Hi all,

Long story short, the missus & I are in the process of buying a house after looking for a long while – we’re concluding the missives but the sellers solicitor is insisting on deleting some of the standard clauses (3, 8 & 15) – our solicitor says it isn’t uncommon for some solicitors to do this as a matter of course to protect themselves & their clients from any unforeseen problems down the line, however we’re now wondering why they’re insisting on this.

To give a bit of background it’s an old terraced building circa 1850-ish which had been extensively modernised in the early 1980s when the original layout had been divided into 2 x 3 bed houses with an extension out the back, since then it’s been apparently well maintained & upgraded along the way – some treatment to roof timbers for woodworm (seen this & it’s a small area which has been treated & has 20-odd years left of a guarantee with all paperwork) & some of the downstairs flooring was replaced due to damp (again, with receipts for replacing joists & flooring).

The place is immaculate & all the paperwork for work & alterations / architects drawings / completion certificates are available which our solicitors seem happy with but there’s still a nagging doubt about deleting the clauses – the couple selling couldn’t have been nicer (police officer & teacher with a couple of kids) so we don’t think they’re trying to pull a flanker & the place is about to collapse, so I’m wondering if anyone else has had experience of this – especially if you’re in any of the related professions… we were the first viewers & there was a high level of interest in the place so are the solicitors playing hardball just because they know it’ll sell in a minute if they re-advertise?

Just got the wedding out of the way & want this done & dusted ASAP so I can spend some quality time with the other significant others in my life, the metal ones (no, not a sex robot)

Cheers!
John

missives – in Scotland?

What are the standard clauses? What do they say?

Speak directly to the sellers. Tell them their lawyers are being unreasonable and that to be able to get on with this they need to remind their lawyers that this is about completing the sale and not scoring points.

And, if they side with their lawyers, tell them the deal’s off.

Hey, yep in Scotland – basically the clauses involved relate to (3) guarantees in place relating to remedial works done to the property (8) alterations to the layout etc. (15) title conditions relating to boundaries / communal areas / shared access etc. (no burdens were noted)

We’re thinking that the sellers solicitors are just distancing themselves from any work that was completed prior to them buying the property (prior to the current owners, the place was owned by a guy who now owns a huge mansion in the village & during his ownership there was a fair bit of money spent – really nice finish throughout…)

J

Your solicitor works for you, not theirs. Take their professional advice on these deletions and follow it, surely?

Surely your solicitors should do their job and advise you! IANAL but would have thought clauses should stay, and sellers simply purchase an indemnity to cover any potential future problems.

Pretty sure I did this when selling a house that had old alterations which hadn’t been properly approved back in the olden days. No clause and no indemnity means risk is yours if there are future planning issues raised etc.

Our solicitor contacted theirs requesting the clauses be reinstated but they’re reluctant to budge – the partner in the firm is away at present but we’ll get him on Monday & see what he thinks. We really like the place & have been looking for a while now – everything’s gone smoothly up until now but tbh this has raised some doubts – we aren’t in a chain so are ready to conclude anytime which you’d think would be more beneficial to the seller than re-advertising over changing the standard clauses with the risk that the next buyer does the same, or their sale falls though etc etc… bit of a pain in the hoop – might pop round tomorrow & sound them out to try and see where their reasoning lies regarding the clauses, or if it’s just their solicitors being arsey… or do their solicitors think there’s a potential problem down the line & are covering their arses? 😐

Can you take out an indemnity policy to cover you for the liability resulting from the deletion of the clauses?

Standard clauses seem to spend a lot of time being deleted. When its happened to me in the past I’ve asked why. Stating that either they gave a sensible reasoned answer or reinstated them.

Edit: It might be that they just don’t apply

If your Solicitor can see no good reason why they’re being removed, and confirm to you that they just don’t apply, I’d be very wary…

It isn’t uncommon at all.

Often the problem is that the clause warrants something, but the seller has no knowledge from before they owned the house. In that scenario, you can remove the standard clause and have a binding declaration that “to the best of our knowledge…” or “we are not aware of…” so you’ve still got the sellers if they pull a fast one, but they aren’t responsible for things they don’t know about.

The solicitor I used last time would rant about this – some solicitors do it by default which defeats the purpose of the standard clauses.

Standard documents are generic templates to be amended to suit particular transactions . I always consider whether the standard reflects the reality and amend to avoid promising what I won’t deliver or asserting what I don’t know or indeed bits I simply don’t agree with . Speak to your lawyer is the clause relevant to your transaction is it important to you , can a alternative be agreed does the risk created by the deletion become a deal breaker ?
Neither solicitor is being an arse just doing their jobs of protecting clients who actually have potentially conflicting interests.

Cheers for the responses people – we’ve certainly no reason to think there’s anything untoward, just wanted a few opinions on the matter as we haven’t much experience in this area – all upgrades / changes etc to the property were carried out before the sellers bought it, so I can understand why their solicitors are removing clauses relating to those, will speak again to our solicitors on Monday to have them explain it from their angle.

Cheers!
J

To me it isn’t unreasonable. It would be unreasonable to ask for garentees on many this on an old house.

Sometimes this is just careful people being careful because they did not do the modifications, sometimes it’s shonkies trying to offload a problem.

Can you insure against there being a problem? eg get a building surveyor to inspect properly, ie not a eyeball once over?

A sales contract is part of a negotiation, the sellers are not obliged to leave anything in and you are not obliged to accept it. You should ask your solicitor what the risks are and then make your own commercial decision.

On the other hand, the seller might simply not to able to guarantee the first two clauses? If they haven’t been there for 20 years they can’t necessarily guarantee that they know of all alterations, and as they’re not structural engineers they cannot guarantee remedial work.

FWIW my solicitor struck off similar items last year when we sold up. Sale went through no problem

If you trust your lawyer, follow their advice. If you don’t trust them, find a new lawyer

My house was built in 1890, how can I possibly warrant every alteration that may have taken place on it? There is no record of the original footprint and the Deeds say bugger all about anything. The right of way across a neighbours house is undocumented as are who owns which fence etc. So I can see why they’d want the clauses removed, their solicitor probably insists on it.