Getting "guest" out a day before completion?

paddy's_mum

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Regardless of the status of the occupier, by knowingly signing the contract, they have joined the owner in committing to the sale. So if they stay on, while the intending purchaser will probably claim successfully against the owner, the owner could probably make a similar claim stick on the occupier.

Perhaps one for the occupier to think about.

But it is clear from the opening post that the "lodger" has nothing and no money so it would be kind of hard to take court ordered compensation from someone who has no assets and a !!!!less way of life.

Which means that the mess still comes round to land squarely on the OP's shoulders.

Extremely urgent legal advice from both the conveyancing solicitors involved would seem to me to be the quick, obvious way forward.

What an unhappy reward for the OP's original kindness. Hope it all works out with the least tears and trouble.

jjlandlord

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Regardless of the status of the occupier, by knowingly signing the contract, they have joined the owner in committing to the sale. So if they stay on, while the intending purchaser will probably claim successfully against the owner, the owner could probably make a similar claim stick on the occupier.

Perhaps one for the occupier to think about.

That would also be something to seek legal advice about as the occupier is not a party in the sale, or the contract, as far as I understand. So imho they basically have agreed to leave, but are not bound by a contract.

In any case, of course this is a probably a useful card to play when requesting to leave asap, indeed.

DVardysShadow

jjlandlord wrote: »

That would also be something to seek legal advice about as the occupier is not a party in the sale, or the contract, as far as I understand. So imho they basically have agreed to leave, but are not bound by a contract.

I think we are into estoppel here. Occupier cannot deny being cognizant of the sale contract, without which owner would not have exchanged.

Occupier could be estopped from making any claim at variance with the contract. eg cannot claim any right of occupation at variance with the clause specifying vacant possession. I suspect, anyway

The intent of my suggestion, in case anyone missed it, is to give the occupier cause to think, rather than what to do if the occupier remains.

DVardysShadow

paddy's_mum wrote: »

But it is clear from the opening post that the "lodger" has nothing and no money so it would be kind of hard to take court ordered compensation from someone who has no assets and a !!!!less way of life.

Well, mentioning the possibility to the occupier will be a substantial failure if it gets to court. Not mentioning the possibility on the other hand dooms the idea to failure.

cotleigh

Neatest solution would be to go round when said person isn't in, take their things out, and change the locks. Then the sale goes through, and they wouldn't be able to get back in to the new owners house, because the new owner would physically prevent them from doing so.

rpc

cotleigh wrote: »

Neatest solution would be to go round when said person isn't in, take their things out, and change the locks. Then the sale goes through, and they wouldn't be able to get back in to the new owners house, because the new owner would physically prevent them from doing so.

And risk spending a couple of years at Her Majesty's Pleasure for illegal eviction... No thanks!

Werdnal

cotleigh wrote: »

Neatest solution would be to go round when said person isn't in, take their things out, and change the locks. Then the sale goes through, and they wouldn't be able to get back in to the new owners house, because the new owner would physically prevent them from doing so.

Obviously this would be a solution if the person here were in fact a Lodger, but they are not. Even though they have paid no rent, they may have contributed to household bills etc, thereby creating some rights to the property, even in the absence of a formal tenancy agreement. OP has not given any information on the terms, duration etc of the arrangement for this person to reside at the property, so we cannot simply dismiss their rights to a "tenancy" however vague, and advise the OP to kick them out and change the locks.

If a court decreed this to be illegal eviction, OP faces a criminal record, hefty fines and possible a prison sentence.

Bufger

Its probably quicker and cheaper to hire a hitman.

I'm thinking MSE here not moral ;-)

GoToGal

Just to clarify, I paid all the bills and never discussed nor received rent. They have been in the property a year and were always aware that it was up for sale and they would have to leave when it was sold.

Thankfully I was able to arrange movers at last minute and got the keys off them at their place of work with minimal drama. Their things have been stored with another relative and they have moved in with a friend.

I suppose I could now be charged with illegal eviction but I'll take my chances that they realise they are on borrowed time with everyone in our family and won't continue down this road.

Thanks for the advice and heads up. I'm just glad it's all over!

cotleigh

rpc wrote: »

And risk spending a couple of years at Her Majesty's Pleasure for illegal eviction... No thanks!

Very very unlikely to happen.

Do it when they are not in, and wear gloves.

I had to remove someone's stuff like this once - the person went to the police, who later spoke to me, I just denied doing it. They never even followed it up. The police do not see this kind of argument as a major crime.