We are purchasing a property (PPOR) and both vendor and ourselves want to move the settlement date about three weeks early. It was a long contract for various reasons, but we are both agreed on this earlier date. Should be simple we all thought.
A little background. We are using a conveyancing firm, one we had used on the sale of our last property with good success. So, we went with them again, and the vendors also wanted to use them. The conveyancing firm assured us there would be different people working on both cases so that our interests would be protected. Naively, we agreed to the dual authority. Probably needless to say, we have had a few tense moments.
Anyway, this is the latest thing that has surfaced. The agreement to change the date has this extra sentence added from the vendor's conveyancer:
We reserve our clients rights to settle on the due date under the contract with time to remain of the essence. "
Similar thing has been tacked on to the letter to the vendor.
We understand this to mean that the due date is not secure for us or the vendor. With almost three weeks between the new settlement date and the original contract date, it's quite a long time. Not easy when there is a tenancy to be finalised (we're renting between properties), removalist to be booked plus other utilities such as electricity, phone, etc.
Our conveyancer said it was there to protect us in case settlement was delayed.
Does anyone know if there is any useful reason this reverting to the original contract date should remain?
Has anyone had any experience with this sort of thing?
This is my first post here on this very interesting forum. I have looked through many of the topics to see if there was already something on it. My apologies if I have missed it. Appreciate any help or insight.
A little background. We are using a conveyancing firm, one we had used on the sale of our last property with good success. So, we went with them again, and the vendors also wanted to use them. The conveyancing firm assured us there would be different people working on both cases so that our interests would be protected. Naively, we agreed to the dual authority. Probably needless to say, we have had a few tense moments.
Anyway, this is the latest thing that has surfaced. The agreement to change the date has this extra sentence added from the vendor's conveyancer:
We reserve our clients rights to settle on the due date under the contract with time to remain of the essence. "
Similar thing has been tacked on to the letter to the vendor.
We understand this to mean that the due date is not secure for us or the vendor. With almost three weeks between the new settlement date and the original contract date, it's quite a long time. Not easy when there is a tenancy to be finalised (we're renting between properties), removalist to be booked plus other utilities such as electricity, phone, etc.
Our conveyancer said it was there to protect us in case settlement was delayed.
Does anyone know if there is any useful reason this reverting to the original contract date should remain?
Has anyone had any experience with this sort of thing?
This is my first post here on this very interesting forum. I have looked through many of the topics to see if there was already something on it. My apologies if I have missed it. Appreciate any help or insight.
Last edited: