Landlord wants to sell - I don't want viewings...

BigJonnyB

Hey everyone - thanks for all the thoughts/suggestions and advice. It really is appreciated.

One of the things that has really got my back up is that the story has kept changing. A few weeks ago, they wanted some friends to view as they were looking for somewhere to buy. They told me it would probably come to nothing, as it was not really the right house for their friends - and they weren't too fussed about selling. I said it was fine for them to view, and put time aside. They then cancelled the day before, and that was that.

Until they then decided that they wanted the house valued - not so they could sell, but so they could start thinking about what they could do if we left in the summer. Completely fair enough, so the valuations went ahead.

Then they decided to 'test the water', and wanted viewings to commence within a few days, albeit in a block. They suggested a three hour block once or twice a week. This is when I said no, as it conflicted too much with my work - but I did say that I would reconsider if they offered a rent reduction, or paid for us to leave earlier than we have to (i.e. break the contract). They said no - and left it with me to talk to my partner, saying I wasn't being reasonable.

So I've had a while to think about it, and know I just can't start having viewings. As other posters have said, I will gain nothing from this, and it really makes things a pain for us. I don't appreciate being made to feel that this is all done as some big favour to me. My work today has resulted in me needing to go away from Friday to Tuesday (I don't mean go away as a holiday unfortunately!) - and this is why viewings just don't work for us. My partner will join me for the most part, as he normally does, which would leave us with two options - don't go and lose earnings, or let them view while we're hours away. Neither of those is going to happen, as I certainly wouldn't have people looking around the house without one of us there. This might be the landlords house, but it is our home, and it has our life contents in. If they want to sell it, fine - just give us the notice and use a little bit of planning.

So, I've written to them, politely trying to explain that I understand that they want to sell - but we can't have viewings for a number of reasons. I've asked about the deposit, so we'll see what they say (we've only been renting since 2008, so it does fall under the protection scheme thing from what I can gather!). I'm expecting them to serve notice - but that's fine, two months is enough time for us to know what we're doing and then find somewhere else. It's just time they decided what they want to do, rather than trying to get the best of both worlds.

Thanks again to everyone for their posts - I was laughing out loud at the suggestions for making the house less presentable, and its really helped while we're stressed and unsure about what to do. I'll obviously keep everyone updated when I next hear something - no doubt the phone will ring tomorrow or Friday!

JB

barnaby-bear

BigJonnyB wrote: »

Hey everyone - thanks for all the thoughts/suggestions and advice. It really is appreciated.

One of the things that has really got my back up is that the story has kept changing. A few weeks ago, they wanted some friends to view as they were looking for somewhere to buy. They told me it would probably come to nothing, as it was not really the right house for their friends - and they weren't too fussed about selling. I said it was fine for them to view, and put time aside. They then cancelled the day before, and that was that.

Until they then decided that they wanted the house valued - not so they could sell, but so they could start thinking about what they could do if we left in the summer. Completely fair enough, so the valuations went ahead.

Then they decided to 'test the water', and wanted viewings to commence within a few days, albeit in a block. They suggested a three hour block once or twice a week. This is when I said no, as it conflicted too much with my work - but I did say that I would reconsider if they offered a rent reduction, or paid for us to leave earlier than we have to (i.e. break the contract). They said no - and left it with me to talk to my partner, saying I wasn't being reasonable.

So I've had a while to think about it, and know I just can't start having viewings. As other posters have said, I will gain nothing from this, and it really makes things a pain for us. I don't appreciate being made to feel that this is all done as some big favour to me. My work today has resulted in me needing to go away from Friday to Tuesday (I don't mean go away as a holiday unfortunately!) - and this is why viewings just don't work for us. My partner will join me for the most part, as he normally does, which would leave us with two options - don't go and lose earnings, or let them view while we're hours away. Neither of those is going to happen, as I certainly wouldn't have people looking around the house without one of us there. This might be the landlords house, but it is our home, and it has our life contents in. If they want to sell it, fine - just give us the notice and use a little bit of planning.

So, I've written to them, politely trying to explain that I understand that they want to sell - but we can't have viewings for a number of reasons. I've asked about the deposit, so we'll see what they say (we've only been renting since 2008, so it does fall under the protection scheme thing from what I can gather!). I'm expecting them to serve notice - but that's fine, two months is enough time for us to know what we're doing and then find somewhere else. It's just time they decided what they want to do, rather than trying to get the best of both worlds.

Thanks again to everyone for their posts - I was laughing out loud at the suggestions for making the house less presentable, and its really helped while we're stressed and unsure about what to do. I'll obviously keep everyone updated when I next hear something - no doubt the phone will ring tomorrow or Friday!

JB

as one whose been there meet my friend
http://www.all-about-the-home.co.uk/yale-saa5010-pir-shed-alarm-with-keypad-saa-5010---free-delivery-601-p.asp

a) let's you know if anyone has sneaked in
b) reminds them - if they do - they shouldn't be there (plus of course reassures you your contents insurance valid)

franklee

barnaby-bear wrote: »

I did the polite, co-operating bit and it didn't work - when we bought our own place - we didn't need a reference and after trying to co-operate once the realisation we were regarded as scum whilst paying through the nose to be thought of as such dawned.... and it became a rather enjoyable game..... I think you need a mouse trap or two in your kitchen

I didn't realise you'd brought, was that recent? Just curious if it is on your reasons and view of the housing market (I'm still waiting).

barnaby-bear

franklee wrote: »

I didn't realise you'd brought, was that recent? Just curious if it is on your reasons and view of the housing market (I'm still waiting).

only 3 and half years ago :rotfl: - but the experience with prat-LL-from-hell got me involved in tenant advocacy..... reasons were possibly not a great investment but neither is a holiday (once over the depreciation means worth nothing) but the difference between renting and (buying+a longer commute but stability) was what was right... it was the LAs, amature LLs etc.... if was single and footloose maybe different but we wanted and needed longer than 2 months security with the threat of inspections, prohibition of kids/pets/smoking friends, and hours of nagging to get the simplest fault sorted.... nowadays washing machine breaks, new washing machine arrives tomorrow off internet :T

franklee

barnaby-bear wrote: »

only 3 and half years ago :rotfl: - but the experience with prat-LL-from-hell got me involved in tenant advocacy..... reasons were possibly not a great investment but neither is a holiday (once over the depreciation means worth nothing) but the difference between renting and (buying+a longer commute but stability) was what was right... it was the LAs, amature LLs etc.... if was single and footloose maybe different but we wanted and needed longer than 2 months security with the threat of inspections, prohibition of kids/pets/smoking friends, and hours of nagging to get the simplest fault sorted.... nowadays washing machine breaks, new washing machine arrives tomorrow off internet :T

Thanks barnaby-bear, I didn't realise you brought so long ago :beer: Renting can be a right pain for the reasons you state, silly really as if LAs/LLs were only a bit better and the security of tenure for good tenants was improved then they would retain good tenants in the rental market. As it is I'm now looking forwrd to buying too, just letting prices go a bit more first.

tbs624

GoldenJill wrote: »

...On the other hand, if you had a house and were trying to sell it, how would you feel if someone refused to allow viewings, very possibly jeopardising a sale?..

When you let a property you grant *exclusive occupation* of that property to another party - you can't pick and choose.Amateur LLs need to get their heads around this one: if a T agrees to anyone viewing the property , potential purchaser or potential future tenant , then the T is doing the LL a huge favour. If the LL/property owner wants access as and when he chooses so as to be able to sell then s/he must quite simply put up with paying the mortgage and having the property standing empty until it sells.

GoldenJill wrote: »

It is completely up to you whether you keep it tidy or not - within the rights of inspections of course, and any possible buyer would be stupid and thick to not buy a house because the washing hadn't been done and clothes/toys strewn everywhere.

Slight diversion but even when a LL "inspects" the property, in line with the fulfilment of his repairing obligations, the T absolutely does *not* have to keep it tidy. It is the T's home and they are fully entitled to live how they please provided that the property is not damaged. On your second point there are actually buyers who *are* that thick - some of 'em post on here;)

GoldenJill wrote: »

The agency has tried to be fair by block booking - as someone said above, perhaps you could make it when you went shopping or had errands to run.

It's not a case of the LA "being fair" - the T calls the shots on this one.

GoldenJill wrote: »

Putting up rape alarm signs / bnp posters / pizza hut menus / rat traps will just make you look like you've lost your mind!

Why would a T care what the potential buyer may think of their mental state?

GoldenJill wrote: »

If you're not happy there and are not happy with this arrangement, nothing is stopping you from moving.

That's quite an offensive comment to make: when someone ispaying rent to have that exclusive occupation that is what they are entitled to. There is nothing stopping the LL from keeping the property empty until it eventually sells, other than their need for the T's rental payments to cover the mortgage.

GoldenJill wrote: »

It's a fact of life that people sell houses, regardless of whether they tenanted or not. They can try and make it easy for you, and I agree they should do what they can to create as minimal disruption to your life - but at teh end of the day it's their house - why shouldn't they have a right to show prospective buyers around?

Because they chose to let it out as someone else' home and happily accept the rent in exchange for doing so.

GoldenJill wrote: »

Maybe they're really struggling and need a sale.

That is not the T's problem.

GoldenJill wrote: »

For your own sanity I would look around at other houses - however, just be aware when you rent, you'll always be in a position where the owners might decide to sell & therefore ask for viewings.

The operative term there Jill is *ask*

GoldenJill wrote: »

It woudl have been nice from the sellers point of view to offer a reduction in rent I agree - however, they're not obligated to at all so it would be purely goodwill.

You are missing the point - it is goodwilll *on the part of the T* if viewings are agreed to. A LL offering a reduction in rent is common sense, but some Ts would still refuse the disruption and they are fully entitled to do so.

Shakethedisease

On the other hand, if you had a house and were trying to sell it, how would you feel if someone refused to allow viewings, very possibly jeopardising a sale?

If you're not happy there and are not happy with this arrangement, nothing is stopping you from moving.

It's a fact of life that people sell houses, regardless of whether they tenanted or not. They can try and make it easy for you, and I agree they should do what they can to create as minimal disruption to your life - but at teh end of the day it's their house - why shouldn't they have a right to show prospective buyers around? Maybe they're really struggling and need a sale.

Tenants aren't squatters or similar !!!! :rolleyes: It may be the landlords property, but they are taking money from a tenant in order that the tenant may call that property their home. Again,.. the landlord takes money in order that the tenant may treat his/her property as their home for the duration of the contract.

My landlord advertised on Rightmove for a tenant, and a long-term one at that. That's exactly what he got. I certainly did not, in any way, shape or form sign up to be a hinderance or instrumental in 'jeopordising a sale'. How many tenants do ???

People do indeed sell properties all the time. People rent properties out all the time. Trying to do both at the same time is not fair to the paying tenant.

I wouldn't have touched mine with a bargepole had I known it was also up for sale and that viewings would be 'expected'. As for saying 'well you could always move'.. words fail me. I moved into a large family home with my children. I have their welfare to consider also. Having to move schools and uproot them every 6 months because I'm 'jeopordising a sale' I had no idea was on the cards certainly isn't in their best interests and no fault of mine.

My landlord doesn't have the 'right' to show prospective buyers/tenants around precisely because he takes money off me every month so I can live there in peace and without disruption, just like he does in his bought one. The law backs this up with 'quiet enjoyment' rights regardless of what he puts in any private tenancy agreement.

If a landlord truly needs a sale.. probably best not to rent it out then. Simple !

Better bow out of this one. Op good luck with whatever you decide to do, but don't get hung up on being 'reasonable'. You may end up with block viewings twice a week for the next year ! Just put yourself and your loved ones needs first and don't get intimidated either.

ps crossed posts with tbs who said the same things a lot better than me.

Castleman

In reply to the OP:

Would you sign for a place that you haven't seen?

I.e. if you say no viewings and you get given your notice, then whilst looking for a new place, none of the existing tenants or landlords in those places are allowing others to look around, would you be happy?

I know it's a drag and a hassle, been there done that. BUT it does appear incredibly selfish that you can't put aside a certain period each week, even if you have to change it each week too.

Gingernutmeg

It really does seem that there are lots of people who can't get their heads around the fact that tenants are human beings too, human beings who have entered into a business contract with a LL. We're not criminals, or idiots, or squatters. Generally, we're paying over the market rate for somewhere to call home, not somewhere where we're constantly reminded that we're second-class citizens who don't have a right to a bit of peace and quiet in the place where we should be able to feel safest.

I don't understand why it's 'selfish' for a tenant to say - 'you rented this property out to me for x months, probably telling me that it was definitely a 'long-term' rental, and now you want to sell the property, making me homeless and inconveniencing me for months on end, during a period in which I'm still paying full rent for exclusive occupation of this property. I'm going to be expected to open up my 'home' to complete strangers whenever you demand it, and if I point out that I've got a life to lead and I'm not happy about doing that, then I'm selfish and being unfair. Sorry, but it's just not on. I'm not happy but if you negotiate with me we'll work something out, but it's not fair for you to take rent off me and demand use of the property when you want it.' That seems reasonable to me ...

It seems to me that in these situations, as has already been pointed out, it's the LL who's not being fair. Of course they have the right to sell the property, but if they've got tenants in then they don't have the right to sell it when they want, how they want. It's sheer greed to get a tenant in and then try to sell while they're still there, wailing that tenants aren't being 'fair' when they can't get what they want, and whilst it might be legally acceptable morally it's not a nice way to treat a customer at all.

BigJonnyB

Castleman wrote: »

In reply to the OP:

Would you sign for a place that you haven't seen?

I.e. if you say no viewings and you get given your notice, then whilst looking for a new place, none of the existing tenants or landlords in those places are allowing others to look around, would you be happy?

I know it's a drag and a hassle, been there done that. BUT it does appear incredibly selfish that you can't put aside a certain period each week, even if you have to change it each week too.

IF we get given our notice then I will try to come to an arrangement with the landlord. I'd have to take a few weeks off to sort out a move, so work wouldn't be such a huge issue.

The point is that they are not prepared to give us notice as they want our money, and don't want to risk losing us as tenants. So they aren't really serious about selling the house are they? Either or, not both as other posters have said.

As a prospective buyer, I wouldn't be happy to have viewings unless they were convinient for the seller/landlord. But then, my landlord STILL isn't being honest about all this. They are maintaining that they aren't really looking to sell, and that we'd be given 'several' months notice to find somewhere else. What they mean, is that once they are confident a sale will go through, they'll give us the minimum legal period of notice that they can serve (two months).

So no, I'm sorry but to me it the landlord in this particular situation who is being selfish.