Problems Viewing a House with Tenants in it

BitterAndTwisted

harrup wrote: »

Something really isn't adding up.

So something ain't right with that story.

Maybe one condemns the LL too quickly. Perhaps he let them stay on longer than he wanted under the proviso that they allowed potential buyers round? And now the occupants play ignorant of it? It's a possibility.

Who cares if there's something "ain't right with that story"?

Regardless of what informal arrangement the landlord and tenant may have come to, the fact remains that no tenant ever has to accept anyone crossing their threshold without their permission.

It's their home, after all.

This landlord sounds like a complete fool and I wouldn't express an interest in this property until it's vacant.

DVardysShadow

harrup wrote: »

... Ask the agent to ask the owner at what time the house will become permanently vacated i.e the current lodgers gone for good. Ask for the owners reply in writing.

If it's too wishy washy....move on and look for another property.

If it is too wishy washy, I agree move on. But I think that the bigger lesson here is, as buyer, not to spend time on tenanted houses. Immediately, you discover tenants, I think the best thing is just rule the house out or even abandon a viewing.

Tenants mean more uncertainty about when completion can happen. If you find them on a viewing, they also indicate that the landlord plays fast and loose with their rights - which is not so good for your purchase

tbs624

harrup wrote: »

My interpretation of the OP stating this was that the confusion surrounding the sale might partly stem from

a) a possible language barrier.

b) differing cultural rental regulations that the present occupants may not be aware of.

Not everything said is an ill concealed slight towards a member of a foreign country. There was nothing derrogatory in that statement. Lets not go nuts with PC, ey?

On the one hand you want to point out that people shouldn't make an assumption about why the OP felt it necessary to comment on the T's nationality, and yet you yourself are now making assumptions about why anyone would query that

Thanks for your interpretation but it was a genuine question. Your points above about a potential language barrier are largely irrelevant in that it doesn't seem to be the T who has the "confusion" - its the potential buyer and the LL/LA

tbs624

harrup wrote: »

But presumably he'll have a copy of the rental agreement.

Yes he should do but you are missing the point.

I can say to you that the Fixed Term of a tenancy agreement on a property I own expires on 15 February 2011. That is categorically not the same as me telling you "at what time the house will become permanently vacated" even if I write it down for you with a special golden pen.

That is not how the law works.

1.Perhaps I have not yet given my T a S21 "notice of intent to repossess" the property after 15 February 2011.

2. Perhaps the S21 has errors in it which will only be highlighted once I proceed to court to enforce possession/eviction

3. Perhaps I.. ahem... "forgot" to scheme register my tenant's deposit and thus my s21 is not valid

4. T may well move out on 15 Feb but equally they may stay put as they are legally entitled to do until I get that court order

5. So T has not gone - I can't apply for the court order without a water tight S21, and even then not until after 15 February. I then have to wait for my place in the court system

If I mucked up with the S21, then I have to re- serve it: the two months required for that has to start over again and it has to line up with the rental periods. So get to court on whatever date, judge says "tbs - this S21 is not valid, order for possession refused" I have to give that two full months all over again . If I have gone past the 16th of the month then the T may in effect almost have a further 3 months min in my property. If T still doesn't go I have to return to court once more.

Thus a LL cannot just say yep - they'll be out by x date.

harrup wrote: »

If nothing else he can explain what exactly is going on with the current lodgers. Are they obstinate and refusing to move out? Or .....??

Unless the LL is living there too the occupants are not lodgers. If they are paying a market rent, and are on an AST then they are tenants who have legal rights.

harrup

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

Who cares if there's something "ain't right with that story"?

Regardless of what informal arrangement the landlord and tenant may have come to, the fact remains that no tenant ever has to accept anyone crossing their threshold without their permission.

It's their home, after all.

This landlord sounds like a complete fool and I wouldn't express an interest in this property until it's vacant.

You are missing the point.

I agree that no tenant has to accept anyone into their home for viewings.

UNLESS their rental agreement stipulated that they should do so from the outset. Which it may well have done.

Not exactly unheard of. I know a couple of people who rented out their house for a modest/nominal rent under the proviso that the temporary renters agreed to viewings. Those people weren't the quintessential LL - they just didn't want the premises to be empty for a long period of time.

DVardysShadow

harrup wrote: »

You are missing the point.

I agree that no tenant has to accept anyone into their home for viewings.

UNLESS their rental agreement stipulated that they should do so from the outset. Which it may well have done.
Not exactly unheard of. I know a couple of people who rented out their house for a modest/nominal rent under the proviso that the temporary renters agreed to viewings. Those people weren't the quintessential LL - they just didn't want the premises to be empty for a long period of time.

But a contract cannot override statute and it is generally accepted here that the right to quiet enjoyment from statute law overrides any contractual consent.

Effectively, the Landlord's only option, even with contractual provision in place, is to bribe the tenants with money

harrup

tbs624 wrote: »

Yes he should do but you are missing the point.

I can say to you that the Fixed Term of a tenancy agreement on a property I own expires on 15 February 2011. That is categorically not the same as me telling you "at what time the house will become permanently vacated" even if I write it down for you with a special golden pen.

That is not how the law works.

1.Perhaps I have not yet given my T a S21 "notice of intent to repossess" the property after 15 February 2011.

2. Perhaps the S21 has errors in it which will only be highlighted once I proceed to court to enforce possession/eviction

3. Perhaps I.. ahem... "forgot" to scheme register my tenant's deposit and thus my s21 is not valid

4. T may well move out on 15 Feb but equally they may stay put as they are legally entitled to do until I get that court order

5. So T has not gone - I can't apply for the court order without a water tight S21, and even then not until after 15 February. I then have to wait for my place in the court system

If I mucked up with the S21, then I have to re- serve it: the two months required for that has to start over again and it has to line up with the rental periods. So get to court on whatever date, judge says "tbs - this S21 is not valid, order for possession refused" I have to give that two full months all over again . If I have gone past the 16th of the month then the T may in effect almost have a further 3 months min in my property. If T still doesn't go I have to return to court once more.

Thus a LL cannot just say yep - they'll be out by x date.

Unless the LL is living there too the occupants are not lodgers. If they are paying a market rent, and are on an AST then they are tenants who have legal rights.

oh, ok, thanks, I understand now....good explanation.

I had no idea how convoluted those rental laws were. Blimey.

I've never rented, nor rented out my house. My reply was goverend by second hand experience where properties had been rented out and the renters were aware from the outset that the house had to be available for viewings. That was the deal - low rent = access for viewings. All parties seemed happy with that arrangement.

silvercar

It could be that the tenants have given notice and the landlord is testing the selling market. It may be that the tenants are friendly accommodating people and are happy to show people around.

harrup

DVardysShadow wrote: »

But a contract cannot override statute and it is generally accepted here that the right to quiet enjoyment from statute law overrides any contractual consent.

Effectively, the Landlord's only option, even with contractual provision in place, is to bribe the tenants with money

Interesting & worth knowing, thanks.

Now I'd rather eat nails for breakfast than to rent out a property. Not that I have one for rent!

tbs624

silvercar wrote: »

It could be that the tenants have given notice and the landlord is testing the selling market. It may be that the tenants are friendly accommodating people and are happy to show people around.

It could indeed be the case. The Ts could even work for the LL in some capacity, whilst paying little/no rent , and simply be "service occupiers" who have very limited rights.

However, the OP says that the Ts were not answering the LA/LLs calls which suggests that they (a) just don't like answering the phone (b) have some sort of personal emergency going on or (c) are less than enamoured about folk being shown around during the remainder of their tenancy.

Anyone potentially buying a property in which there are Ts in place has to understand that it unfortunately adds a whole other layer of possible stress into the equation.