Offer to purchase question

So the place is in my name etc etc and the bond is with standard bank, yet I have no logins or nothing.

How do I get access to this account, the attorneys said I must call standard bank, sounds like a hassle I thought I would've received some info or logins or something.
 
Thor said:
So the place is in my name etc etc and the bond is with standard bank, yet I have no logins or nothing.

How do I get access to this account, the attorneys said I must call standard bank, sounds like a hassle I thought I would've received some info or logins or something.
Click to expand...

I think you need to register for online banking with SB.
 
Thor said:
So the place is in my name etc etc and the bond is with standard bank, yet I have no logins or nothing.

How do I get access to this account, the attorneys said I must call standard bank, sounds like a hassle I thought I would've received some info or logins or something.
Click to expand...
You will need a normal account to create an online banking profile. I had the same issue and just opened an eplan account at the time. You need the card to create your online banking profile which you don't get by just having a bond.
 
signates said:
You will need a normal account to create an online banking profile. I had the same issue and just opened an eplan account at the time. You need the card to create your online banking profile which you don't get by just having a bond.
Click to expand...
I had to do the same thing for my bond with ABSA.
 
Kosmik said:
Nope, it remains the buyers problem. They can sue but it's a ugly kettle of fish.
Click to expand...
How can it be the buyer's problem if it is a contractual obligation of the seller?

I am speaking of evictions prior to the transfer.
 
bokka1 said:
How can it be the buyer's problem if it is a contractual obligation of the seller?

I am speaking of evictions prior to the transfer.
Click to expand...

I think what he’s saying is If it’s not on the contract that the place has to be vacant. Then it will be slightly harder to sue or make the seller account for the tenant.
 
bokka1 said:
How can it be the buyer's problem if it is a contractual obligation of the seller?

I am speaking of evictions prior to the transfer.
Click to expand...
Because the person will still remain and there is nothing the buyer can do except try chase the seller and go through the court system. The police would not remove the "squatter" and the new owner would have a massive uphill battle. Legally one could hold the old owner liable but the new owner would do not be able to move in until the matter is resolved and they would be liable for bond / utilities etc from date of transfer.

Its a sh#@show best avoided and it will not stop the transfer process from going through.
 
It seems to me that there's no point in buying a house that one can't use, either because there are people living in it that one doesn't want there at all, or because one doesn't want them as tenants because they don't pay their rent. There must be sellers who try to sell precisely because they know that they have bad tenants or random people occupying their property, and they don't want to deal with that through the formal chanels, and see the sale as their less arduous way out of a bad situation.

Kosmik said:
Because the person will still remain and there is nothing the buyer can do except try chase the seller and go through the court system. The police would not remove the "squatter" and the new owner would have a massive uphill battle. Legally one could hold the old owner liable but the new owner would do not be able to move in until the matter is resolved and they would be liable for bond / utilities etc from date of transfer.

Its a sh#@show best avoided and it will not stop the transfer process from going through.
Click to expand...
This is what I understood, too.

How to avoid this miserable situation? As far as I know, unless the buyer wants to take over existing contracts with existing tenants, there ought to be a clause in the contract expressly saying that the seller is responsible for "vacant occupation". That would mean that the seller is 100% responsible for getting all tenants/occupiers out of the premises, not the buyer's problem in any way.

The part I don't understand is how to hold the seller to causing this to come into effect.
By when must the seller undertake this?
Is there a penalty if the seller does not?
Is there a recommended way to put this into the OTP, such that, if the tenants or occupiers won't budge, the deal falls through, and the buyer is free to move on, undamaged?
 
Gozado said:
It seems to me that there's no point in buying a house that one can't use, either because there are people living in it that one doesn't want there at all, or because one doesn't want them as tenants because they don't pay their rent. There must be sellers who try to sell precisely because they know that they have bad tenants or random people occupying their property, and they don't want to deal with that through the formal chanels, and see the sale as their less arduous way out of a bad situation.


This is what I understood, too.

How to avoid this miserable situation? As far as I know, unless the buyer wants to take over existing contracts with existing tenants, there ought to be a clause in the contract expressly saying that the seller is responsible for "vacant occupation". That would mean that the seller is 100% responsible for getting all tenants/occupiers out of the premises, not the buyer's problem in any way.

The part I don't understand is how to hold the seller to causing this to come into effect.
By when must the seller undertake this?
Is there a penalty if the seller does not?
Is there a recommended way to put this into the OTP, such that, if the tenants or occupiers won't budge, the deal falls through, and the buyer is free to move on, undamaged?
Click to expand...
The clause was in my OTP, even though the place is currently vacant. It was a standard thing provided by the seller's estate agent. I'll ask my conveyancer about it when I speak to him again and then report back. I'm sure there must be some kind of reason for it to be there, because if it's unenforceable then why bother putting it in?
 
Gozado said:
It seems to me that there's no point in buying a house that one can't use, either because there are people living in it that one doesn't want there at all, or because one doesn't want them as tenants because they don't pay their rent. There must be sellers who try to sell precisely because they know that they have bad tenants or random people occupying their property, and they don't want to deal with that through the formal chanels, and see the sale as their less arduous way out of a bad situation.


This is what I understood, too.

How to avoid this miserable situation? As far as I know, unless the buyer wants to take over existing contracts with existing tenants, there ought to be a clause in the contract expressly saying that the seller is responsible for "vacant occupation". That would mean that the seller is 100% responsible for getting all tenants/occupiers out of the premises, not the buyer's problem in any way.

The part I don't understand is how to hold the seller to causing this to come into effect.
By when must the seller undertake this?
Is there a penalty if the seller does not?
Is there a recommended way to put this into the OTP, such that, if the tenants or occupiers won't budge, the deal falls through, and the buyer is free to move on, undamaged?
Click to expand...
The problem is not the otp, it's the lodgement. Unless your otp specifically stated that prior to lodging the tenant must have moved out and that lodgment will not proceed until, you can still be stuck.
 
Kosmik said:
The problem is not the otp, it's the lodgement. Unless your otp specifically stated that prior to lodging the tenant must have moved out and that lodgment will not proceed until, you can still be stuck.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I think that was the part I was missing. So not just "vacant" but "vacant prior to lodging", and if not, the sale does not go through. Would it be, then, that the seller reimburses the exiting purchaser for any costs up till then?
 
Last edited:
The sale will go through. Its the sellers responsibility to have it empty before lodgment.
 
Gozado said:
Thank you. I think that was the part I was missing. So not just "vacant" buy "vacant prior to lodging", and if not, the sale does not go through. Would it be, then, that the seller reimburses the exiting purchaser for any costs up till then?
Click to expand...
No reimbursements as the sale hasn't processed yet. Can make it a Sunset clause though with a window of x time to allow for vacancy and thereafter deal can be canceled by buyer with no cost to buyer and full costs to seller for failure to comply.

That would be around the lawyers etc who do charge for time on a defaulted sale.
 
powermzii said:
@APoc184 hope the move went / is going well today
Click to expand...
Hey hey!!

We are in and We are tired!!

But we are so happy!

Kids were seriously miffed because the weather was not in favour of swimming.

Loads of stuff still needs unpacking and sorting. But that will happen slowly but surely, with the emphasis on slowly
 
Congratulations, @APoc184! I guess you'll sleep like a log tonight.
May you live happily and enjoy, enjoy, enjoy your new house, as you all slowly turn it into a home.
 
APoc184 said:
Hey hey!!

We are in and We are tired!!

But we are so happy!

Kids were seriously miffed because the weather was not in favour of swimming.

Loads of stuff still needs unpacking and sorting. But that will happen slowly but surely, with the emphasis on slowly
Click to expand...
Congrats! The weather this side also just held long enough for all the moving to be done. And then the power went off from 4-7pm... But we're in.

Enjoy your new home! :)
 
Thank you so much everyone! Been one hellavu rollercoaster ride up to this point.

Saturday and Sunday were two of the most exhausting days we've had in as long as I can remember. By 21h00 last night the wife started falling asleep next to a box of clothes she was unpacking for the children. But yeah. We slept like rocks!

I wouldn't wish it upon anyone to move like we did. First to storage and the next day to the new place. But it is done!

I'm already at the office this morning. Just too busy to take a few days off. But wife will soldier on today and tomorrow.

Good luck to each and everyone with their moving plans!
 
Last edited:
LlamaParty said:
Congrats! The weather this side also just held long enough for all the moving to be done. And then the power went off from 4-7pm... But we're in.

Enjoy your new home! :)
Click to expand...

Aaah. Glad you guys also managed to get sorted and get moving!

Congrats! May you have only awesome memories at the new place!
 
PotatoGuardian said:
So I clarified with the estate agent. Apparently the developer will be paying the transfer duty"because they own the land and that is what they are transferring. He said:

Agent: The email I can forward to you is fine - as the reason why we don’t indicate it in the Otp - is banks always want the purchasers to pay the transfer duties. So it prevents the bank flagging it
Agent: The email is binding and do multiple deals with the developer like this

The email states:
Click to expand...
This sounds dodge. All terms must be in the offer. A bank financing you won't care that the seller is paying the transfer duty. Also, you don't know if the agent has the authority to bind the developer when s/he states the developer will pay - it might be non binding. Either it is in the OTP or don't sign.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X