I've bought a house, sold it and 2 years later bought another one, however I've never sold and bought a house a the same time.

I now want to sell up again but this time I need to purchase another immediately and therefore be part of a chain, as I've never done this simultaneously I was wondering if those who have can tell me what the process is, the timescales we need to consider, what I need to do and when, and what costs I'd need upfront?

Am I right I would need to put my house on the market first, before I even start looking? Do I need an offer on mine before I can put an offer on another?

Can I use the same solicitor/conveyancer to deal with the sale and purchase?

When I sold my last house, all my costs (estate agents and solicitors fees) came out of my profits when we completed so I didn't need much upfront costs, what costs do I need to consider upfront when selling and buying at the same time?

Am I correct the mortgage rate I currently have is transferred to a new property? or Do I have to have a whole new mortgage and possibly a higher rate? (bearing in mind I have a much higher salary than before and a higher deposit/equity to put down)

Do I pay a higher stamp duty when selling and then buying?

Any other tips you would advise?

Many thanks in advance.

No strict rules but it's advisable - any offers you put in aren't likely to be treated too seriously if you haven't found a buyer for your house. If you're in an area where your house is likely to be snapped up quickly then this might be less of a problem.


Yes, and it makes things more fiddly if you don't!


Not much, generally costs aren't due until completion. Solicitors might want some before ordering searches etc.


You might be able to transfer ("port") your existing deal depending on your lender but in practice you're paying off your current mortgage and taking out a new one (so affordability etc are all checked again).


No, it will just based on the purchase price (though a higher rate now applies if you buy before selling).

Just to clarify: mortgages are agreed against a specific property and are not transferable unless your provider agrees to facilitate this. Though in practice you are just taking out a new mortgage with the same provider - you go through the same financial checks, the mortgage people will review all the conveyancing details and if your loan to value has increased then the rate will change.

I would highly recommend shopping around rather than just continuing with your current mortgage. Unless you have a long term fixed rate thing you'll likely save money.

Thanks for your reply, really helpful.

What if you are selling and buying at the same time? Is it still a higher rate?

Mine is currently one of the lowest rate on the market as I have just recently got a new 2 year deal.
I know new buyer rates are higher and hence why I don't want to sell first and then buy as I'll be subject to a higher rate anyway, but am I right any new mortgage should be comparable to my existing one if I'm selling and buying at the same time, or does it make no difference.

The reason I ask is that I have no need to sell and buy at the same time, I just thought by doing so it would allow me to get a better rate, than being a new buyer?

Not sure what you mean by higher rate. You will be starting a new mortgage. The usual factors will apply in determining the interest rate e.g. any deals, loan to value ratio, salary multiplier, etc.

You can get a quote for settlement of the existing mortgage. There are likely to be early settlement fees especially if you are on a fixed deal at the moment and probably admin charges unless you take out the new mortgage with the same lender.

Unless you can afford to buy first and can afford two mortgages or have somewhere to go and sell first then you will be buying and selling on the same time day.

I am sure there are people with nightmare stories to tell.
It should go smoothly and a good lawyer will be a great help.

However - I have found the biggest sticking point is that everyone in the chain above and below you needs to move on the same day. That can be tricky.

My parents moved once and the old lady they were buying from insisted she wanted to move on Easter weekend - as her son was a removal man so he would not be working - and therefore could move her for free.
She refused to see the problem that he was only free to move her stuff - as removal men don't work on Easter - so nobody else in the chain could move apart from her.

My worst was when the house we were buying - unbeknown to us - was from a couple divorcing.
We ended up with 2 chains below us - so had a nightmare getting a completion / moving date agreed.
The day we were able to agree on - September 11th 2001 !!!
Our payments just went through before the first plane hit - no idea what happened to others in the chain or if their payments got held up by events.

Don't bother letting estate agents send viewers round to your house unless the viewer has an offer on their house.

You get all sorts of timewasters otherwise, some mugs just want to have a nose around, and some mugs haven't even got their house on the market yet, so what's the point in tidying up and going through the selling process for those non sales ?

I cut out the timewasters last time we moved ( 10 years ago ) and it made the process less painful.

The question was about stamp duty, not mortgages. And the answer is no, the higher rate only applies if you own more than one property - so even if that is only temporary (because you're buying first and then selling shortly afterwards) you need to pay the higher rate (and may be able to claim a refund later).


I can't remember there being any problems with conveyancing on that day, other than people leaving their desks to gawp at the news?

Regardless of whether or not removal men work at Easter there would have been a bigger problem in that completion can only take place on a normal working day, not on a bank holiday or weekend.

IIRC the move fell through as the old biddy refused to accept she could not move over Easter weekend, and would not even discuss any other dates.

Agree 100% about people viewing - we have had people viewing previous houses who had no intention of making an offer.

There was also a couple, when we sold our first place in '91, who went round making offers on houses. Luckily I smelt a rat so we did not pass their offer on to our solicitor as apparantly it was "for their son who has not arranged his mortgage yet"
However they wanted us to sign something that said we would not sell to anyone else.

We had friends in the same town who were also selling and they had the same "offer" from the same people.

Some people are just sick jerks who get kicks by messing other people around.

Sorry, apologies for my ignorance.

I thought first time buyers/ those who don't already own a home are subjected to higher mortgage rates than existing home owners?
I always thought this because on mortgage calculators it always asks you if you are either a first time buyer or an existing home owner who wants to move house, and the rates are different with the first time buyers being a higher rate.

Thats why I thought I would get a more preferential rate for selling and buying simultaneously rather than selling up first and then becoming a first time buyer again, or have I got this completely wrong?

I can move out and sell first if it helps me? is there a benefit to that?

I'm lucky in being able to put my stuff in storage and stay with my bro if the worse came to the worse so hopefully completion dates wouldn't be dependent on me, I can be flexible.

I think thats standard now, last time I was buying I wasn't allowed to view a property unless I had a mortgage in principal and I believe sellers had to have an offer on their properties, but I will make sure the estate agents know that.

If you have bought and sold a house already how can you be a first time buyer? You can only be one once! I.e. The first time you buy!!!!!!

Don't the estate agents have to vet the viewers as well as sellers?
Last time I bought I had to show proof that I was in a position to be able to offer, with a mortgage in principal.

Actually thats not strictly true. Anyone who doesn't already have a mortgage on an existing home is classed as a first time buyer, i.e they don't need to sell a property first.

The second time I bought I was classed as a first time buyer, even though technically it was the second house I've bought in my lifetime.

Most estate agents do some kind of vetting on potential buyers to weed out timewasters. When selling in the past, I have also instructed agents not to bother sending anyone round who was not in a position to move - i.e. have a buyer for their house.

The more upmarket you go, the more stringent they seem to be. But it varies from agent to agent.

However a mortgage company will classify you, be sure to remember that to qualify for first time buyer relief on stamp duty you must have never owned a residential property before.

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-man...ual/sdltm29830

The purchaser must not, either alone or with others, have previously acquired a legal or beneficial interest in freehold or leasehold land which is, or includes, residential property, or an equivalent interest in land situated anywhere in the world.

[Edited for clarification]

I went with a mortgage broker who organised the purchase for me, I didn't actively class myself as a first time buyer myself so I had no idea.
The broker did know I previously owned and sold a property and he said as long as I don't own anything anymore then I'm classed as a first time buyer??


How strange, does this mean he lied?

* just checked my previous invoice for the house and it looks like I did pay stamp duty, so I think the "first time buyer" term was in relation to the mortgage itself and the rates applied to the type of buyer,

It might give you a bit more attractive as a buyer so the chain won't need to complete on the same day but aside from that financially it won't make a huge difference expect that you will need to move twice.

Also wanted to add that generally, the agents don't want you home when showing the house to prospective buyers. And yes they should have checked if the buyer has a mortgage in principle in place, i.e. how much they can borrow. Also if should know if the buyer need to sell a place as well, we had two similar offers on my dad's place and we went with the people who didn't need to sell as well. Made things much easier.

So if there is no financial difference then why do mortgage lenders differentiate between first time buyers and those who want to move house? I thought it was because they got different rates?

Unfortunately I will have to be home when there are viewings as I have a large dog who is normally very friendly, but I can't be 100% sure she will be ok with strangers wandering into the house!

Any difference in rates will be down to LTV rather than whether or not a home is currently owned, all other things being equal. First time buyers will typically have less capital available than someone who is moving.

First time buyers will typically fall into the high LTV category where smaller deposits are accepted but the interest rates are higher. It's about how much capital you have and therefore how much risk your mortgage would pose to the lender.

You keep talking about rates, are you talking about stamp duty or mortgage interest rate ?

One of the factors effecting your mortgage interest rate will be your credit score. This is effected by showing that you can take on and pay debt (why people who have never taken credit get a bad rating), plus being a existing home owner will boost your credit score. So its quite possible that existing homeowners can get a better interest rate even when LTV is the same as first time buyer.

At the same time, there are a couple of government schemes for first time mortgage borrowers that may make it easier for them to get a mortgage. I have a friend who lived with parents, married an existing homeowner and moved in with him. When they wanted to up size, she was able to get government help if the mortgage was in her name only. However this would potentially caused issues if they split so they didn't go down that route in the end.