Tenant refuse to move out on completion day

DVardysShadow

snow_suzi wrote: »

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...

OK, the really big question is - how much of a hole are you going to be in if you exchange, but completion does not happen?

If you will not be homeless, it may be worth taking a punt - if your solicitor understands the situation and is clever enough to protect your interests.

kmmr is definitely on the right track with the £5000 deposit to be forfeit if completion did not happen - exactly the amount I had in mind. Put completion date as the first date after your return from xmas and set a date 7 days after that at which if completion does not occur, the contract is concluded with payment to you of the £5000.

Richard_Webster

OK, the really big question is - how much of a hole are you going to be in if you exchange, but completion does not happen?

If you will not be homeless, it may be worth taking a punt - if your solicitor understands the situation and is clever enough to protect your interests.

That's the point I was making.

kmmr is definitely on the right track with the £5000 deposit to be forfeit if completion did not happen - exactly the amount I had in mind. Put completion date as the first date after your return from xmas and set a date 7 days after that at which if completion does not occur, the contract is concluded with payment to you of the £5000.

You could try that - you would also want your 10% deposit back of course.

I'm not sure that they would agree to that but the seller's solicitor would read the riot act to his client pointing out the risks involved and the costs for him of not completing and giving vacant possession on the contractual date. No sensible seller would exchange until he could give vacant possession for that reason.

DVardysShadow

Richard_Webster wrote: »

You could try that - you would also want your 10% deposit back of course.

I'm not sure that they would agree to that but the seller's solicitor would read the riot act to his client pointing out the risks involved and the costs for him of not completing and giving vacant possession on the contractual date. No sensible seller would exchange until he could give vacant possession for that reason.

Of course you would want your 10% back too! This is why you have a solicitor to look after your interests...

By going this way, the seller makes the judgement as to whether he can complete and takes the risk. He is best placed to judge whether he can take that risk, of course.

Jowo_2

If the sister is a tenant does not leave, and the correct notice to quit has not uet been issued, and she still doesn't leave when the possession order is granted in the court and it goes to a bailiff to enforce or she asks the court for extra time before the PO comes into effect, then the OP may not get the keys to the property for 5 months, even if the paperwork is done correctly and isn't tossed out in court.

So there may be a small risk of it actually happening, but a high impact if she is reluctant to leave,plus if there is animosity between the siblings, she may trash the place. For example, if she's got her eye on being housed by the local council, she may be instructed by the local council homeless team to ignore the notice and remain in place until her brother has a court order for her eviction.

kmmr

Richard_Webster wrote: »

That's the point I was making.



You could try that - you would also want your 10% deposit back of course.

I'm not sure that they would agree to that but the seller's solicitor would read the riot act to his client pointing out the risks involved and the costs for him of not completing and giving vacant possession on the contractual date. No sensible seller would exchange until he could give vacant possession for that reason.

Actually I sort of meant complete anyway - but take the £5k as basically a discount on the price. Of course, by the time you have annoyed the vendor that much, the £5k might not cover the costs of getting the SIL out!

But, obviously, if the contract is cancelled, then get your deposit back!

G_M

kmmr wrote: »

Actually I sort of meant complete anyway - but take the £5k as basically a discount on the price. Of course, by the time you have annoyed the vendor that much, the £5k might not cover the costs of getting the SIL out!

But, obviously, if the contract is cancelled, then get your deposit back!

You have got to be joking! Complete with the tenant in place? And have £5K as compensation but get stuck with tenant?

:eek::eek::eek:

oldone_2

You should view this purchase in simple terms. You are buying a house with a sitting tennant who may or may not leave, before or after exchange at an unspecified time.

The fact that the tenant is refusing to leave is a clear indication of the relationship between her and the seller, and it can only get more messy.After all he could have offered accommodation in the new home he is moving to.

I would walk away , as even if this is resolved now, she could move back in when you are on holiday.

shimano

Why should he walk away? As stated the contract will say vacant on completion - if it is not vacant, he can get compensation. Perversley it could end up being good with the OP getting some money back? If it never completes then you can get compensation...solicitor should cover your back.

If OP changes locks straight away after completion, then nothing to worry about.

lynzpower

Surely the OP would have to pay for the mortgage, and insurances, if that tenant is there? Presumably they would take some responsibility for the tenant and their living situation. Would they automatically become Landlord? Would the OPs mortgage lender be interested in this arrangement?

Once the property is ownd by the OP, how can the previous owner evict the tenant?

zzzLazyDaisy

lynzpower wrote: »

Surely the OP would have to pay for the mortgage, and insurances, if that tenant is there? Presumably they would take some responsibility for the tenant and their living situation. Would they automatically become Landlord? Would the OPs mortgage lender be interested in this arrangement?

Once the property is ownd by the OP, how can the previous owner evict the tenant?

I think the point is that IF exchange takes place, it would be with the very clear condition that vacant possession is required on completion. This means that if the tenant hasn't left, completion doesn't take place, and the seller is in breach of contract, with potentially serious financial consequences.

However, personally, I would not exchange in those circumstances, because there is no way of knowing what condition the tenant will leave the property in, or how long the buyer will have to wait for the tenant to be evicted.

Another potential problem arises if the process of eviction takes too long and the buyer's mortgage offer lapses. If the buyer can't get another mortgage offer for some reason, or the new offer is lower, the buyer may not be able to complete. So there should certainly be a cut off date, after which time the buyer is not obliged to complete.

Personally I would refuse to proceed until the tenant is out of the property. If that means the seller puts the place back on the market, so be it - they will have the same problem unless they first get the tenant out.