From webstump at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Wed May 21 17:40:19 2025 Return-path: To: hex at ..seen.ac.am Subject: Re: Re: Solicitor prepayment for conveyancing estate sale References: <5nt1tCF3wtKoFAu9@perry.uk> <65YV6HHjSzKoFAO3@perry.uk> <6297608521.1a46b012@uninhabited.net> <100fmme$1na26$2@dont-email.me> In-Reply-To: Reply-To: matthewv+ulmtestmod at ..riolis.greenend.org.uk Errors-To: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk X-Webstump-Event: [174783087317962] reject notnew Message-Id: From: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 17:40:18 +0100 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a moderator. This post contains insufficient new material. Similar points have been made already in this discussion, which is in danger of becoming too repetitive. The group charter and moderation policy can be found at https://uklegal.weebly.com/ Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation ============================================ Full text of your message follows > From webstump@chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed May 21 13:34:33 2025 > Return-path: > Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk > Received-SPF: pass (mailhub-hex-d.mythic-beasts.com: domain of uni-berlin.de designates 130.133.4.89 as permitted sender) client-ip=130.133.4.89; envelope-from=mod-submit@uni-berlin.de; helo=outpost5.zedat.fu-berlin.de; > X-STUMP-Warning-0: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-1: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-2: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-3: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uni-berlin.de; s=fub01; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Date:Subject:From:To:Sender: Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=hPrifirshnmXEDwPQvWCM8b3Jb0zrFja2kTu+hGUpKo=; t=1747830869; x=1748435669; b=W68Zr5QUfgsfMFI > From: Norman Wells > Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated > Subject: Re: Solicitor prepayment for conveyancing estate sale > Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 13:34:27 +0100 > Message-ID: > References: <5nt1tCF3wtKoFAu9@perry.uk> > <65YV6HHjSzKoFAO3@perry.uk> <6297608521.1a46b012@uninhabited.net> > <100fmme$1na26$2@dont-email.me> > > > > > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > X-Orig-X-Trace: individual.net ZHu229Su8DyDiZchvTGhhQE7iJXjoUaVSqrJ+/Alwz09ouyTMP > Cancel-Lock: sha1:Toq+QZcV7sTcJp2Rtwdc2lud4O4= sha256:BiR4FgxefSVYzvgw0Av1dKVzwaQccUJFki2+GNWPwpA= > User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird > Content-Language: en-GB > X-Originating-IP: 130.133.4.5 > X-ZEDAT-Hint: RO > X-Mythic-Source-External: YES > X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 29 > X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.9 > Delivered-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-BlackCat-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-Mythic-Originator: uid-1081-on-lynx.mythic-beasts.com > X-STUMP-Warning-4: Unfolded headers Received: Received: Received: Received: Received: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: > > On 21/05/2025 11:37, The Todal wrote: > > On 21/05/2025 09:17, Norman Wells wrote: > >> On 21/05/2025 08:58, The Todal wrote: > >>> On 21/05/2025 08:44, Norman Wells wrote: > >>>> On 21/05/2025 07:01, Roland Perry wrote: > >>>>> In message , at 14:15:37 on Tue, > >>>>> 20 May 2025, The Todal remarked: > >>>>> > >>>>>> I think the phrase "subject to contract" is an estate agents' > >>>>>> phrase. "SOLD - Subject to Contract" means actually it isn't sold > >>>>>> because contracts have not yet been exchanged, but we've found a > >>>>>> buyer so we want to take the credit for being good at selling > >>>>>> properties. > >>>>> > >>>>> Estate Agents have their own jargon, which isn't always strictly > >>>>> correct. > >>>>> > >>>>> For example they often say "with Vacant possession" (which means no > >>>>> sitting tenant) when actually they mean "the house won't have any > >>>>> furniture in it when you view". Which they then hope people will > >>>>> presume means 'quick sale available, no chain'. > >>>> > >>>> It doesn't actually mean what you say. > >>> > >>> Yes it does. It means the seller, his family and any tenants will > >>> have moved out. It has nothing to do with whether there are odd bits > >>> of furniture or bags of rubbish left behind - as quite often there > >>> will be. > >> > >> Which would be breach of contract and actionable. > >> > >>>> "Vacant possession essentially means the property is empty on the > >>>> day of completion. This means that the sellers or any tenants have > >>>> left, and all possessions removed except those agreed with the buyer." > >>>> > >>>> https://tinyurl.com/dusm8t9 > >>> > >>> People who write the copy for websites are probably not a good source > >>> of reliable legal advice. > >> > >> It's from a firm of solicitors, so should be good legal advice. > >> > >> It also accords with all other sources, apart of course from imperfect > >> memory. > >> > >> If you want another, how about: > >> > >> "When buying or selling a property with ‘vacant possession’ the > >> property needs to be empty on the day of completion. This means the > >> sellers or tenants have moved out and removed all of their belongings, > >> only leaving behind items that have been agreed with the buyer." > >> > >> https://www.co-oplegalservices.co.uk/media-centre/articles-may- > >> aug-2017/ what-is-vacant-possession/ > >> > >> Or, if you're dismissive of that as well, how about: > >> > >> "Property sold with vacant possession must be empty of existing > >> tenants or other occupiers (whether or not occupation is authorised), > >> and all goods and rubbish (subject to the de minimis rule) that > >> substantially prevent or interfere with the enjoyment of a substantial > >> part of the property on or before completion." > >> > >> https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/glossary/vacant-possession > >> > >> Is that not pretty authoritative? > >> > >> If not, what will it take to convince you? > >> > > > > As usual with you, Norman, a little learning is a dangerous thing. You > > haven't studied law and you rely too much on scraps of advice on the > > internet. > > > > If the seller has left goods behind that show he has not actually moved > > out, that he is still asserting rights over the property, then that > > would not be considered vacant possession.  But that would not include, > > eg, items of rubbish, old scraps of carpets, a broken vacuum cleaner. > > > > I think the phrase "substantially prevent or interfere with the > > enjoyment of a substantial part of the property" gives you the clue that > > you hadn't yet taken on board. > > > > I'll quote from an Irish Law Reform Commission report. > > > > A condition that the vendor shall give vacant possession of the property > > is generally regarded as meaning, firstly, that the purchaser will > > acquire possession free from any form of occupation or from any claim to > > a right to possession by the vendor or by a third party. The vendor is > > accordingly obliged to terminate any subsisting leases or tenancies of > > the property. Furthermore, he must ensure that the premises are free > > from occupation by trespassers or squatters. > > > > Secondly, the term implies that the property will be given free from any > > physical impediment. In the English case of Cumberland Consolidated > > Holdings Ltd v Ireland it was held that a vendor who had left a > > considerable quantity of rubbish in the cellars of the premises sold had > > failed to give vacant possession. Lord Greene stated: > > > > “Subject to the rule de minimis a vendor who leaves property of his own > > on the premises on completion cannot, in our opinion, be said to give > > vacant possession, since by doing so he is claiming a right to use the > > premises for his own purposes, namely, as a place of deposit for his own > > goods inconsistent with the right which the purchaser has on completion > > to undisturbed enjoyment ...." > > > > unquote > > > > You will easily be led astray by that reference to Cumberland > > Consolidated unless you understand the phrase "de minimis".  Because > > obviously a few items of rubbish or broken furniture do not imply that > > the seller continues to claim a right to use the premises for his own > > purposes. > > I look forward to you providing a reliable reference that says vacant > possession does not require the removal of your property from the premises. > > Any impediment to its free use by the purchaser means that it is not > being sold with vacant possession. And that includes anything other > than trivial quantities. > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAmguAfIACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x7JmAgAprrwGvolIyw4+hlt4eQXd+TYRzFRcHXszx84jFy4efSUhN/hJ8FjPHfr C/pSP8jjvVeOv+IQWHNDF4hEGPTyYwiUoUQKLyjAKDSMvo0w+aHUOxK7Pm8Sy40z a/XH0S92NoGpSs/gHMUH+VzU+kE59ayovoNYp+yeYwmRnD2ny1yIkVTreFlA8a93 IfBSS4XPro2VGJYQ/yv9Lamulqk/T392gY1eG0InoPu7wnlmxCCG21F1qdF89syI deNGZ4MJccbDnRzZVQhuS8EivLxuK/JAQ9Vgqoq4wJUs+l9OIVgzQlF2FCcj9QrV oQOxbgocohPHsIl4rqNuDFXRKr+YeA== =ELEd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----