A confusing one - please help!

Thrugelmir

Chin wrote: »

Guess it all depends if they insist on a new valuation.

New offer will require updated valuation.

If nothing more than to inspect the property.

ViolaLass

holly_hobby wrote: »

I still don't understand (sorry if I'm being thick !) ...

If the landlord has sought possession and the tenant doesn't vacate in accordance with the notice to vacate, then how can they still be termed as tenants with a right of occupancy - as the landlord has revoked their authority to reside in the prems, and the individuals are therefore continuing to reside there without a valid contract or the owners consent.

Or is it only when it gets to court and the presiding Judge orders their vacation, are they termed as not having a lawful right of occupancy, regardless of the fact that the LL has previously ordered their leave.

The point of making the LL go to court is that it requires him/her to prove that they have served notice correctly/followed all the necessary procedures. By having to prove it in court, it means that they can't, for example, bully the tenant into leaving by emailing them and saying "Get out tomorrow". I think the assumption is that if the LL is in the wrong, the tenant would be the one more inconvenienced as they would have lost their home (if they have left, you could award them compensation but you can't practically put them back in their original position).

I think everyone would agree that if notice is served correctly, tenants are morally obliged to leave but the law assumes that they still have permission to reside in a property until the LL proves otherwise in court. Hence the tenants are not squatters.

holly_hobby

Thrugelmir wrote: »

New offer will require updated valuation.

If nothing more than to inspect the property.

Not quite .. a new survey is only req'd if the sale has not completed within 6 mths of the original.

So as long as this doesn't drag on past the 6 mth mark - there is no new survey reqd - unless the purchaser would like one.

Hope this helps clear that point

Holly

holly_hobby

ViolaLass wrote: »

The point of making the LL go to court is that it requires him/her to prove that they have served notice correctly/followed all the necessary procedures. By having to prove it in court, it means that they can't, for example, bully the tenant into leaving by emailing them and saying "Get out tomorrow". I think the assumption is that if the LL is in the wrong, the tenant would be the one more inconvenienced as they would have lost their home (if they have left, you could award them compensation but you can't practically put them back in their original position).

I think everyone would agree that if notice is served correctly, tenants are morally obliged to leave but the law assumes that they still have permission to reside in a property until the LL proves otherwise in court. Hence the tenants are not squatters.

Thanks for your input ... already covered by NDG & Yorkie, and I have grasped that continuing to reside in a property without the owners consent, does not make thee a squatter - but a pain in the a*** !!

Holly

ViolaLass

holly_hobby wrote: »

Thanks for your input ... already covered by NDG & Yorkie, and I have grasped that continuing to reside in a property without the owners consent, does not make thee a squatter - but a pain in the a*** !!

Holly

Sorry if you feel I was repetitive. I was trying to explain why the law is the way it is, which I felt hadn't been covered.

Thrugelmir

holly_hobby wrote: »

Not quite .. a new survey is only req'd if the sale has not completed within 6 mths of the original.

So as long as this doesn't drag on past the 6 mth mark - there is no new survey reqd - unless the purchaser would like one.

Hope this helps clear that point

Holly

My observation was made in the context of once the original mortgage offer lapses.

holly_hobby

ViolaLass wrote: »

Sorry if you feel I was repetitive. I was trying to explain why the law is the way it is, which I felt hadn't been covered.

Not at all ... I was glad to have got it straight in my mind .. the diff between a squatter and not a squatter ... which I think I have now ..

With my thanks for your time to yourself, NDG and of course Yorkie ...

Holly x

holly_hobby

Thrugelmir wrote: »

My observation was made in the context of once the original mortgage offer lapses.

And is relevant only if the mge offer lapses on, or subsequent to the 6 mth anniversary, of the (current) survey. It all depends on the terms of the offer - which I think is important for the OP to be aware of.

I do know from reviewing other threads on the forum, that you always endeavour to add input, if you feel from your reading that an unclear or mis-representive post has been published - and I would hope that you accept my input in the same spirit that you make your own observations to others.

Hope this helps clarify

Holly