Tenant refuse to move out on completion day

snow_suzi

cabbage wrote: »

Are you sure the SIL is a tenant. Usually early on in the conveyancing process the seller is asked for all the people living at the property. They then sign to say they will vacate on completion. This usually applies to grown up children but in this case it might be the SIL. If she is a tenant, then the owners will have to serve her legal notice and see this through to eviction.

The law is getting me very confused and helpless indeed!

I am not sure if the SIL is a true tenant. I don't beleive there is written contract between the SIL and the seller. The seller delcared in his form to his solicitor that he is living in there and with no one else aged 17 or over... But as far as I know he is not living in there and his SIL is. I have only noticed that when my concerns raised.... a little late...

The draft contract did say the property will be sold with vacant possession though. Not such if that would have any meaning...

hshen

I'm no expert, but the rules differ greatly if the landlord lives there and if they don't.

If they do, they can kick people out fairly easily.
If they don't then it's the whole legal process need to be involved.

When I was renting, I find this useful as a guide to my rights.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/renting_and_leasehold

theartfullodger

If Landlord/owner is not living there and someone else is who pays rent they have a tenancy.

It does not have to be a written tenancy in England.

Sounds like SIL is a tenant.

Trouble is can you trust vendor to tell the truth.

Only option, check SIL has gorn

G_M

"With vacant possession" puts the law on your side.

But that is little consolation when you turn up on the day with a van load of furniture and all your possessions, can't get into your new home, and have nowhere else to go.

If in doubt, don't exchange. Establish exactly who lives there now and on what basis.

Richard_Webster

If you are not selling anything and the contract provides for vacant possession on completion then you could exchange. If the seller couldn't provide vacant possession you don't have to complete. However you wouldn't really be able to make any definite plans for moving in etc until you knew the tenant had gone.

If you are selling and need to move into the property on the day of completion don't exchange. If you need to be in on a definite day and/or you don't fancy the prospect of waiting around while the seller sorts out his own mess then don't exchange.

All in all it is probably better to walk away and look for something else telling the seller you might be interested again if tenant has gone.

If you knew at the beginning there was a tenant there and your solicitor knew then did he not advise you about the likely problems and suggest you buy something else?

paddy's_mum

I would suggest that no amount of compensation could possibly make up for the damaging-to-your-health distress, ongoing anxiety and sheer volume of trouble that trying to sort out a failure to complete is likely to cause.

I've had a boundary dispute with a senile neighbour going on now for something like five years and nothing on this earth can repay me for the thousands of hours of lost sleep, the oceans of tears, the sheer volume of fear of what he might do next. There were times I believed that I was about to keel over with a heart attack at some of his outrageous activities.

You can keep your compensation, law suits, meetings with barristers etc, etc ad nauseum. I'd advise anybody to avoid the problem in the first place. There are thousands of properties on the market at any one time - why willingly buy a problem and pay handsomely for the privilege into the bargain?

kmmr

snow_suzi wrote: »

The law is getting me very confused and helpless indeed!

I am not sure if the SIL is a true tenant. I don't beleive there is written contract between the SIL and the seller. The seller delcared in his form to his solicitor that he is living in there and with no one else aged 17 or over... But as far as I know he is not living in there and his SIL is. I have only noticed that when my concerns raised.... a little late...

The draft contract did say the property will be sold with vacant possession though. Not such if that would have any meaning...

But the key thing is is that this is the VENDORS problem, not yours. Let them solve it, and do what you can not to inherit the problem!

snow_suzi

More complications...
I am going away for 3 weeks over x'mas, leaving mid next week. Seller insisted that he has to have the sale completed before x'mas and they will have their tenant out a week before x'mas. They were forcing me to agree on a day of exchange and complete while I am out of the UK (the day when his tenants are out)... Clearly not on. So I rejected and said, I will inspect the property in new year before exchange following by completion.
Now the seller has come back and said they will withdraw from the purchase. Agent is trying to pull the case back, asking both myself and the seller to compromise to have us check/ confirm the protery is vacent and exchange before I go on holiday. Seller will have to put it in writing who and who have/ will leave on such and such date. and complete in the new year when I am back.

My solicitor has adviced me not to exchange before the property is vacent. If they allow me to check, can I still trust them?? my only worry is they will move back in while I am away...

Richard_Webster

If you are not selling and it is not completely vital that you move in on the completion date then you simply inspect the day before completion (having exchanged on the basis of their vague promises etc but with clear wording requiring vacant possession on completion) and then if tenant has not gone you refuse to complete. Up to them then.

kmmr

Richard, would it be feasible for something more concrete than normal to be put in the contracts on exchange?

Like - the vendors deposit £5k with solicitors that is agreed to be paid as penalty if completion cannot take place due to lack of vacant possession.

Otherwise the OP is no better than before - and stuck with the legal nightmare that is failure to complete.