vacant pocession, problems.

chickmug

lostinrates wrote: »

What happens if a property is not vacant on completion, despite being sold as such?

Over the years there were several time where both myself and the sellers solicitor felt sure it was about to be our first - where the sellers did not move out. However after many years in the business I never came across a single case.

The times where I felt this may be the first were always acrimoneous split ups. It caused all involved geart stress but not as much as the buyers.

I am hoping you may take comfort from knowing it really is not that common?

Debt_Free_Chick

When you buy a property the transaction is evidenced by a legally binding contract. One of the terms is that the property is vacant on the day that the sale completes (as the buyer owns the property, on completion).

In law, if the property is not vacant then the seller is in breach of contract - whether the occupants are tenants, the seller or squatters. The seller is in breach of contract.

How does the buyer remedy this? The easy way is to get the seller to enforce the contract so they should move out, if they are the occupants - or evict the tenants, if the property is let. This latter situation is more complex, however. If the property was let, then the seller should have evicted the tenants well in advance of completion. If they haven't followed the lawful process for this, then they have to do so - and that can take time.

One can only deal with the situation when it arises as it depends on the specific circumstances at the time.

However, if the property is not vacant on completion, as a buyer, you should consult your solicitor in the first instance. The process could be quick, simple and cheap or long, complex and expensive - although, the costs ought to be recoverable from the seller, so long as the seller has the means to pay!

This applies to all purchases - although some (e.g. tenanted properties) carry a (slightly) higher risk than others.

lostinrates

Thank you everyone.

After long discussion into the wee small hours of last night we are feeling the risk is high of this happening. It is my personal belief, based on nothing but gut, that the occupier is ''close to the edge'' and that the legal procedures a buyer might be forced to inititiate are probably not going to be the only the occupier has seen/will see.

The property is a rare beast, and although by no means outr dream property we felt could potentially offer good value for money and some benefits, and we would look at it as a launch property rather than a ''forever'' one. We feel in a stable or rising market it would have been, thugh more expensive, a good buy for us, but that as we really would want to be their no more than around 5 years, its not going to be worth the stress, risk and frustration of proceeding.

That said, we have finance in place and I might go to the auction and if it goes for beans (unlikely) maybe we'll have a go anyway.

I'm slightly concerned about thesafty of a deposit put don against the property at auction, and I will seek clarification from the agents on Monday on this point.

Thank you all for the information!

Debt_Free_Chick

lostinrates wrote: »

I'm slightly concerned about thesafty of a deposit put don against the property at auction, and I will seek clarification from the agents on Monday on this point.

Do check this out, but it should be no different to any other purchase. The deposit should be held "on your behalf" and ONLY used as a pre-payment, if the sale proceeds. In other words, it can't go to the seller and "be lost" if the sale falls through.

Good luck - perhaps you'll snap it up at a bargain price :T