Estate agent keeps asking me questions...

Dan-Dan

Chicken and egg here with the tenants still there , personally I am minded to think the vendor is most at fault , cake and eat it etc

DaftyDuck

Well, it's too difficult to judge but, if the vendor saw how slow the OP was progressing, he might well have thought the sale would either take months and months, or was really not going to go through, so getting the tenants out might be a costly mistake.

There are plenty of slow-selling areas in the country where getting tenants out before marketing would be a serious and costly mistake, as sales can take a lifetime to achieve. London & much of the south, I'd agree it'd be sensible, even before marketing the property.

Eejay

I made another thread about what exactly was answered in the documents supplied as I didn't think I'd get much info tagging it onto the end of this one. It seems there is no information about the house, and yet he's expecting us to pay for various things to progress the sale when they (the EA who filled in the paperwork, even though this isn't supposed to happen) are incapable of even answering the most basic of questions. When people are back at work on Monday/Tuesday we could organise for things to get done ASAP but this paperwork must have been filled in a couple of weeks ago now, at which point the vendor probably had no (or few) concerns. If he was actually interested in selling the property surely he'd make sure as much information was filled in as possible, even if that wasn't everything. I'm sure questions like 'who lives in the property?' could have been answered, and he could have signed the paperwork and faxed it back.

The fact that the tenants are a problem and they've provided half a dozen answers makes me think there's something suspicious going on and they are eager to speed up the sale before we catch on to whatever it is. I'd understand if everything was perfect at their end and we were just being nuisances, but I think they need to put more effort in if this is to go any further.

Annie1960

Dan-Dan wrote: »

Chicken and egg here with the tenants still there , personally I am minded to think the vendor is most at fault , cake and eat it etc

Chicken, egg, cake - making me hungry!

suziqqq

It must be difficult for vendors with tenants to know when to give notice after all the tenants are most likely paying their mortgage, too early and they lose money, too late and they hold everything up. I think there needs to be some sort of rule made to guide these people e.g. you cannot market a property with tenants in situ or the tenants must be given notice when an offer is accepted. That way everyone would know where they stood instead of the landlords deciding their own rules to suit themselves.

kinger101

suziqqq wrote: »

It must be difficult for vendors with tenants to know when to give notice after all the tenants are most likely paying their mortgage, too early and they lose money, too late and they hold everything up. I think there needs to be some sort of rule made to guide these people e.g. you cannot market a property with tenants in situ or the tenants must be given notice when an offer is accepted. That way everyone would know where they stood instead of the landlords deciding their own rules to suit themselves.

This is just a greedy vendor. The time to give notice is when you put the property on the market. The vacant period between removing the tenants and selling the property should be treated as selling costs by the owner. Tenants in situ only works where the property will continue to be let, and the purchaser is happy using the current tenants. I expect in many cases, the property sells for less than would be expected without tenants, as you've severely restricted your potential market to other landlords, and buyers who haven't thought through the implications (sorry OP, but I'd never even look at a place with tenants).

I'm not sure additional legislation is necessary - presumably this place was marketed "with tenant", and priced accordingly.

Annie1960

kinger101 wrote: »

I'm not sure additional legislation is necessary - presumably this place was marketed "with tenant", and priced accordingly.

Don't assume that. I'm looking for a property at the moment, and went to see one on Monday. It was only when I arrived there that the EA mentioned tenants (and this was because I was five minutes early and saw them leaving).

It was certainly not priced at a low level to take account of the fact it was tenanted. In fact it was over-priced to extent it still hasn't sold, and houses around here are selling pretty instantly once they are on the market.

Eejay

kinger101 wrote: »

I'm not sure additional legislation is necessary - presumably this place was marketed "with tenant", and priced accordingly.

There was no mention of tenants in the listing, although I was suspicious since there were only four photographs. When we called to book a viewing, it was then that they explained the tenants were not very tidy and that's why there were so few photos - they'd used photos from before the tenants moved in (one of the front of the house, one of a small section of living room, one of the kitchen and one of the back garden).

When we've looked at other properties that are tenanted, it has been made clear on the listing. One for example says that it'll be vacant as of July - we were tempted to go and view it, but there are about 8 viewings this week and I'm not competing for it :P

jjlandlord

There's no need for legislation and there is no need to advertise the property as tenanted until the aim is to attract landlords.

The only scenario where it is appropriate to stress that there is a tenant, and to reflect that in the price is if the tenancy is not an AST but an assured tenancy or Rent Act tenancy.

If the property of interest is tenanted, an interested buyer should:
1. check the type and status of the tenancy,
2. tell the vendor that they'll not incur fees until a valid notice as been serve to the tenants,
3. not exchange until property is vacant and inspected.

Everything should be in place at exchange so completion can be very quick.

wannahouse

Eviesmummy wrote: »

OP, I just wanted to say to that your situation isn't so unusual, I'm buying our new house in my name only. My husband and daughter will be living there too and we're a happy family!

What a lot of fuss!!!

yes, this is the usual gauntlet they run everyone through!
accusations,mocking,and telling you things aren't possible!

Our latest property is in my DH"s name too only, for reasons i can't bother claryifying, but at the suggestion of the bank,-all our banking, incl business is with the bank so they can see everything,and we've been living here for 6 months, so despite everyones "sky is falling- you can't do that- your husband must be a mean git to keep you off the deeds garbage" some of them like to spin, just get on with whatever you are going and good luck!