House sale fell through after mortgage drawn down

Fair enough. It's the Central Bank that doesn't understand what the word 'buyer' means.

According to the Central Bank, you can buy a house without a home loan and not be classified as a buyer, and you can be advanced a home loan without buying a house and be classified as a buyer.
 
ClubMan said:
Just to clarify, the funds have presumably been returned to the lender at this stage?
Click to expand...
Apparently the mortgage account has now been closed. They said Id have to apply again as they cant keep the account open since it was paid.
 
Id be getting on to solicitor and asking her to formally address why she did that without instruction and I'd be making a complaint to the law society.
I'm in no way surprised - I deal with solicitors a lot and they are by and large not the smartest bunch. So to read this is not surprising in the least. She has cost you your first time buyers status all for saving some interest.
 
ThisisMax said:
Id be getting on to solicitor and asking her to formally address why she did that without instruction
Click to expand...
Where are you getting this from?

The OP told us he discussed drawing down funds with his solicitor so they could get a particular rate.

Again, I'm sure this will get sorted but there is a right way of going about this.

Making complaints to the Law Society (who aren't even the regulatory body for solicitors any more) won't get the OP anywhere.
 
Called the bank now and they said there is 273 euro outstanding interest on the account and it has not yet been closed. I said I'd pay then manually over the phone just to get it closed and to reflect closed on my credit report for future. She said she first has to check if the bank will waiver it before taking payment. So Ill wait and see what they say.

I think its up to the bank to still allow FTB status. Because the other person I spoke to said they're open for discussion after speaking to the solicitor.

Technically yes, funds were drawn down. But anyone can see nothing was purchased and so I have never been a home owner before. Either way Ill need to cross that bridge again when I get there. This whole mess has only costed me. Everyone else got their money and fees etc. And I did discuss drawdown earlier but I had no idea contracts weren't signed, or the risks of all of this. Thats why I relied on my solicitor to tell me and also advise me on what is wise to do.
 
It certainly does seem odd that the legislation that I cited would seem to categorise @Chadz1988 as a non FTB but somebody who bought a property without a mortgage as a FTB. Perhaps that legislation's remit is for a specific use and there are other definitions of FTB/non-FTB elsewhere that would be more common sensical?
 

It's a weird one. If you bought a house with cash, you are considered a FTB for central bank lending criteria but you can't benefit from help to buy initiatives. However, if someone gives you a house or you inherit one, you are considered a FTB and can benefit from the help to buy. Don't know why it was designed like that.

I think the bank has flexibility around considering it as a FTB for central bank lending criteria considering the scenario. I think the bigger issue is that OP will probably not qualify for any help to buy scheme and that's nothing to do with the bank. I don't know how these things work in practice or what checks are done. Might not be an issue
 
Chadz1988 said:
Because the other person I spoke to said they're open for discussion after speaking to the solicitor.
Click to expand...
I would chase your solicitor to have that conversation with the bank as soon as possible.

Six months down the line and you could be looking at a "computer says no" scenario.
 
No need to panic.

The banks can make exceptions to the rules in 15% of cases, and this is a very good case for an exception.

It's possible that the bank might not have confidence in your solicitor though.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
No need to panic.

The banks can make exceptions to the rules in 15% of cases, and this is a very good case for an exception.

It's possible that the bank might not have confidence in your solicitor though.

Brendan
Click to expand...

Don't think banks are doing are exceptions at the moment. I know PTSB haven't offered them for a while. Since last year anyway.

As I said above, I think the bigger issue is qualification for help to buy schemes. OP needs to be sure they can't still get FTB treatment for them.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
I missed that. What is the definition of FTB under the Help to Buy scheme?
Click to expand...
“To qualify [for the HTB scheme], you must not have previously purchased or built a house or apartment, either on your own or jointly with any other person”.

Really of no relevance to the OP’s issue.
 
ClubMan said:
It certainly does seem odd that the legislation that I cited would seem to categorise @Chadz1988 as a non FTB but somebody who bought a property without a mortgage as a FTB.
Click to expand...
Apparently the logic is that statistically FTBs (really, for these purposes, first time home loan borrowers) are lower risk than S&SB’s and hence the higher LTV/LTI limits.

I assume that, at least historically, this is because of the greater scope for career progression, fewer calls on their income in terms of childcare, etc.
 
I'm not looking at a help to buy scheme though. It's more about the bank only allowing a maximum of 3.5x my salary instead of 4x as a FTB. Thats really the only difference. It isnt a big deal as I'm short 8k for this house if they only offer me 3.5x my salary. And I'm sure they can make an exception as it isn't alot, and I work for a very big company with a good job, with a perfect credit history. I'll just argue the case and I'll apply at 2 different banks.
 
It's painful. It seems unlikely that it was the intention of the legislation to exclude this very unusual circumstance from the definition of first time buyer.
 
Sorry, I should clarify, she was instructed but should have refused to draw down due to absence of other sides contracts siged. Its poor performance on behalf of solicitor and yes, Id still make a complaint.
 
ThisisMax said:
Sorry, I should clarify, she was instructed but should have refused to draw down due to absence of other sides contracts siged. Its poor performance on behalf of solicitor and yes, Id still make a complaint.
Click to expand...
Solicitors can’t refuse to act on the instructions of their clients!

There is nothing in the OP to suggest there are any grounds for a complaint against the solicitor.
 
Sarenco said:
Solicitors can’t refuse to act on the instructions of their clients!

There is nothing in the OP to suggest there are any grounds for a complaint against the solicitor.
Click to expand...
Of course they can. They can advise not to. If they think its unwise they should advise against. If its unlawful they HAVE to advise against. In this position the OP is in a real fix because the solicitor didnt say no.

Example: Currently Im working with my solicitor on a series of pieces of work around trusts and power of attorney. I asked him to do x and he said no. And then gave me the rationale for it which was well thought out and took my future interests into account. If he blindly followed my instruction Id be in trouble later on. Thats what good solicitors do.
 
ThisisMax said:
Of course they can. They can advise not to. If they think its unwise they should advise against. If its unlawful they HAVE to advise against. In this position the OP is in a real fix because the solicitor didnt say no.
Click to expand...
Advising against a particular course of action is not the same thing as refusing to act on a client instruction.

Maybe the OP’s solicitor should have emphasised the risk of drawing down funds before receipt of the signed contract from the vendor (although I would have thought that was pretty obvious). But failing to do so is not a ground for a formal complaint and won’t resolve the OP’s problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register