Seller to bear survey costs if he pulls out?

spandles

I think you should also consider the sellers position. He's not going to serve notice and wait for an offer that he may or may accept. The seller could have a mortgage on the property and needs the income.

Theres 3 parties involved in this who all have someting to loose and gain:

Theres nothing to say the T's won't up their rent then decide to move on in a few months anyway, loose their job, do it just to spite the LL etc etc........

The seller wont know that your not going to change your mind/position at any point, that you may have other properties lined up.........

And you are aware of your situation.

In this day and age you cannot predict or second guess anyones position. If you like it, make an offer and proceed with caution, being prepared to pull out at the first sign of trouble. Paying for a survey is a risk every buyer takes.

Good luck and keep us updated!

pararct

Even if the seller serves notice as I understand the system he is under no obligation to enforce it!! In fact in some parts of the letting industry is it not common practice to pretty much serve notice as soon as is possible to open the door to all eventualities?

Richard_Webster

Even if the seller were to agree to pay the buyer's abortive costs the buyer could still have the problem of enforcing any such agreement, so I wouldn't go there.

Tell the estate agents the seller better get the tenants out and put the place back on the market and if you haven't found anything you like by then you might be interested. Otherwise you will buy something else.

Alejandro

Richard_Webster wrote: »

Even if the seller were to agree to pay the buyer's abortive costs the buyer could still have the problem of enforcing any such agreement, so I wouldn't go there.

Tell the estate agents the seller better get the tenants out and put the place back on the market and if you haven't found anything you like by then you might be interested. Otherwise you will buy something else.

UPDATE:

We have an agreement on price, but we made our offer subject to the seller agreeing to (1) serve notice on the tenants within one week of accepting (2) ensure the tenants have left by the end of their notice period (2 months) and (3) letting us inspect the property once it has been vacated. If the seller fails to do any of those three things, he agrees to pay our costs up to that point (basically survey costs).

Do people think that provides adequate protection? I appreciate it's not bulletproof, but figured it's about as good as I'm likely to get. If the seller's willing to sign up to that, I'd feel fairly confident that he was serious about selling, which is what I'm trying to achieve really.

Any thoughts welcome, as always!

neverdespairgirl

spandles wrote: »

I think you should also consider the sellers position. He's not going to serve notice and wait for an offer that he may or may accept. The seller could have a mortgage on the property and needs the income.

That, frankly, is the seller's problem.

Alejandro

bumping for the day crowd...any advice appreciated!

devotee

I'm also buying a place that was rented out, they were suppose to move out in June, that was pushed back to 15th of July, my surveyor tried to access the property on the 18th but was denied as the tenants were still there!!!!

I started panicking, emailed my solicitor to ask that he gets it in writing that the tenants will be out before exchange, called the EA freaking out and was told that tenant could not get a van booked on Friday and was moving out yesterday.

I will go today there with the EA to check that the property is empty.

Got an email back from my solicitor with this "You won't be buying with tenants still in as this would be a breach of contract by the seller and would entitle you to damages". He will check the situation with the other side as well.

Yorkie1

Alejandro wrote: »

UPDATE:

We have an agreement on price, but we made our offer subject to the seller agreeing to (1) serve notice on the tenants within one week of accepting (2) ensure the tenants have left by the end of their notice period (2 months) and (3) letting us inspect the property once it has been vacated. If the seller fails to do any of those three things, he agrees to pay our costs up to that point (basically survey costs).

Do people think that provides adequate protection? I appreciate it's not bulletproof, but figured it's about as good as I'm likely to get. If the seller's willing to sign up to that, I'd feel fairly confident that he was serious about selling, which is what I'm trying to achieve really.

Any thoughts welcome, as always!

The seller's solicitor would be bonkers to allow his client to sign up to that.

There is no way that the seller can guarantee (2) highlighted above. It is completely outside his control. Even if it was more correctly written so that the tenants leave at the end of the notice period, the tenants can always choose to stay on without telling the LL of their intention to do so. He then has to go to court and start possession proceedings.

Furthermore, depending on when the rental period starts / ends in relation to the date on which the LL gives s.21 notice, the expiry of the s.21 notice can be nearly 3 months later. It's not a straight 2 months from the date of the notice.

Alejandro

Yorkie1 wrote: »

The seller's solicitor would be bonkers to allow his client to sign up to that.

There is no way that the seller can guarantee (2) highlighted above. It is completely outside his control. Even if it was more correctly written so that the tenants leave at the end of the notice period, the tenants can always choose to stay on without telling the LL of their intention to do so. He then has to go to court and start possession proceedings.

Furthermore, depending on when the rental period starts / ends in relation to the date on which the LL gives s.21 notice, the expiry of the s.21 notice can be nearly 3 months later. It's not a straight 2 months from the date of the notice.

Hi Yorkie

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that it is a risk for the seller, but the way I look at it, if he wants to sell the place then he should consider taking the risk. We're probably talking £1,000 max at the end of the day. As it stands, I have good reason to think he's not committed to selling, so I'm certainly not going to take the risk myself. If he doesn't agree to it then we'll walk away.

As for the time period, it would be tied into whatever the expiry of the notice is (whether that's 2 months or 3 or whatever), so of itself, that shouldn't be a problem.

Really what I'm interested in is whether it provides enough protection for ME...

G_M

The 'time period', as Yorkie explained, assumes the tenants decide to leave when asked. They do not have to. The 'time period' then depends how much work load the local court has (1 month backlog? 3? 5?). And even then the tenant doesn't have to leave. so the LL has to go back to get bailiffs to enforce....

I can see what you are trying to do, and that you feel it's up to the seller to agree/take the risk, but the bottom line is that progressing a purchase with tenants in place is as mad as.... selling a property with tenants in place !