thank you for your professional opinion (although I admit that I am disappointed about the law surrounding actions - which in their effect are a form of 'gazumping' even though the vendor has publicly stated to their selling representative (estate agent - whom I presume would have tried their best to establish the true facts and avoid liability) that the sale involves NO Chain, and yet the vendor can give false information and change all circumstances without any liability themselves.
This I find totally unacceptable and that these instances will only ever change if people like yourself, put forward suggestions for change to the Parliamentary legislature to make changes that will outlaw these practises and protect the purchaser from unnecessary / avoidable delays to buying the property of their desire.
I had stated in my original comments about my children paying a deposit of 5% as their 'initial' payment towards the purchase of the property. You replied that this was a 'dispensation' that the seller could offer if they so wished.
This is not the understanding that my children have.
They have read the mortgage offer documentation etc and these indicate that they are only liable to put forward 5% of the purchase price.
This obviously does not clarify the mechanics of how all of the monies are transferred / forwarded to the vendor but it has raised concerns for my children, in how they would find the addition monies if these were required at this late state of the purchase process and if 10% requirement was not released by their mortgage provided at the predetermined time of the vendor.
In closing I would like to thank you for your advise although I am angry by the possibility that my children will suffer the loses of thousands of pounds because of flaws in the procedure that gives more rights to the seller than the purchaser.