sold property to Tenants ex-husband - advice pls

thisisthecount

We have been renting our property to our current tenant for about 3 years. She has two children and is a single mother.

We have decided we need to sell the property as we can't afford to keep paying the difference in the mortgage payments each month.

Therefore, I asked the tenant if she'd be interested and she said she would speak to her ex-husband. He, by the way is guarantor according to the letting agent.

He has agreed to purchase it. Bad news, is the letting agent has a clause in the contract with us that stipulates that:

"If any tenant contracts to purchase any interest in the Property as a result of an introduction either directly or indirectly by Managing Agents whether as a result of viewing or while in occupation or after vacating the Property the Management Agents will be entitled to charge and be paid 1.5% plus Vat on the consideration paid for the interest and such payment will become due and payable upon completion of the sale of the said interest in the Property"

We do not think that this clause applies in this scenario as we are not selling the property to the "tenant" as he does not live there at the property and therefore his name is not on the contract.

Can anyone shed any advice on this at all please as we really don't have the spare cash after the sale of the property goes through, solicitors fees etc, etc, etc.

thanks in advance.

missile

I would have thought the clause would apply. Whether the EA can enforce it is another matter.

Even if you do have to pay, 1.5% is less than you might fork out for EA fees to sell on the open market.

Milliewilly

The EA will argue its an indirect introduction unfortunately. I suppose if the EA hadn't got him as a guarantor you might stand a chance but in this case I think you will have to pay the 1.5%.

DVardysShadow

Contract says 'tenant'. It does not say 'guarantor'. Although it is close and the agent may start counting the money, I don't think it would be upheld.

jonesMUFCforever

To fight this would cost you more than 1.5% in fees so don't be greedy.
It looks like you have got a sale without having to evict your tenants, no HIP, no estate agent cost and in today's market you would be mad to lose this sale over this.

zzzLazyDaisy

The clause clearly refers to the tenant contracting to buy the property.

I wouldn't be surprised if the managing agent tries it on and claims it also applies to the guarantor, but I can't see that argument being upheld.

In any case, whatever the MA might say, it isn't going to affect the sale going through. The worst that can happen is that the MA tries to bill you under the clause, in which case you would deal with it when it happened.

Going off topic - is your tenant claim LHA? Because LHA is not payable where the landlord is the parent of a child who lives in the property.

PasturesNew

Somebody from this board bought the house they were renting from their landlord .... and got away with it.

Officially, their landlord told the agents that they were selling the house and gave them notice.
On their leaving day they cleared the house entirely (some garden items being popped over the fence for the neighbour to look after) - and a full van of stuff being driven away.
The agency did the full signing-out process, they handed back the keys and drove away.

Maybe an hour later they were moving back into the house.

All sneaky, but their landlord got away with having to pay the managing agents a commission.

It worked.

Old_Git

get rid of the agent before you sell

thisisthecount

I wish I could, unfortunately we have have a 3 month notice. anyway, they know we are selling the house. They also hold a deposit of the tenant too so this is going to get messy.

Fact is, we are selling it and we are not making very much at all. Just need to get rid of it as its not covering the mortgage every month.

oh the joys of being a landlord...... never again!

Old_Git

why did you buy a house where the rent didnt cover the mortgage ?

thisisthecount

complicated, it was a home, then we moved out, pulled a load of equity out. and then we were limited on mortgages and could not get good enough deals, hence the mortgage wasn't being covered. it was supposed to be a long term thing but circumstances have changed.