Seller failing to complete on sale of flat - Help!

observations_from_a_hill

Because of lots of little discrepancies, followed by a blinding boo-boo. I gave them a chance to clarify in case they'd made some mistake. No, that's what it says, they say - except you only see that sort of notation when the lender (or Mrs. Seller) is a commercial bank making a commercial loan.

I know the Land Registry isn't always perfect, but I doubt they would attach that notation to an individual, even if named Mrs. HonkersandShankers. So I have to conclude that this notation does not exist on any actual register of title.

OP obviously works in a legal environment and has picked up this notation. Never try to drip-feed an "interesting" fact when you don't understand it.

Other discrepancies - the school. Neither has (I think) mentioned a child.

observations_from_a_hill

Because of lots of little discrepancies, followed by a blinding boo-boo. I gave them a chance to clarify in case they'd made some mistake. No, that's what it says, they say - except you only see that sort of notation when the lender (or Mrs. Seller) is a commercial bank making a commercial loan.

I know the Land Registry isn't always perfect, but I doubt they would attach that notation to an individual, even if named Mrs. HonkersandShankers. So I have to conclude that this notation does not exist on any actual register of title.

OP obviously works in a legal environment and has picked up this notation. Never try to drip-feed an "interesting" fact when you don't understand it.

Other discrepancies - the school. Neither has (I think) mentioned a child.

observations_from_a_hill

Well, that's your view, and is validly stated.

In this particular case I suspect there was no prospective purchase, with or without tenants.

Pleased to be disagreed with - OP maybe show his redacted contract?

jamesd

franklee wrote: »

It's quite odd how tenants who have every right to be present are discussed as an annoyance to be disposed of when someone wants to buy

The tenants aren't an annoyance to someone who wants to buy, but rather a failure of a seller to comply with his contractual obligations to someone who has already agreed to buy and should have ownership of the empty place by now. And perhaps who is also trying to break his agreement with a tenant. A landlord in that situation should have ended the tenancies well in advance, including doing such things as making tenants cash offers to leave on a desired timeline if necessary.

franklee wrote: »

rather than fellow people who are about to lose their home in a hurry and are under great stress being urged to move for a few hundred pounds. As a test perhaps the homeowners here could visualise the disruption to their lives if someone rocked up and asked them to move in a week.

Lets consider the purchaser here, who had every right to expect to have already moved into their new property but with no notice at all finds they don't have a home to move into. Not weeks of notice, none.

Both buyer and tenants are victims of the seller in a situation of this sort.

The inconveniences you note are things that can be negotiated between landlord and tenant, to find out what it takes to make it sensible for the tenant to voluntarily agree to move. But a tenant with a valid tenancy agreement isn't obliged to come to such an agreement. And that could prove very expensive for the seller, who could easily end up incurring a month or two's worth of rent in costs per week of delay. Which provides the seller with a clear financial incentive to be as generous as necessary to get it done.

franklee

jamesd wrote: »

The tenants aren't an annoyance to someone who wants to buy, but rather a failure of a seller to comply with his contractual obligations to someone who has already agreed to buy and should have ownership of the empty place by now. And perhaps who is also trying to break his agreement with a tenant. A landlord in that situation should have ended the tenancies well in advance, including doing such things as making tenants cash offers to leave on a desired timeline if necessary.

Lets consider the purchaser here, who had every right to expect to have already moved into their new property but with no notice at all finds they don't have a home to move into. Not weeks of notice, none.

Both buyer and tenants are victims of the seller in a situation of this sort.

I disagree such a buyer is a victim, they're chancing a bargain. A buyer who knowingly exchanges with a tenant in-situ is going into this knowing there may not be vacant possession in time but is willing to take that risk for a discounted property. If they don't want the risk they can exchange after it's vacant. If they didn't know that themselves their solicitor will have informed them before he allows contracts to be exchanged.

jamesd wrote: »

The inconveniences you note are things that can be negotiated between landlord and tenant, to find out what it takes to make it sensible for the tenant to voluntarily agree to move. But a tenant with a valid tenancy agreement isn't obliged to come to such an agreement. And that could prove very expensive for the seller, who could easily end up incurring a month or two's worth of rent in costs per week of delay. Which provides the seller with a clear financial incentive to be as generous as necessary to get it done.

If a landlord was prepared to spend money on it he'd have been prepared to pay for a void and evict the tenants in the right way. So I doubt any tenant would be offered anything like half the costs the seller has at stake. By your figures taking six months to evict a tenant by the book would cost the landlord two to four years rent in costs to the buyer? Given the amount harassment and undue pressure seem likely.

Guest101

franklee wrote: »

I disagree such a buyer is a victim, they're chancing a bargain. A buyer who knowingly exchanges with a tenant in-situ is going into this knowing there may not be vacant possession in time but is willing to take that risk for a discounted property. If they don't want the risk they can exchange after it's vacant. If they didn't know that themselves their solicitor will have informed them before he allows contracts to be exchanged. - Huh? Of course their a victim, their contract was signed with vacant possession. Just because they aren't LL's and don't know the alw regarding eviction doesn't stop them being the victim of the vendor.



If a landlord was prepared to spend money on it he'd have been prepared to pay for a void and evict the tenants in the right way. So I doubt any tenant would be offered anything like half the costs the seller has at stake. By your figures taking six months to evict a tenant by the book would cost the landlord two to four years rent in costs to the buyer? Given the amount harassment and undue pressure seem likely. - so again it's the LL's fault for signing with vacant possession when he knew, or should've known this wasnt posssible. So he is liable.

Replies in red above

mrs_mi5tery

With all due respect, I am not a troll. I'm in a lot of stress and anxiety over this, and I cannot even begin to fathom why you would be so cruel as to suggest I'm making the whole thing up. That would take a sick and twisted mind, and I'm sorry, that I just don't have.

It's been sleepless nights and anxious days that have impacted on both our personal and professional lives. It's a situation I wouldn't wish on anyone. I put my hands up, we were naive and made mistakes along the way. So we came here, looking for advice and support. And along you come, and suggest we're charlatans! I'd very much appreciate it if you didn't post in this thread beyond an apology when you are proven wrong.

Believe me or not, that is EXACTLY what is said in the land register deed. I cannot post links, and my personal thought is that I have nothing to prove to you, but my husband will post the redacted version shortly.

Your explanation of note 5 doesn't make sense as it relates to the person entered on 2nd Jan, which was his WIFE. Not the bank. And your 'explanation' of that is 'land registry got it wrong'. At this point, should I point a finger at you and say you're a troll, trying to stir the pot? That you don't know what you're talking about any more than I do?

I have no legal knowledge, other than what I am picking up along the way, which is laughable. I do not work in the 'legal environment', I don't even have a lawyer in the family or extended family. As I said earlier, I'm a teacher.

And how is not mentioning a child a discrepancy? Why should I have mentioned whether I have a child or not? I came for advice, that doesn't require me to give you my full life history.

My information has remained the same from start to finish, as it is the TRUTH. No room for discrepancies when you tell the truth.

With regards to the tenants, I have said earlier, and will say again: they have every right to stay til December, and I would not hold it against them if they did. However, they were transparent with us from the start saying they were willing to move out once the property was sold regardless of this once given notice... and they still are, providing they are compensated for the associated costs. Which I believe to be a completely fair request by them. I have nothing but sympathy for them right now, despite the position we're in as a result.

In my eyes, the seller is the one to blame and BOTH us and the tenants are victims in this. The seller did not serve the notice to the tenants with enough time to complete on the date that HE pushed for. So now, we don't have our home and the tenants are rushed (bullied, even) out of theirs.

ETA: And to franklee: who said anything about getting a discounted property? We are buying the property for what it is worth. We had a valuation done and we negotiated based on length of lease and repairs required. NOT ON THE BASIS OF IN-SITU TENANTS. We *always* said that we're only interested if it is vacant possession and we were assured time and time again it would be.

mi5tery

observations_from_a_hill wrote:

To everyone else - OP is a troll with only a very little knowledge.

observations_from_a_hill wrote: »

Because of lots of little discrepancies, followed by a blinding boo-boo. I gave them a chance to clarify in case they'd made some mistake. No, that's what it says, they say - except you only see that sort of notation when the lender (or Mrs. Seller) is a commercial bank making a commercial loan.

I know the Land Registry isn't always perfect, but I doubt they would attach that notation to an individual, even if named Mrs. HonkersandShankers. So I have to conclude that this notation does not exist on any actual register of title.

OP obviously works in a legal environment and has picked up this notation. Never try to drip-feed an "interesting" fact when you don't understand it.

Other discrepancies - the school. Neither has (I think) mentioned a child.

I'm going to reserve my thoughts about you as I don't want this turning into a flame. Suffice to say you are completely wrong on all accounts and I expect an immediate apology! (FYI: I'm a software developer, and wife a teacher! The only law I work with is logic, and her the schools!)

I don't know how to post attachments in this thread, but I do believe I can post links. Here is the redacted page from the Land registry that I was sent: http://sdrv.ms/17tUz2Q

Seriously peeved with you for ruining my Saturday morning!

kmmr

Mr and Mrs Mi5tery - you will get some posts you don't like on this thread, and you can't get too emotionally caught up with them. It's the nature of posting on a public forum!

So don't let it ruin your day, or even your morning. You need a thick skin and you will get plenty of good advice if you can cope with the odd thing that annoys you.

On another note, I realize you are new, but it is considered good form the click 'thanks' to any post that you find useful, or just to say you have read and listened to them. It down the bottom of each post.

mi5tery

observations_from_a_hill wrote: »

I apologise for calling you a troll. I think that should mean someone who is being deliberately offensive, which clearly you weren't.

I still disbelieve your story.

Thank you for apologising.

It is of course your prerogative to believe/disbelieve our statements of fact. Obviously the redacted land registry copy I posted is not enough and I believe nothing else will satisfy you as you have made up your mind. Regardless, it is now clear to me I need not worry about these charges except to ensure they are removed when hopefully completion takes place.