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

[RogerS]

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 Remember, the original contract was rescinded and he stood/stands to lose £85,000 lost deposit.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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.