# The Ups and Downs ...mainly Downs..of selling a flat.



## RogerS (5 Feb 2020)

So, you're thinking about selling your late mothers' flat, eh ? You've found a buyer..a lovely 80-year old lady who already has a friend living in the same residential block of flats. And she's found a buyer...what was that? He made and had the offer accepted back in October. Exchange in two weeks. Silly, not those two weeks...the next two weeks.. oops, wrong again. Trying to get the money together. Commercial loan here. Money from abroad there. I told the estate agents - Foxtons - this stinks.

Lovely old lady hoping to be in before Christmas. Which comes. And goes. Finally we all exchange Jan 2. Completion Jan 27. Lovely old lady packs her house up. And two days before completion, said plonker-man says 'Not got the money in place...can't complete'. Poor lady. All set to go. Lunch with her friend booked in her new home the next day. Not going to happen. I really do feel sorry for her. She's a lovely old dear.

So plonker-man who, as it now seems, has an aunt who works for an overseas bank and would like to send me £10,000,000 from my long lost uncle who I never knew I had says "I'll have it in place for Feb 5". That's today. Lovely old lady all packed up and ready to move. Again. Only.....plonker-man hasn't got the money in place. Evasive as hell.

Completion now scheduled for Feb 19. Actually we're forcing the issue now and have issued a Notice to Complete. If it doesn't happen then we get her deposit and she gets his. £80,000 worth from plonker-man. Part of me hopes it does fall through. 

Oh, what was that ? The deposit money ? As of yesterday, it hadn't come through apparently. News to me. Our solicitor certainly never mentioned it. Well, I never..always thought exchange of contract and getting a deposit went hand in hand. Apparently not. You live and learn. (Stop press..it actually came today to the lovely old ladies solicitors). Did I mention that I thought the whole deal stank ?

So ...three questions. Why didn't plonker-man's solicitors carry out due-diligence vis a vis where the funds were coming from, money-laundering, proof of ID etc ? Doesn't look like they did.

Why didn't Foxton's carry out due diligence as to whether or not plonker-man had the funds for the purchase ?

And why am I drinking so much ?


----------



## marcros (5 Feb 2020)

Brings back bad memories. We had a similar thing a few years back, day before exchange and completion the buyer decides he has no money because he has spent it. Estate agent said that because they knew him they had assumed he was good for it.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (5 Feb 2020)

Well.

How to put this?

Professionals wear suits. The reason that they wear suits is because they want to attract an air of respectability, project gravitas, dignity and morality. They want to lie, in other words. Non-professionals (such as estate agents) like to put on the uniform in order to gain the gravitas they feel they need.

If someone is wearing a suit, he is lying to you.

My apologies to anyone reading this who wears a suit habitually. 

What I can guarantee in Roger's tale of woe is that,no matter who is at fault, and where the blame lies, and what checks were not made, the professionals will all get their fees (with the exception of the estate agents, who live in a complicated world of "nearly professional").


----------



## lurker (5 Feb 2020)

I am trying to buy a bungalow.
Vendor is one of these firms that give you cash in return for your house when you snuff it.

They wanted to complete in 20 days including Christmas holiday period. Obviously we told them to get lost. Finally got from them the papers this week (remember it was them who wanted to fast track). Deeds, titles and all important stuff was completely unreadable as it was a photocopy, of a photocopy, of a, of a.
They seem to think they are above usual formalities for house sales.
I would be pretty “annoyed “ with the estate agents but they are all scum so only to be expected, I suppose.
We may pull out ........... but we certainly are not paying what we originally offered.


----------



## Steliz (5 Feb 2020)

Trainee neophyte":29dnkawx said:


> If someone is wearing a suit, he is lying to you.
> 
> My apologies to anyone reading this who wears a suit habitually.



Do you generalise much?

If you have time to write an apology after an insult then just delete the insult instead.


----------



## lurker (5 Feb 2020)

As a retired chartered professional, and looking back.
I only wore a suit for meetings and conferences, which were essentially a waste of my talents.
So I guess it was all a con the days when I wore a suit.


----------



## lurker (5 Feb 2020)

Steliz":27s6kfxp said:


> Trainee neophyte":27s6kfxp said:
> 
> 
> > If someone is wearing a suit, he is lying to you.
> ...



He may have generalised a bit but he is not far wrong.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (5 Feb 2020)

Steliz":22nwxq9m said:


> Trainee neophyte":22nwxq9m said:
> 
> 
> > If someone is wearing a suit, he is lying to you.
> ...



I worded that badly: what I meant to say was if you are offended by what I said, that is unfortunate.

Is that better?

Perhaps you can disabuse me of my jaundice world view: do you have any examples of people who wear suits, who are also worthy, honest, upstanding members? Clergy? Undertakers? Chartered accountants? Most accountants I know don't even wear ties, let alone suits.

Edit: should I mention that a significant proportion of my family are in the legal profession. I consider myself reasonably well qualified to judge, in a sweeping generalisation sort of way.


----------



## sunnybob (5 Feb 2020)

Many years ago I bought leasehold shop. My lawyer agrred the lease and gave me a copy. After reading it I threw it back at him. There were clauses in the lease that would have specifically stopped me trading. He hadnt noticed. (nice suit though)

Years later when I sold the business (same lawyer, newer suit), he cost me thousands because he didnt inform me of my tax liablities.
Have you ever tried to sue a lawyer? Dont bother. (hammer) (hammer) :roll: 

More recently, exactly the same situation as the first post. my wifes mothers small flat is for sale. the man in the suit went though the same as above, after 4 months delay, we cancelled the agreement and decided to leave it rented. Another 4 months and the man comes back like he's only been gone a day and wants to buy and our solicitors (different firm, same tailoring quality) cant understand why we are fuming because they were not aware we had cancelled.
We did eventually sell, but I rode shotgun over every step of it and NOTHING got done until money was paid.

I can see this post going the same way as the last two rants, so fair warning, I'm not coming back to this one, but no, I dont trust people who dress smarter than me and want to talk money.


----------



## RogerS (5 Feb 2020)

sunnybob":1610s4w3 said:


> ...
> Have you ever tried to sue a lawyer? Dont bother. (hammer) (hammer) :roll: ....



I have. I won.


----------



## Steve Maskery (5 Feb 2020)

I used to wear a suit. It was a very long time ago and I was not in the legal or financial trades. Software company. But I always did my job to the best of my ability.
I'm not at all certain I still possess a suit. If I do, I probably can't get into it...


----------



## SammyQ (5 Feb 2020)

I wore a suit most days of my working life. I never sold anything, nor mis-interpreted the law. It was expected, indeed, rigorously enforced, by my immediate superiors for the first two decades of my career. 

Thanks T.N. 

Sam


----------



## powertools (5 Feb 2020)

Steliz":hdq40bmw said:


> Trainee neophyte":hdq40bmw said:
> 
> 
> > If someone is wearing a suit, he is lying to you.
> ...



I would assume that the fact that you seem upset by what TN said you wear a suit and are a professional of some sort.
I also assume that you intended to say ( If you dont have time to write an apology after an insult then just delete the insult instead) the fact that you didnt kind of proves the his point.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (5 Feb 2020)

sunnybob":3mnqrted said:


> Years later when I sold the business (same lawyer, newer suit), he cost me thousands because he didnt inform me of my tax liablities.



Surely that would be up to your accountant not your lawyer?


----------



## SBJ (5 Feb 2020)

So many hard done by people with chips on their shoulders. There are as many conmen and fraudsters who don't wear suits as wear them.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


----------



## Terry - Somerset (5 Feb 2020)

Ipsos MORI Veracity Index 2019 - trust in professionals:


At the top 86%+ - nurses, doctors, dentists, teachers, engineers 
In the middle - professors, judges, police, civil servants, clergy
Playing catch up - politicians 14%, govt ministers 17%, estate agents 30%, business leaders 35%

No listing for solicitors or chartered accountants but may not be that different to business leaders. We could probably all have guessed this anyway!

Interesting that those at the top of the list mostly don't wear suits, but all those at the bottom do.


----------



## stuartpaul (5 Feb 2020)

SammyQ":2my5w86x said:


> I wore a suit most days of my working life. I never sold anything, nor mis-interpreted the law. It was expected, indeed, rigorously enforced, by my immediate superiors for the first two decades of my career.
> 
> Thanks T.N.
> 
> Sam


Don’t worry Sam, - I suspect T-N’s somewhat remote grasp on reality has slipped (again).


----------



## RogerS (5 Feb 2020)

SBJ":1y88jhfp said:


> So many hard done by people with chips on their shoulders. There are as many conmen and fraudsters who don't wear suits as wear them.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk



Yup. Vegans get _such_ a bum deal.


----------



## RogerS (5 Feb 2020)

Terry - Somerset":3i9f7m4i said:


> Ipsos MORI Veracity Index 2019 - trust in professionals:
> 
> 
> At the top 86%+ - nurses, doctors, dentists, teachers, engineers
> ...




Um...maybe. Not sure if Dr Shipman or Dr Paterson wore suits ?

Now how did we get from an old lady being mucked about to suits ?


----------



## RogerS (5 Feb 2020)

The key thing that I took away from this whole sorry event....sale of the flat..not the thread ..was that Exchange of Contract and the actual deposit are not concomitant. I always thought that they were.


----------



## Blackswanwood (6 Feb 2020)

Roger, it isn’t unusual for the sellers solicitor to have not received deposit funds prior to exchange. The buyers solicitor would (or should not) have exchanged without cleared funds to cover any required deposit being in their possession. The solicitors usually provide undertakings which are legally enforceable to avoid slowing things down. This link gives a pretty good explanation of how it all works

https://www.theadvisory.co.uk/conveyanc ... ompletion/

Personally I would not rely on an estate agent confirming funding is available. It is just too easy for an unscrupulous buyer to pull the wool over their eyes.

It’s a shame that this post has gravitated to a massive generalisation implying that various professions and people wearing suits are of dubious character. I generally enjoy this forum as a keen hobbyist woodworker who wears a suit and has not ripped anyone off in approaching 40 years of being a member of a profession.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (6 Feb 2020)

A few thoughts for those who seem troubled by my sweeping statement.

Firstly, I spent the first six or seven years of my career wearing some very expensive, very sharp suits. I gave up both the suits and the career when its morally reprehensible nature became apparent. That's just me. You get to make your own evaluation of your own circumstances. 

Secondly, ask yourself what, exactly a suit is. From the ever-reliable Wikipedia:


> The current styles, founded in the industrial revolution during the late 18th century, sharply changed the elaborately embroidered and jewelled formal clothing into the simpler clothing of the British Regency period, which gradually evolved to the stark formality of the Victorian era. In the late 19th century, it was in the search for more comfort that the loosening of rules gave rise to the modern lounge suit.



So a suit is hankering back to British Regency, Empire national dress, which always amuses me when I see national world leaders sporting their British Empire-apeing apparel. All those associations of fair play, decency, honesty and stiff-upper-lip Britishness is wrapped up in the class warfare of the humble business suit. The toner cartridge salesman and the old Etonian are inextricably linked by it.

Now all of this nonsense I am positing is just a hypothesis - I am comfortable with it as a sweeping generalisation, but feel free to test my hypothesis, to destriction if need be. I am not wedded to it as a concept, and I am happy to be shown examples of real-world exceptions - there must be some out there, surely.

Finally, and at a tangent, I came across this website last night: https://swprs.org/media-navigator/

It is a Swiss (and therefore independent?) organisation, and rates media/news outlets based on their political bias, but also their connection to power. Interesting stuff. See how "independent" the people you get your "truth" from really are, and more fun, have a look at some of the actually independent news outlets, some of which you may never have heard from. There will be some mad conspiracy theory ideas in there too, but that is half the fun.

All of the above boils down to: "What are they really trying to say to me?" , and "What am I really trying to say to them?"

To quote Brian, "You have to work it out for yourselves. You are all individuals."


----------



## Irish Rover (6 Feb 2020)

"If someone is wearing a suit, he is lying to you."

I spoke to a man in a suit the other day and asked him the time. 3.20pm was his reply.
Checking that on my own timekeeping device I found him to be telling the truth.

There you go, didn't take long to show you a real world exception that disproves your idiotic statement did it?
(homer)


----------



## lurker (6 Feb 2020)

Irish Rover":i3vz2qzk said:


> "If someone is wearing a suit, he is lying to you."
> 
> I spoke to a man in a suit the other day and asked him the time. 3.20pm was his reply.
> Checking that on my own timekeeping device I found him to be telling the truth.
> ...



I am trying to get my head around why you accosted a besuited stranger to ascertain the time when you already possessed means to do so about your person.


----------



## Lons (6 Feb 2020)

I wore a suit for the majority of my working life, I had a choice, wear one or choose a different profession. I was in sales then management and can honestly say I never ripped anyone off just as I didn't after starting my own business and ditching the suits.

There are times when imo it's still necessary to show respect and wear a suit such as this week when attending the funeral of my 45 year old niece, was I hypocritical or a liar during that time? Of course not!
There's nothing wrong with suits only with some of the people who wear them and those individuals will have the same character whatever they wear.. They can be viewed as a type of uniform little different than those worn by nurses and policemen so I find those kind of sweeping statements pathetic and a joke.

Brings back memories of when I was doing a C&G 7307 initial teaching qualification. One of the lecturers was a psychiatrist and as I had just finished a teaching session I was still wearing a tie which was a stipulation of the college even though I was freelance and part time. 
She was dressed as many people would draw a cartoon character shrink if asked, wide billowing flowery dress, leather sandals, wild unruly curly hair, a large lady with no make up. She forcefully suggested that I had no need to wear a tie and should refuse and defy the rules, went further saying that applied to anyone in any type of work and everyone should be like her and wear the same for work as she did hanging around the house. 
It developed into an heated argument where I told her if she came to me for an interview looking as she did she wouldn't get past the door. Would I trust her? What do you think? :roll:

I passed that section of the 7307 with flying colours which was a bit of a surprise.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (6 Feb 2020)

I remember working the door of a very busy public bar in the '70s - we didn't allow in anyone in jeans or trainers, and anyone who had even the smallest visible tattoo. Times change.


----------



## SBJ (6 Feb 2020)

RogerS":3auzn9z0 said:


> SBJ":3auzn9z0 said:
> 
> 
> > So many hard done by people with chips on their shoulders. There are as many conmen and fraudsters who don't wear suits as wear them.
> ...


Ive no idea what you're talking about[GRINNING FACE WITH SMILING EYES][GRINNING FACE WITH SMILING EYES][GRINNING FACE WITH SMILING EYES]

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


----------



## Steliz (6 Feb 2020)

powertools":mlhlsens said:


> Steliz":mlhlsens said:
> 
> 
> > Trainee neophyte":mlhlsens said:
> ...



You make a lot of assumptions.


----------



## Student (6 Feb 2020)

Re the above comment that "I spoke to a man in a suit the other day and asked him the time. 3.20pm was his reply”, the name of the man in the suit wasn’t Eccles by any chance?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tjHlFPTwVk

Sorry, off topic.


----------



## Irish Rover (6 Feb 2020)

Student":1cpbf6y3 said:


> Re the above comment that "I spoke to a man in a suit the other day and asked him the time. 3.20pm was his reply”, the name of the man in the suit wasn’t Eccles by any chance?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tjHlFPTwVk
> 
> Sorry, off topic.



Haha, I didn't ask his name, I was preoccupied with the time.


----------



## Irish Rover (6 Feb 2020)

lurker":ogf4aqu7 said:


> Irish Rover":ogf4aqu7 said:
> 
> 
> > "If someone is wearing a suit, he is lying to you."
> ...




Lucky for us that I did, because if I hadn't this craziness would have gone unchecked


----------



## RogerS (6 Feb 2020)

Can we get back on topic....not that there was one..well, there was ..sort of.

So far I've learned that :-

1) deposits don't need to be part of the exchange of contract.

2) That estate agents are supposed to check that funds are available.

3) That the buyers solicitors are supposed to check that the funds are available and not from dodgy sources.

4) That solicitors close ranks as it was my solicitor who alerted me to (3) . I asked for confirmation ...buried away in an email on other things but no reply.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (7 Feb 2020)

If that were the case, why didn't you look at your own watch first, then?


----------



## Trainee neophyte (7 Feb 2020)

RogerS":398uxnum said:


> Can we get back on topic....not that there was one..well, there was ..sort of.
> 
> So far I've learned that :-
> 
> ...



I seem to remember, many years ago, that I exchanged contracts even without the deposit in place, because I told my solicitor that the funds were on their way. Honest! Cheque in the post, sort of thing. Of course, that was Truro, where business is by word of mouth and trust and "my word is my bond", and the town where mortgage fraud was invented, by a solicitor, obviously.


----------



## Lons (7 Feb 2020)

Trainee neophyte":yudyprpw said:


> the town where mortgage fraud was invented, by a solicitor, obviously.



That's uncalled for and pathetic TN. :roll: 

I have no connections with any solicitors and have had the usual frustrations over the length of time they take and their costs but otherwise absolutely no issues. I have no doubt that there are bad ones as well as good but that's equally true across all professions and sectors of society.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (7 Feb 2020)

Having dealt with a couple of hopeless solicitors (senior partners :shock: ) in Truro that doesn't surprise me.
I remember that solicitor, I knew his mistress. Not in a biblical sense.


----------



## HappyHacker (7 Feb 2020)

I have used a variety of solicitors and there have been excellent, good, bad, lazy and incompetent as with any other profession or cross section of the population. 

For most of my working life I have worn a suit, a requirement of the job, but it did not make me dishonest and I have met many dishonest people who did not wear suits. My current solicitor does not wear a suit and he is one of the better ones.

But we all get prejudices based on our own experiences so I cannot say any of the opinions above are not justified in the experience of the authors but we also have to accept that our experiences my not be typical.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (7 Feb 2020)

Lons":1pc353yc said:


> Trainee neophyte":1pc353yc said:
> 
> 
> > the town where mortgage fraud was invented, by a solicitor, obviously.
> ...



That wasn't (just) a dig at solicitors: we were all very proud in the late 80's to be the town that put mortgage fraud front and centre - as far as I am aware it had never been done before, at least not the the extent perpetrated by the much-liked, county-town solicitor who's name completely escapes me. He ran off to Spain and lived in exile for many years, before recently coming back to face the music because his mum was ill, if I recall correctly. Bizarrely, I can't find anything about it on the internet, but then this was around 1986-7, I think - we didn't do digital in those days. It was all very exciting and salacious at the time, and I knew just about all the bank and building society managers, who had all been taken in, and sent a great deal of money out in error. Apparently building society cheques were still arriving weeks after he had run off to avoid the rozzers. Truro doesn't have a great deal else to be proud of, or at least it didn't at the time. I haven't been back for many years - perhaps they have a new antihero now?


----------



## Trainee neophyte (7 Feb 2020)

phil.p":1fa6aatt said:


> Having dealt with a couple of hopeless solicitors (senior partners :shock: ) in Truro that doesn't surprise me.
> I remember that solicitor, I knew his mistress. Not in a biblical sense.



But what was his name? Completely lost in the mists of time, and it is really annoying me now!

"I remember that solicitor, I knew his mistress". That is pure poetry.


----------



## whiskywill (7 Feb 2020)

HappyHacker":3j9d0aag said:


> I have met many dishonest people who did not wear suits. My current solicitor does not wear a suit and he is one of the better ones.



What? A better dishonest person?


----------



## HappyHacker (7 Feb 2020)

whiskywill":1thqo8xm said:


> HappyHacker":1thqo8xm said:
> 
> 
> > I have met many dishonest people who did not wear suits. My current solicitor does not wear a suit and he is one of the better ones.
> ...



Not one of my better attempts at English, I have only been learning for 69 years. Must try better  

To clarify: he is one of the better honest and hard working solicitors. I get emails from him at 10:00 at night and he does not take most afternoons off


----------



## RogerS (7 Feb 2020)

Seeing where this thread has morphed to I guess I must be thankful that Jacob hasn't stumbled across it !


----------



## Trainee neophyte (8 Feb 2020)

RogerS":4ccxxdwq said:


> Seeing where this thread has morphed to I guess I must be thankful that Jacob hasn't stumbled across it !



I would like to take this opportunity to apologise. If I delete my first post, will it get back to the topic in hand? 

However, this was always going to be a critique of professionals, as they are the only way to transfer asset ownership - if it is complicated, inefficient and incompetent, you have to blame the people owning the system. How hard should it be? You own asset X, and want to sell it to the other chap for amount y. How many layers of protection, legislation and parasitic intersessions do you need in order to make the deal? What ever happened to caveat emptor? Everyone has an opinion about how to stop stupid people from doing stupid things, as if stupid people should be protected from their stupidity. This would be fine, except that all this "protection" just adds layers of bureaucracy, complication and fuss, and ensures the employment of lots of people, who may or may not assist in protecting you from yourself, but will certainly have quite high fees. Some of these defenders of the public may even wear suits, but that is an extraneous argument. 

Getting back to your initial issue - exchange of contracts without all terms of the contracts being in place, someone has failed in their duty. Much to the suprise of anyone in a suit, it will be the asset owner, or the asset buyer, who pays for this failure. At no point will the professional overseeing and protecting the two parties be held accountable for the failure. And that is why the legal profession will always be held in contempt by anyone who has to take ownership of their actions on a day to day basis. The man who designs the aeroplane can't hide behind legislation and law if he builds a dangerous aeroplane. Interestingly, the corporate chiefs running the company can, and do. They are often lawyers. 

You see? It's just devolved into a rant against lawyers specifically now. There must be a good one somewhere. What was Shakespeare's quote about lawyers again?


----------



## Blackswanwood (8 Feb 2020)

Trainee neophyte":3iqlblsn said:


> RogerS":3iqlblsn said:
> 
> 
> > Seeing where this thread has morphed to I guess I must be thankful that Jacob hasn't stumbled across it !
> ...



I’d recommend the book S.U.M.O. by Paul McGee ... I’m off to cut some dovetails.


----------



## SammyQ (8 Feb 2020)

Austin Mitchell was right. Shame his bill did not get through. Would have simplified things and removed the solicitors altogether. 

Sam


----------



## Trainee neophyte (8 Feb 2020)

Blackswanwood":1bqyog68 said:


> [
> I’d recommend the book S.U.M.O. by Paul McGee ... I’m off to cut some dovetails.



I see what you did there: well played. =D>


----------



## Jake (9 Feb 2020)

Trainee neophyte":263fvfc7 said:


> However, this was always going to be a critique of professionals, as they are the only way to transfer asset ownership - if it is complicated, inefficient and incompetent, you have to blame the people owning the system. How hard should it be? You own asset X, and want to sell it to the other chap for amount y. How many layers of protection, legislation and parasitic intersessions do you need in order to make the deal? What ever happened to caveat emptor? Everyone has an opinion about how to stop stupid people from doing stupid things, as if stupid people should be protected from their stupidity. This would be fine, except that all this "protection" just adds layers of bureaucracy, complication and fuss, and ensures the employment of lots of people, who may or may not assist in protecting you from yourself, but will certainly have quite high fees. Some of these defenders of the public may even wear suits, but that is an extraneous argument.



Nothing to stop you doing a property deal without conveyancers (most are not lawyers these days fyi). You'd have to be (a) a cash buyer and (b) exceptionally stupid. I don't know about your wealth position but you sound well up for it - give it a go. 

Don't have any view on suits, but am grateful for my firm's dress-down policy.



> Getting back to your initial issue - exchange of contracts without all terms of the contracts being in place, someone has failed in their duty. Much to the suprise of anyone in a suit, it will be the asset owner, or the asset buyer, who pays for this failure. At no point will the professional overseeing and protecting the two parties be held accountable for the failure.



My firm and many others have entire departments dedicated to defending claims against lawyers (and other departments dedicated to defending other besuited or non-besuited professionals). They are matched on the other side by numerous firms with specialists in suing them. However, given the solid basis in reality your post is grounded in, I do have to admit that they sit idle all day twiddling their thumbs.


----------



## RogerS (12 Feb 2020)

Wonders will never cease. Our solicitor actually has the deposit. :shock:


----------



## marcros (12 Feb 2020)

Any sign of completion?


----------



## Trainee neophyte (13 Feb 2020)

Jake":1iel0gfb said:


> Nothing to stop you doing a property deal without conveyancers (most are not lawyers these days fyi). You'd have to be (a) a cash buyer and (b) exceptionally stupid. I don't know about your wealth position but you sound well up for it - give it a go.
> 
> Don't have any view on suits, but am grateful for my firm's dress-down policy.
> 
> ...



Great news! The ambulance-chasing profession has taken to attacking itself! Who knew? I am obviously out of the loop - back in the day a gentleman's word was his bond, etc, and no one would dream of turning on a member of the same tribe. Now it's all about the money. You seem to have taken umbrage at my entirely unwarranted attack on the entire soliciting profession, which is perfectly reasonable. God knows all those solicitors are beavering away in desperate sweatshop conditions, grossly underpaid and vastly overworked, working purely to make the world a better place, one accident claim at a time.

In Greece, there are over a million court judgements made every year, which is impressive given that the population is around 11 million. Every single Greek goes to court once a decade, on average, including the children. Which is a suprise because it is a well know fact that your Greek legal representative is more than willing to sell his services to the other side, providing the fee is high enough. In other words, the best way to win in court in Greece is to pay your opponent's lawyer to lose. Always assume that the opposition will be trying to bribe your solicitor to do the same  To be fair, I have never personally seen this in action, but it is a very well known and often discussed tactic when talking about court cases at parties (and everyone has one or two cases on the go, as they last for years.)


----------



## RogerS (13 Feb 2020)

marcros":akg3kxou said:


> Any sign of completion?


Third date set for next Wed 19th. If he messes up again then we pull the plug. He loses £80k and serve the b ugger right.


----------



## RogerS (19 Feb 2020)

Well here we are again. Nope ...nothing. After some serious sleuthing I now have details of all the properties he owns, who the lenders are, where he lives and even what he looks like ! Does it help ? Not really but fun to use the old sleuthing skills.

Delighted to hear that our buyer after receiving our Notice to Complete sent her own to him. These don't automatically cascade down...a question I wondered about but didn't..until now..know the answer to.

Just got an email explaining this from my solicitor ...19.45...and so anyone saying that ALL solicitors are lazy sods..take note !

So guillotine all primed and ready to go. Tuesday...last chance saloon.


----------



## Richard_C (20 Feb 2020)

I exchanged without deposit once, very special circumstances and it went OK. Happy to explain if anyone asks. 

Hopefully yours will go through.

Had it not, the standard conditions of sale assume a 10% deposit even if no money had changed hands so unless the standard conditions have been varied (and surely no sane solicitor would do so for an ordinary domestic purchase) the loss for failing to complete is set at 10% - whether its been paid upfront, or 5% has been paid or whatever. Now that makes it a bit harder - extracting 10% rather than holding on to 10% you already have but that's what courts are for.

On top of the deposit you should get costs and if you reasonably assume that the sale has been set back by 12 weeks (you have to start again after all) costs might include interest you would have got on the money had you got it, or extra moving costs or ....

There was a really interesting and helpful case on a failure to complete when the market was falling - the buyer who failed to complete was held liable for the losses incurred after the event. Hooper and Hooper vs Oates, useful background reading and easy to find on google. One here:

https://www.pla.org.uk/2013/02/hooper-v-oates/

Of course this is of limited practical use if the failed buyer has no money, but unless they are first time buyers or in negative equity there will be something somewhere.

Have you looked up the buyer on companies house - you can search by director name - or on the Government insolvency service 
- https://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/eiir/. Sometimes it reveals a lot of information.


----------



## RogerS (20 Feb 2020)

Thanks, Richard, for your suggestions.

We do have the 10%. The interest is working out at £44 a day...about £800 so far. And additional costs are also ratcheting up. They are also paying the maintenance charges on the flat. And Council Tax!

That looks an interesting link, thanks.

So far I have found four other properties that he owns. Mortgaged from different lenders. I am pretty confident that one of the reasons after the missed first completion date is his wife's illness. However that doesn't excuse him doing SFA in the three weeks between exchange and completion the first time when his wife was perfectly fine. I even have his photograph ! And I know where he lives. Not bad for a bit of sleuthing.


----------



## RogerS (25 Feb 2020)

RogerS":2yce80ej said:


> ......
> So guillotine all primed and ready to go. Tuesday...last chance saloon.



Which is today. Groundhog Day. And it's not happening. That's four missed completion dates.

Ranking the legal professionals I'd say that:-
ours is pretty good TBH...no gripes there
our buyers conveyancing firm ...not quite as good as ours but, again, not bad.
BUT....
her buyers' solicitor is IMO grossly negligent and did not check availability of funds.

He is also incompetent because at 10am today he said 

_ The mainstream lender is being chased to confirm that the mortgage advance may be released – hoping to hear back soon_

But at 9.30 he was forwarded this email from the lender

_However I mentioned yesterday over the phone that even though the case is escalated we wouldn’t be able to complete it today unfortunately.

At this stage *I wouldn’t be able to advise the timescales *either as the case is currently with underwriters for background checks._

Clearly he doesn’t/can’t read

So what are we doing ? We gave the ultimatum and so have to act on it. If we don't then this will drag on for ever. There is a halfway house though and I've instructed our solicitor to say that unless I receive from our buyers' buyer £10k cleared in my bank account by close of play today then we will rescind and he will lose £85k. If he does agree to do that then he has 20 working days to complete.

If he comes back trying to negotiate then the reply will simply be 'No' and that the amount of money required has gone up from £10k to £15k. I've watched how the Mob work.


----------



## marcros (25 Feb 2020)

I would keep the deposit and find another buyer. You have been beyond reasonable and followed all of the procedure.


----------



## RogerS (26 Feb 2020)

We cut to the chase and rescinded this morning. I just hope she also rescinds her contract.


----------



## profchris (26 Feb 2020)

Commiserations. My own buyer is still there (so far).


----------



## RogerS (26 Feb 2020)

Her solicitor has come back asking what our terms are to exchange again !
We've asked for a lump sum to cover our unexpected losses due to the completion delay (previously bounced back by her solicitor). Now agree by our buyer. And completion by Fri week. If he doesn't then we will rescind again and around we go.

Meanwhile her buyer has finally cottoned on that he's screwing things up but still, despite owning several Buy-to-Lets (I've uncovered at least four) does not understand how this process works as he was to quote our buyer "hotfooting it round to his solicitor to see if he will release to her enough funds to complete the purchase of our flat ! Not sure this is doable. Well, not easily.


----------



## RogerS (27 Feb 2020)

And just as quickly as we end on an upbeat......bang! Back to bloody square one.

His lender has pulled out. I told bloody Foxtons five months ago when this bloke started dicking about trying to get finance that the deal stank. "Oh no" they said...."everything is fine". Well - bloody Foxtons - perhaps if you did your due diligence five months ago when this guy first started effing about trying to get the money together then me and my sister would not have just lost £3000 in wasted maintenance charges on the unoccupied flat. And wasted legal fees.

Guess who's right at the top of my S**T list, Foxtons ?


----------



## RogerS (27 Feb 2020)

So due to this c**t, my sister and I are down about £5k between us in aforementioned fees and charges. My wife and I are now not able to clear off the mortgage that we had. It was for a short fixed two-year rate but that has now timed out. Our options are to move over to the variable rate...horrendous monthly payment with the advantage we can clear it at any time. Or take out another fixed term knowing full well that we will, when the flat is finally sold, take out a suitcase of £2000 of fivers and effectively set fire to it as that is the early redemption fee.

All plans on hold. No further work on the house. No further purchases. Full stop.

It is all I can do not to get on a train, go down to his house (I know where he lives) and shove his bloody fez down his effing throat. Then toddle round to his solicitor and rip him a new one. :twisted:


----------



## Richard_C (27 Feb 2020)

Sorry to hear.

I worked in HR, did lots of work on remuneration. If I were to design a pay and bonus scheme almost guaranteed to deliver a fair chunk of unethical sales-at-any-cost even if porkies have to be told behavior it would be like the Foxton's one of a few years back, may have changed I suppose. Presumably your solicitor has not handed over any estate agents fees from the non-proceeds of the non-sale? It's no comfort to you, but Foxtons seem to be in a mess with shareholders challenging the exec bonuses, the chair resigning suddenly and revenues falling.

Sounds like you have a decent solicitor, it's at times like this you realise the value of a 'proper one' not an online only mass conveyancing firm. No particular thoughts on mortgage but if this coronavirus* thing carries on much longer the central banks might lower interest rates. 

Good luck, keep us posted. 

_* Should be called Brit-Vic virus really, Brit Vic bought the Corona brand from Beechams back in 1987. Or is it a different Corona? _


----------



## Jake (27 Feb 2020)

RogerS":263bpso0 said:


> So due to this c**t, my sister and I are down about £5k between us in aforementioned fees and charges. My wife and I are now not able to clear off the mortgage that we had. It was for a short fixed two-year rate but that has now timed out. Our options are to move over to the variable rate...horrendous monthly payment with the advantage we can clear it at any time. Or take out another fixed term knowing full well that we will, when the flat is finally sold, take out a suitcase of £2000 of fivers and effectively set fire to it as that is the early redemption fee.
> 
> All plans on hold. No further work on the house. No further purchases. Full stop.
> 
> It is all I can do not to get on a train, go down to his house (I know where he lives) and shove his bloody fez down his effing throat. Then toddle round to his solicitor and rip him a new one. :twisted:



As said I am not a property lawyer but from first principles the deposit retention is not the sole remedy. It's not nice going at your intermediate buyer chain person, but if she has trousered £85k of Problem's money, she can afford to pass some on right?


----------



## RogerS (28 Feb 2020)

Jake":1s8rxnw4 said:


> RogerS":1s8rxnw4 said:
> 
> 
> > So due to this c**t, my sister and I are down about £5k between us in aforementioned fees and charges. My wife and I are now not able to clear off the mortgage that we had. It was for a short fixed two-year rate but that has now timed out. Our options are to move over to the variable rate...horrendous monthly payment with the advantage we can clear it at any time. Or take out another fixed term knowing full well that we will, when the flat is finally sold, take out a suitcase of £2000 of fivers and effectively set fire to it as that is the early redemption fee.
> ...



She still would like to buy the flat and we'd still like her to have it. I know that if that does happen then I can add the £5k to the purchase price (she'd already agreed to pay that prior to the **** screwing up his funding).


----------



## Blackswanwood (28 Feb 2020)

Bear in mind that if you add £5k to the purchase price it means the stamp duty payable will also increase.


----------



## RogerS (28 Feb 2020)

Blackswanwood":p4luoe5t said:


> Bear in mind that if you add £5k to the purchase price it means the stamp duty payable will also increase.


That's her problem ! I don't think there is a way around that.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (28 Feb 2020)

RogerS":2lh7ng3b said:


> [
> That's her problem ! I don't think there is a way around that.


That is why God created cash in brown envelopes.


----------



## Trevanion (28 Feb 2020)

Trainee neophyte":2jljrpc7 said:


> That is why God created cash in brown envelopes.



Just make sure they're all tens :wink:


----------



## Blackswanwood (28 Feb 2020)

RogerS":3v7hlgw2 said:


> Blackswanwood":3v7hlgw2 said:
> 
> 
> > Bear in mind that if you add £5k to the purchase price it means the stamp duty payable will also increase.
> ...



I think there is (and it doesn’t involve brown envelopes). Worth checking with your solicitor but I am pretty sure that you will be entitled to compensation for your loss ie a separate payment that does not form part of the purchase price.


----------



## RogerS (28 Feb 2020)

Blackswanwood":lj19scko said:


> RogerS":lj19scko said:
> 
> 
> > Blackswanwood":lj19scko said:
> ...



Thanks for the suggestion. I'll check on that


----------



## Jake (28 Feb 2020)

Trainee neophyte":32qcx66g said:


> RogerS":32qcx66g said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Was someone somewhere saying something about dishonesty?


----------



## Rorschach (29 Feb 2020)

Trainee neophyte":2jkz9u2y said:


> RogerS":2jkz9u2y said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Can tell you live in Greece :twisted:


----------



## Trainee neophyte (29 Feb 2020)

Jake":1nojjpto said:


> Trainee neophyte":1nojjpto said:
> 
> 
> > RogerS":1nojjpto said:
> ...



At the risk of getting political, it depends on your view of government and tax. If you believe that all taxes are fair and reasonable, and the government has a valid right to extract as much of your life (work=time =hours of your life you will never get back) as it wants, then by all means give as much money as you feel appropriate to the authorities, who will make carefully considered and sensible use of your hard-earned money.

If, on the other hand, you see government as a Mafia who demand money with menaces, (try not paying tax and see what happens), and who are morally bankrupt, murdering psychopathic lunatics, then you may want to try to limit their ability to commit murder all around the globe. Most people are somewhere on the scale from one extreme to the other. Brown envelopes are merely an expression of the desire to limit government, and therefore save lives. It's actually a humane, rational and entirely moral choice. 

In the interests of not upsetting anyone, feel free to add a [/sarc] tag wherever you feel appropriate.


----------



## RogerS (29 Feb 2020)

Discovered that the poor lady wanting to buy the flat had, back in January, already contacted the local council to indicate change of ownership as our mothers' account is now closed. Unfortunately the outstanding debt (find it immoral that a council will charge council tax on an empty flat - one being actively marketed for sale and empty due to a death ) is still there.

I don't have the will/energy/inclination to try and unravel that with the Stasi...sorry, council. We'll just see how the situation develops and make sure she's not out of pocket. Jeez, that itch to go down South to meet him face-to-face gets stronger by the day.


----------



## eezageeza (29 Feb 2020)

I did the probate for an aunt who died a couple of years ago, and the local council allowed a 9 month council tax holiday following her death. We managed to sell her house just before the end of that period! I don't know whether that is a universal policy, or even still current policy there, but it might be worth checking out.


----------



## RogerS (29 Feb 2020)

eezageeza":3inrrxc6 said:


> I did the probate for an aunt who died a couple of years ago, and the local council allowed a 9 month council tax holiday following her death. We managed to sell her house just before the end of that period! I don't know whether that is a universal policy, or even still current policy there, but it might be worth checking out.



Each council is different.


----------



## RogerS (4 Mar 2020)

Pure schadenfreude.

The muppet solicitor who failed to carry out any due diligence into the availability of the buyers' funds and thus causing four failed completion dates and a final rescinding of the contract.

He's gone. Booted out. 'De-partnerised'.


----------



## Richard_C (4 Mar 2020)

_He's gone. Booted out. 'De-partnerised'._ Norweigian blue perhaps? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZw35VUBdzo

Could you argue that in booting him out the partnership has implicitly recognised that he was incompetent, bent or both and must therefore have failed in their duty of care to everyone in the chain? 

I wonder if he is still a solicitor. You can look him up if you want to stoke your schadenfreude some more.

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/register/

You can find 'strikings off' here:

https://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/j ... lts#search

Its worth opening a couple of pdfs just to see what they get up to, these are of course the ones who don't get away with it.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (4 Mar 2020)

RogerS":3deu78rc said:


> Pure schadenfreude.
> 
> The muppet solicitor who failed to carry out any due diligence into the availability of the buyers' funds and thus causing four failed completion dates and a final rescinding of the contract.
> 
> He's gone. Booted out. 'De-partnerised'.



Do the remaining partners have a good professional indemnity policy? Worth looking in to it.


----------



## Richard_C (4 Mar 2020)

If they are Solicitors in UK practice, the SRA rules are:

The Sum Insured for any one Claim (exclusive of Defence Costs) must be,
where the Firm is a Relevant Recognised Body, at least £3 million, and in all
other cases, at least £2 million.


----------



## RogerS (9 Apr 2020)

The saga continues and gets more bizarre by the day. We heard that the original buyer of our buyers' house was trying for another mortgage. Didn't give it much credence, TBH. Been there. Got the scars. Got the T-shirt. So surprised to hear from our solicitor yesterday that he's in a position to proceed....stop laughing at the back there. 

Bizarrely, our buyers' solicitor seems to think that the contract to purchase our flat and the contract for him to buy our purchasers' house are one and the same. Remember, the original contract was rescinded and he stood/stands to lose £85,000 lost deposit. He's not willing to stump up another deposit and simply thinks that he can waltz back into frame as if nothing had happened. Never mind our wasted legal fees, additional maintenance charges on the flat etc since the FOUR failed completions down to this i diot.

So said solicitor is saying 'No deposit required for the purchase of the flat as you've already got it' ! Doh #-o It's a separate contract, you stupid woman. And we are sticking out for the deposit again. 

Just checked emails...in three weeks time it will be one year since we accepted her offer. If she's not prepared to stump up then she can go swivel.

Moot point if completion and the house move can go ahead in any case. The flat is empty and so that's not a problem but she's living in her house. Also getting a removal firm in ?


----------



## rafezetter (10 Apr 2020)

Steliz":17d8pinj said:


> Trainee neophyte":17d8pinj said:
> 
> 
> > If someone is wearing a suit, he is lying to you.
> ...



Having just read this I have to say I largely agree because the whole "he wears a suit therefore he must be professional" is a worldwide held belief that is total fantasy - the ONLY thing a suit tells you about the man is that he earns enough money to buy one, that's it.

If it's a REALLY nice suit, then it says he's had the good sense to go to an excellent tailor, probably recommended by another excellent suit wearing person, and take his advise. 

I've also known lots of "suits", my father wore one for 50+ years but it still didn't make him honest and honorable as far as his clients goes - his work ethic (and the FSA breathing down his neck) did that.

I've worn a suit for many a year when I was younger, didn't make me any more competant than I already was, or save me from mistakes either.

Pretty sure almost all those involved in the sub prime banking scam that brought the world almost to its knees in 2008 wore suits, some were probably handmade and cost several thousands. Didn't give them a bonus +10 to conscience boost did it? (rpg reference there).

Nobody needs a suit to be honest, honorable and competant at what they do and EVERYONE knows this, yet for some bizarre reason that seems to be hardwired into human culture, most sheeple seem to expect it as part of the whole show, and WILL choose to negatively judge you if you are not wearing one, or have a bad haircut and look like you've slept in it.....** usually by people wearing a more expensive suit than you.

bonkers.

** a comment I heard from one of my Fathers clients during a meeting, "forget to get your haircut Clive? And possibly time to buy a new suit as well" this from a man whom my Father had been advising his and his brothers finances for close to 10 years - so he was obviously happy with the service, but clearly had a level of expectation regarding my Fathers attire, even though he had willingly come into the office for the meeting, which was not local for most people who worked in the city, being close to an hour's travel from London - my Father stopped making housecalls 30+ years ago with the view "if they are serious, they will come to me, if not, I've saved myself many hours stuck in traffic". They came to him, but still commented on his attire. Go figure.

Some choice words were said after that meeting ended and the client had left.


Edit - I've just tried to remind myself of a particular tailor and found this on an instagram picture: "I know what you're thinking; you see the Morris Dayfield suit, the TM shirt and tie, the confident, almost cocky expression and you think "here's a man who knows what he's about...I must do business with him!" Well, You're absolutely right. Let's talk business."

Says it all really. People are hardwired to think a suit makes this person trustworthy, and they are often wrong.


----------



## rafezetter (10 Apr 2020)

SBJ":3dfwexqc said:


> So many hard done by people with chips on their shoulders. There are as many conmen and fraudsters who don't wear suits as wear them.



I doubt it - I'd wager most of the men (and some women) in the banking and finance sectors that brought down the global economy in 2008 were all wearing suits, right up to the point they hit the pavement.

My problem isn't with suit wearers per se, but the fact that society automatically gives those wearing one some kind of "he must be trustworthy / professional" halo with no prior facts to go on, the fallacy of which has caused a great deal of problems or outright suffering to a LOT of people (again 2008 - just to make sure my point has been made).

A suit is a guarentee of nothing about the person - and anyone offended by the generalisation will ALL know a suit wearing person whom is less than professional / competant / honest / borderline criminal.

I've known several just in my small circle of peers at the time of wearing a suit, and several more in the years after. Give me an honest man who looks like he's lived on the top of a mountain for 20 years with nothing but a loincloth over a shark in the best suit money can buy any day of the week.

Oh yeah, this has just come to mind, and my personal experience? A Solicitor that DID NOT turn up for a hearing (car crash, aug 7 1997, I nearly died 3 months in hospital, I was the driver), and a Judge that refused an extension (whatever it's called) to sort out WHY my Solicitor hadn't turned up when I was forced to represent myself, DESPITE the case for the prosecution having been granted not one but THREE over a TWO YEAR period.

oh and the policeman who was overheard to say to the accumulated witnesses by my (older) friend who had driven me there "we are going to nail him to the wall" while I was in the toilet having a panic attack.

It wasn't until years later I learned all of this was grounds for a mis-trial.

yeah suits. I know I know it's another generalisation, but my point stands, a suit bestows NOTHING to the person. NOTHING at all.


----------



## rafezetter (10 Apr 2020)

Lons":th0q6qjb said:


> It developed into an heated argument where I told her if she came to me for an interview looking as she did she wouldn't get past the door. Would I trust her? What do you think? :roll:



WHY? Why wouldn't she get through the door and WHY wouldn't you trust her?

See what I mean? Hardwired.

Hardwired and wrong.

Sorry Lons I respect you in all other ways, but you and all the others who believe a suit equals "respectability" are the ones perpetuating the myth and provides the ability for those nefarious types to wear a suit FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF EXUDING RESPECTABILITY AND HONESTY.

300 years ago it used to be a wig, longstockings and makeup - on men. When the clothes and fashion changed so did the social conscience, did it mean those who were caught in the middle, whom for those couple of years of transition were any less honest because they were still wearing the old "honest and respectable" attire or did those who had already moved to the new "honest and respectable" attire become any more honest and... respectable? As an aside, how many suits in the City of London wear a bowler hat these days hmm?? Interesting question and all the underlying meaning that comes with such a question, is it not? Unthinkable 70 years ago.

300 years from now it could be tattooed faces and... thought, I'll get back to that - tattooed faces and unitards. Mere clothing, same human being underneath with all the failings that come with that, repackaged.

So - tatooed faces - considered anathema by most / most in western society, a mark of a serious criminal, perpetuaded by serious criminals in jails the world over, and the gangs of South America.

In New Zealand however and the Maori's - the mark of a warrior and a male that had become a man. Same package, VERY different meaning.

You have, in your own words, judged based on attire alone, but would be very annoyed I'm certain were you judged in the same manner.

and THIS is my problem with suits, it's the lie that comes with the suit, not the wearer; which could be closer to what TN was trying to say.

A suit and it's social meaning is human conditioning and nothing more, a system that traps the onlooker into a set of beliefs about the wearer based on a larger social conscience that is just as deluded. Those that wear a suit for nefarious purposes, rely on this conditioning to make it work, and most people seem willing to do so for reason that are utterly unfathomable to me. 

For those that learn to see past the suit, there is hope, but most of you are still conditioned and asleep, but so very oddly are more than willing to see and accept the notion that a suit - or any form of "official dress of XYZ profession" is merely a costume to be put on and taken off at will.

How many of you have watched films where some nefarious - or good - person is infiltrating a place where a person in civilian clothing would be spotted immediately? Thus they attire themselves in the same garb used by those in the place they are trying to infiltrate?

All of you. Yet when someone questions the validity of "suit wearer = honest and hardworking" you shoot him (and others) down with barely suppressed (and not) outrage.

I learned to see past the clothing 33 years ago, by being judged as Lons would by the strange Gothic attire and makeup I wore for several years that made old ladies cross the street, and even men move away on the bus. Judged by a social conscience that was as wrong then as it is today.

Time for a change.


apologies for derailing the thread, but I couldn't let this one pass.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Apr 2020)

If you are an employer, it matters not a jot what YOU think. E.g. if I employ someone with tattoos on their face, and I lose customers because they don't like them, I might think they are the most beautiful things in creation but I'm not going to employ someone else with them, knowing it costs me. The same with suits - if most customers expect to see people wearing suits, employers will ensure they wear suits. It's not rocket science.


----------



## AES (10 Apr 2020)

1st off, so sorry to hear that RogerS is STILL having problems with that sale. You couldn't make it up, could you?

As regards rafezetter's "anti-suit rant", you are of course absolutely correct about outward appearances not counting for very much at all rafezetter. BUT you clearly know - and have confirmed that you know - that suits (etc,) are what "the world" expects in some circumstances. So by "ranting and railing" against it, you're simply tilting at windmills mate.

In my professional life I didn't wear a suit when I was "crawling around inside aeroplanes", but I DID wear a suit when meeting with bankers and other "high officials" - who were in many cases ultimately paying me to work for them and/or were employing me/had significant influence on my work in some other way.

Why wear a suit - AND a tie BTW? Because I knew beforehand that A) that's what they expected from someone doing my job, and B) that's what they'd be doing themselves.

So why go into the "battle" (and it was sometimes!) with one arm tied behind my back? 

And although IF we thought about it we ALL knew that our appearance/s made not the slightest to either the ethics or the expertise which were going to be employed in the deal, if that's the expectation and predisposition of "the other side" then why try to fight it and to "prove" that although I looked like "an out of work coal miner" that I was, in fact an excellent aircraft engineer who would NOT rip them off morally/ethically? 

Same with going for an interview with a prospective employer - at least the interviewer can see that you put in enough effort to show an interest.

Nah, rafzetter, your points are all 100% correct, and we'd ALL do well to remember sometimes that "you can't judge a book by its cover".

BUT why go to all the effort of trying to prove to people that you're right and that their expectations are wrong/misconceived?

IMO a complete waste of time and effort and NOT the way to achieve any sort of positive result - or so I found anyway.


----------



## Blackswanwood (10 Apr 2020)

I do find the whole argument about suit wearing very odd.

Of course an unprofessional lying cheat can wear a suit. It doesn't automatically mean that they are and actually could be professional and honest as the day is long.

We do all have unconscious biases but this one is being stretched a bit far.

I assume Rafezetters you no longer wear a suit? That didn't stop you posting some totally incorrect and therefore by the measures of the industry you used to be in unprofessional advice on a post about Wills earlier this week. I don't think you did it deliberately or out of dishonesty ... and even if I did I wouldn't think your attire had anything to do with it. I expect you are a fine and upstanding person who happen to not wear a suit. 

I'd like to think that I'm the same even though I wear suits some of the time.

Have a good day everyone - whatever your chosen attire!


----------



## Blackswanwood (10 Apr 2020)

Roger, I think you are absolutely right to stick to your guns on the deposit point. You were on the receiving end of a welched contract. The legal practice at the other end of the transaction will have PI cover but that's between them and the purchaser.

I suppose the only counter argument is whether the market will pick up aft the C19 lockdown and another purchaser will take their place. In your position I think I'd be a bit bloody minded over it.

Good luck with it all!


----------



## Phlebas (10 Apr 2020)

Blackswanwood":1s2f71z0 said:


> I do find the whole argument about suit wearing very odd.
> 
> Of course an unprofessional lying cheat can wear a suit. It doesn't automatically mean that they are and actually could be professional and honest as the day is long.
> 
> We do all have unconscious biases but this one is being stretched a bit far.



I’m not sure where this animus to suits originates (and I am quoting Blackswanwood simply because he seems to summarise it well). Anecdotal evidence is hardly conclusive. You might as well say you don’t like gentlemen who wear jewellery, or have curly hair, or just about anything you (dis)like. 

For what it is worth I wore a suit as a point of respect towards my clients. I bought the best suits I could from the last remaining bespoke tailor in the ‘burgh. Why should I not – ready made suits don’t fit me. I do not think it influenced any clients’ decision to employ me in any way, but of course I do not know. 

I might point out that bespoke suits are value for money as long as you do not change shape. I still have business suits that fit me and that will see me out. My country suits get more mileage these days (I retired rather young about 10 years ago), but are still good for quite a few more years. As indeed I hope am I…

And indeed I rather like formal dress. You should see my collection of evening wear – trews in Ogilvie are something to behold. I have a friend who has an evening suit where the trews, weskit and jacket are quartered in the tartans to which he is entitled. Explosion in a paint factory, frankly. 
But a hoot. 

So apparel does not maketh man. 

Oh, and sorry for more thread drift. For what it is worth RogerS, you are right, but bear in mind pragmatism. It'll probably be slow (initially) but property prices will drift down. They have to. Moving house is, I believe, still allowed under your English laws: Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 s6 2 (l) 'to move house where reasonably necessary;'. But whether any removal company would be prepared to act is dubious.


----------



## Inoffthered (10 Apr 2020)

RogerS":3573yuwg said:


> Pure schadenfreude.
> 
> The muppet solicitor who failed to carry out any due diligence into the availability of the buyers' funds and thus causing four failed completion dates and a final rescinding of the contract.
> 
> He's gone. Booted out. 'De-partnerised'.




Your claim would be against the firm not the individual. The fact that the individual (whether a partner or not) has gone, your letter of engagement would have been with the firm, their liability remains.
Tell them that you consider their negligence to be a notifiable event for their professional indemnity insurers and that they should advise them as such, that unless you receive their proposals to remedy their professional negligence that are satisfactory to you, you will instruct another firm of lawyers to proceed with a negligence claim.


----------



## RogerS (10 Apr 2020)

Inoffthered":2rpx5dl8 said:


> RogerS":2rpx5dl8 said:
> 
> 
> > Pure schadenfreude.
> ...



Many thanks for the suggestion. My bad writing. It's not our solicitor but the one two steps down the chain. He was acting for the buyer of the house belonging to the lady buying our flat. I have no claim against his firm as they were not engaged by me.

For what it's worth, I like wearing a suit and tie but rarely have the opportunity.


----------



## Lons (10 Apr 2020)

rafezetter":3q6a8fhm said:


> Lons":3q6a8fhm said:
> 
> 
> > It developed into an heated argument where I told her if she came to me for an interview looking as she did she wouldn't get past the door. Would I trust her? What do you think? :roll:
> ...


You dragged that one up from a couple of months back Rafezetter, I had to re visit the post to see what I'd written :lol: 
I understand what you're saying but I'm not actually hardwired I've always taken people as I find them but it's undeniable that we all form opinions withing a few minutes of meeting someone. I always allowed my staff at least those who weren't in front of customers to dress casually as long as it was respectable, if you'd seen some of the young ladies employed in my branch you would know what I mean by that. :lol: From my own point of view I would have been much happier in smart jeans and an open necked shirt as I hate ties and my reps as well but the environment we were in and customers visited demanded formal dress as did the company policies. It's much easier these days, my son only wears a suit and tie for meetings with certain partners where required. 

If you met the woman I was describing you would understand why I made those comments, she was a bl**dy mess, not just the style of dress but scruffy clothes, she smelled as though hadn't showered for a few days and I swear her hair had never seen a comb. :roll: My point was clear, she was a lecturer addressing a class and couldn't be bothered to make an effort and I said to her she wouldn't get past the door dressed like that. You don't need a suit or designer clothes to be respectable but the effort you make does tend to reflect your general attitude that is why I said I wouldn't trust her and I meant to do the job I was interviewing for not her honesty as I had no way of determining that.

I have a couple of stories I've mentioned previously
!). I was regional manager for a major caravan manufacturer and was visiting a show in the North East supporting 3 of my dealers. Was having a coffee on the stand of one when I saw a bloke who looked like a farmer, bit scruffy, wellies etc and I suggested the salesman should approach him but got the reply " he hasn't got 2 pennies to rub together", a little later on another dealer stand I saw him again, had a chat and got that dealer involved. The guy was a farmer but looking to diversify and the dealer with my help got a huge order for phased delivery of our statics.

2).Working for myself I was driving home in my van, usual work clothes but reasonably clean and stopped off at a BMW dealer as I was looking for a new car, the showroom was empty and salespeople standing in groups chatting, after wandering around for a while I approach them and asked for a brochure and price list, one of them looked me up and down and just pointed to a desk and said " over there ". Had I been smartly dressed they would have been all over me. That dealer lost potential sales of 3 BMWs and 5 Minis which we bought over the years from their main competitor!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Apr 2020)

I used to take my mother's Porsche to Exeter for servicing in the early '80s. I was talking to the salesman one day and commented on the red 911 in the corner. Oh, that one goes out at the beginning of the month, he said. An eldery chap in a gabardine mac and flat cap came in one day carrying two bags of shopping. He dropped them down and asked how much the 911 was as it was his wedding anniversary. I told him, and he said he'd write me a cheque for it. As it wouldn't go out for nearly a month I said that was fine. He thanked me and left. A quarter of an hour later he came back in and asked for the cheque back I asked if he'd changed his mind and he said no, he'd write another one as he'd forgotten it was his daughter's birthday, so he'd take the 928 S4 as well.


----------



## Lons (10 Apr 2020)

I was branch manager for a plastics distribution company and got to know the owner of a large market garden very close to my home, he rang me at work one day, asked me to call on my way home and look at his leaking roof problem, he ordered £30k worth of twinwall polycarbonate a sizeable order in those days and I organised a team to fit it as well.

His wife was prickly and would have dismissed me had I not been wearing a suit, I also had to address her as Mrs Li****n where her husband was happy to be called David. The guy was down to earth, couldn't care less about suits, was a multi millionaire but always the one wearing overalls and driving the forklift.
His missus used to take bus holidays to Europe and bought shoes from the charity shop, actually that sounds ok to me!

Not long after the roof was done I was there with my wife on a weekend buying plants when she approached me saying "Mr Lons.....e I'd like a word with you", David was behind her and I was expecting some thanks because I knew he was pleased, instead she told me her Mars Bars were melting on the display stands and "what are you going to do about it?" :roll: Anyway she left me speachless and David said "f***ing woman moaning about a few quids worth of Mars Bars when I was previously losing £thousands of stock due to water damage." I did sort her problem later.


----------

