Can't decide which house to buy....

N

ndp

Registered User
Messages
71
My offer has been accepted on a house to buy. It is not in the ideal location, but it is a lovely house. I am having second thoughts now - should I buy a lesser house in the (more expensive) location I would prefer? What if an acceptable house in the preferred location did not come up? I could be fool for letting the current house go!

I know this post is not the most clear, but to be honest, I am a bit confused and would appreciate any advice!

Thanks.
 
Firstly, it will probably be the most money you will spend in the next while so I wouldn't go rushing into anything. Its all fine and good having a big house somewhere but if it takes ages to visit family or friends will it be worth it.

Secondly, they don't say location location location for nothing. Im sure when the market picks up a bit you will probably see more houses on the market and possible in your chosen area.
 
If it's 50/50, then I think you should stick with the current house given that you have made an offer. I know it's not legally binding, but when someone accepts an offer, it's very distressing for the buyer to pull out.

Brendan
 
Brendan said:
If it's 50/50, then I think you should stick with the current house given that you have made an offer. I know it's not legally binding, but when someone accepts an offer, it's very distressing for the buyer to pull out.
Click to expand...


I don't agree. Buying a property on the basis of only being 50% happy could turn out to be just as stressful for the buyer in the long run.

If you have serious doubts about a property, don't buy it.
 
I agree that if you are not sure, you should not buy a property.

But if you have agreed to buy the property, I think you should keep your word, unless there are compelling reasons not to.

Brendan
 
Thanks for the replies so far.

Brendan said:
If it's 50/50, then I think you should stick with the current house given that you have made an offer. I know it's not legally binding, but when someone accepts an offer, it's very distressing for the buyer to pull out.

Brendan
Click to expand...

Brendan, normally I would agree with you! However, my offer on the house was conditional on certain other commitments from the vendor which were agreed at the time my offer was accepted. However, since then, the vendor has backed away from the commitments they made. It is actually this fact that has made me question the whole deal and whether or not the house is for me. Since they backed away from their commitments, I would not feel too bad about backing away from mine.
 
People's words unfortunately count for very little realistically and while its a nice idea in theory, often the people advocating that idea don't follow through themselves - sounds harsh but I've found out the hard way. Would advise if you are unsure about a property to absolutely not buy it. Very distressing for the vendor? TBH the alternative may be very distressing for yourself.
 
Hi ndp

If the vendor has not adhered to their commitments, then you are under no moral obligation to buy the house.

Brendan
 
Buy the house in the area you want.

My experience is that you'd be happier living close to family/friends/social activities in a one bed apartment then living in a mansion in an area you don't particularly want to live.

Don't worry about the house coming up for sale in your preferred location. There will always be another house.
 
"then you are under no moral obligation to buy the house"

Buying a house is a business transaction, there is no moral question to be considered. Unless you are at least 90% happy with the house I would pull out. I agree that location is crucial, if you buy in a second choice location you will still think of moving to where you would actually like to live as soon as you can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top