Nuances when buying a second home
Nuances when buying secondary housing many believe that the purchase of secondary housing is most justified, or rather acceptable. People’s minds are affected by the stereotype “used-means not very expensive”, and consumers rush to search for options in the secondary market.
Perhaps this approach is justified, but secondary apartments are not only savings, it is also a big risk. The right of ownership, of course, must be confirmed by certain documents. The seller must have a contract of sale (and a valid one), or a certificate of inheritance, perhaps a gift agreement, or court decisions that turned the seller into the owner.
The authenticity of such documents is mandatory. The real characteristics of the living space must be compared with the BTI data. You also need to make sure that the apartment will be transferred to the buyer without any encumbrances and any claims to ownership from third parties.
Checking the seller also does not prevent up to the verification of the authenticity of his passport. It is also mandatory to require an extended extract from the usrp from the seller (it will help to find out the “past” of the apartment). You should never rely on the integrity of the person selling the living space by proxy. Even if it causes very positive emotions, it is better to meet the owner face to face. And it is better to watch the option during the day – working hours will help you make the right impression about the infrastructure around.
As for payment, the best option for transferring funds is to rent a cell in the Bank. The payment process will be much safer for all participants of the transaction, if you enter into a cell rental agreement, where certain access conditions will be provided (the lease term, access days for the buyer and seller).
In addition to the cost of housing, the buyer also has other expenses: payment for notary services when drawing up power of attorney and applications, payment for a cell in the Bank, payment for drawing up a non-notary agreement and state duty. Therefore, it is not necessary to refuse state compensation when the state returns part of the costs.