday, spend part of the summer there, and the rest of the year they are deserted. It self-fulfils, as the community that used to attract residents has disappeared, and often older people struggle to manage with no shop, Post Office or GP surgery for miles.

Yes, prices are high, but that is because the villages are pretty and there will always be people who can afford them, but most of them bring nothing to the local economy or to what used to be the community.

icanhandthemback

Germanshepherdsmum

If you’re following on from the comments on foreign purchasers, there’s nothing to stop local people buying the properties they buy if they want to and can afford to. Foreign buyers don’t push up prices. The problem with holiday homes and Air Bnbs is caused by British people. Some local authorities are taking steps to stipulate that new homes must be owner-occupied and to clamp down on Air Bnbs.

I am not an "economics" wizard by a long shot but surely the housing stock being brought by anyone, foreign, Air BNB's or not, will put up the prices on the basis of supply and demand. The more demand the higher the price. So, property is demanded by international buyers and Air BnB Buyers it puts the prices up and local people may find that they don't have the income to get the mortgages to buy, especially as incomes have fallen and mortgage qualification has got tougher. I think we probably need to overhaul the way we do mortgages as well as other measures to allow youngsters to get on the ladder. It now takes a typical Londoner 30 years to save a deposit and get the income to qualify for a mortgage!

I'm not an economics wizard either, however I see no advantage to a home remaining unsold to foreigners, or as AirB&B, holiday home, or rental. I can't work out why vacant is better?

Our holiday home was in poor condition, it's now lovely. Nobody was buying it, it was empty. We saw the future beauty hidden in it, accomplished the work and we or our children use it quite regularly.

Same as my rentals. Empty and derelict, now lovely family homes. I'm supplying a service to people who haven't purchased.

I've not put up prices -- nobody else was purchasing!

I'm not talking to mortgages, it's complicated, I'm no Banker.

There are countries which allow mortgages for the whole of your life and then your children can take them over. I think there are other ways if there was a will.

As for foreign buyer and Air BnB's, I think it depends on location as to whether it makes a difference; London and holiday resorts will have be impacted. According to the Royal Society of Economics, Foreign buyers don't put up the prices of the higher priced properties but has a trickle down effect at the lower end of the market...just the type of people who would struggle more.

I think you will find that foreign buyers mainly want to be in London. The people who own second homes in villages come from this country. I have such a neighbour on one side.

icanhandthemback

There are countries which allow mortgages for the whole of your life and then your children can take them over. I think there are other ways if there was a will.

As for foreign buyer and Air BnB's, I think it depends on location as to whether it makes a difference; London and holiday resorts will have be impacted. According to the Royal Society of Economics, Foreign buyers don't put up the prices of the higher priced properties but has a trickle down effect at the lower end of the market...just the type of people who would struggle more.

It is quite likely I'm incorrect. Perhaps it would be easier for some people to purchase if they expected a lesser home. Our own grown children, who were raised by exceedingly frugal parents, purchased first homes far surpassing anything we'd own. Our grandchildren? Moreso.

Germanshepherdsmum

I think you will find that foreign buyers mainly want to be in London. The people who own second homes in villages come from this country. I have such a neighbour on one side.

I'm sure you're right, but I'm not sure how that contradicts what I am saying. Someone mentioned 'foreign' buyers paying more, you asked how increasing that would help housing stock. I said that I would like to see a deterrent to people from outside an area (be they 'foreign' or just 'incomers' ) who don't live there but use the houses a few weeks of the year, and gave reasons why.

Germanshepherdsmum

I think you will find that foreign buyers mainly want to be in London. The people who own second homes in villages come from this country. I have such a neighbour on one side.

I believe buying next to you in East Anglia - by the sea or elsewhere, is just based on who wants to live there? If not, each house on the market would stay empty rather than selling.

Actually I simply wondered what effect (without specifying on what) raising the stamp duty surcharge paid by foreign buyers from 2% to 4% might have. I don’t think it will make the slightest difference to the availability or price of houses. It will just put money in the coffers. I wouldn’t be in favour of people from one area facing restrictions on buying a second home in another. I don’t like to see choice removed. I’m sure if you have to live in London for work it would be lovely to have a place in the countryside to escape to.

Germanshepherdsmum

Actually I simply wondered what effect (without specifying on what) raising the stamp duty surcharge paid by foreign buyers from 2% to 4% might have. I don’t think it will make the slightest difference to the availability or price of houses. It will just put money in the coffers. I wouldn’t be in favour of people from one area facing restrictions on buying a second home in another. I don’t like to see choice removed. I’m sure if you have to live in London for work it would be lovely to have a place in the countryside to escape to.

I agree. We should all have choices.

Stamp duty surcharge would perhaps be a good idea, no difference to foreigners (or holiday home buyers come to that).

I really see no difference between holiday homes and park homes, apart from I'd rather not have park home restrictions/ rules/ prices - nobody seems to object to 2nd home park holiday homes.

That’s true.

People like me retiring to popular holiday areas push prices up - we are usually downsizing, mortgage free and can afford to pay more. North Norfolk is very popular with retired people, as are many other areas. At least we live here all the time and contribute to the local economy, but it’s certainly the case that house prices have increased as a result. The house we live in is a rebuild of a small 60s bungalow in a village with a large garden which would probably have suited many local people if they could cope with the lack of facilities and transport - but an architect bought it and totally rebuilt it, knowing it would sell easily. Great for us, but not for the locals.

I really see no difference between holiday homes and park homes, apart from I'd rather not have park home restrictions/ rules/ prices - nobody seems to object to 2nd home park holiday homes.
😂

There are so many differences that I can't believe you mean that. For one thing, holiday parks are not second homes - the land belongs to the park owners. They are not taking anything from communities - in fact they add to the economy of towns and villages by bringing in people who shop locally. Even if everyone brings their own food with them when they visit, when they go home they are not leaving part of a community empty and reducing the chances that a school or community centre, a knitting group or Rotary Club will fold for lack of people to keep it going.

I have often posted about the fact that we have such a place - a lodge on a holiday park - and said that we bought it at least in part because we don't believe in leaving second homes empty for most of the year. I will take this opportunity to repeat my advice that they (lodges/caravans on holiday parks) are not a good buy, but they are not remotely the same as houses in what used to be communities.

Many park homes can be occupied all year round. Buying one such as a holiday home would prevent some from buying it as their permanent home. They are usually very cheap to buy, so would suit many who are not well off.

Nope. Park home sites are not the same as holiday parks. They operate under very different sets of rules. Also, residential park homes are not like trailer parks in the US - many of the homes cost hundreds of thousands, and the residents are part of the local communities, working there, using facilities and keeping communities alive.

Poke at me as much as you like - it's water off a duck's back. All I said was that I would like to see the acquisition of second homes being discouraged in a housing crisis. I stand by that, whether those acquiring them are 'foreign' or not.

Doodledog

*I really see no difference between holiday homes and park homes, apart from I'd rather not have park home restrictions/ rules/ prices - nobody seems to object to 2nd home park holiday homes.*
😂

There are so many differences that I can't believe you mean that. For one thing, holiday parks are not second homes - the land belongs to the park owners. They are not taking anything from communities - in fact they add to the economy of towns and villages by bringing in people who shop locally. Even if everyone brings their own food with them when they visit, when they go home they are not leaving part of a community empty and reducing the chances that a school or community centre, a knitting group or Rotary Club will fold for lack of people to keep it going.

I have often posted about the fact that we have such a place - a lodge on a holiday park - and said that we bought it at least in part because we don't believe in leaving second homes empty for most of the year. I will take this opportunity to repeat my advice that they (lodges/caravans on holiday parks) are not a good buy, but they are not remotely the same as houses in what used to be communities.

Actually, I did mean what I said.

The land, either in a holiday park or "under" a holiday home, is the valuable bit, the part that holds value, doesn't depreciate - rather appreciates.

I can assume people are split on taking food to holiday parks /lodges or bringing from home - I've no idea. I cook at home and haul food with us, but I also shop in the little village.

I can't speak to good buys, our holiday home (3 actually we've sold 2 and redone others) has cost quite a sum over 40 years. Sunk funds.