Buying House - Tenant refusing to leave...

Lord_Baltimore

Seems to be a lot of emotive comment about the tenant's home and the disruption of her life which is all well and good but it remains that the house is not the tenant's property. She will have to leave sooner or later and whilst it might take court action to effect it, the landlord can start the ball rolling. I don't see why the OP should look elsewhere; he can get the house he wants as soon as the tenant leaves, and she will leave.

G_M

You are, of course, entirely right. The owner /Landlord is selling, and the tenant will, eventually, have to leave.

The emotive comments was a direct response to the OP/buyer's attitude towards the innocent, but helpless tenant:

I'm blaming no one other than this tenant. She's had 2 months notice. I don't care what her circumstances are

Ulfar

The tenant is in no way at fault here.

The fault lies primarily at the door of the Landlord for being a greedy fool. He should have given notice and ensured vacancy before putting the property on the market. Yes this means he misses out on some rent but that is his problem.

Secondary blame lies at the OP's door, you may be a first time buyer but this should mean you do more research into the buying process. A sitting tenant can delay things especially if the Landlord doesn't know what they are doing.

Your solicitor should have advised you on what vacant possession means.

The main lesson you will have learned from this is never ever belief what a vendor or THEIR estate agent is telling you. They are trying to sell you a property they in no way have your interests at heart. If they can screw you over they will.

Lord_Baltimore

G_M wrote: »

You are, of course, entirely right. The owner /Landlord is selling, and the tenant will, eventually, have to leave.

The emotive comment was a direct response to the OP/buyer's attitude towards the innocent, but helpless tenant:

This is an excellent forum and your contributions are always amongst the best. People seeking advice deserve fact and you deliver that in spades.

There are however contributors who allow bias to cloud their otherwise helpful advice imho.

Pixie5740

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

Seems to be a lot of emotive comment about the tenant's home and the disruption of her life which is all well and good but it remains that the house is not the tenant's property. She will have to leave sooner or later and whilst it might take court action to effect it, the landlord can start the ball rolling. I don't see why the OP should look elsewhere; he can get the house he wants as soon as the tenant leaves, and she will leave.

The OP has made some very derogatory comments about the tenant. In fact the MSE Mods removed one particular comment.

If the OP really wants this particular house then they need to accept that they made an offer and are trying to buy a property with a sitting tenant.

The tenant will have had their home disrupted by potential buyers traipsing through the property during viewings. Now their home is being sold from underneath them so will have to move eventually. The tenant's life has been completely disrupted.

Lord_Baltimore

Pixie5740 wrote: »

The OP has made some very derogatory comments about the tenant. In fact the MSE Mods removed one particular comment.

If the OP really wants this particular house then they need to accept that they made an offer and are trying to buy a property with a sitting tenant.

The tenant will have had their home disrupted by potential buyers traipsing through the property during viewings. Now their home is being sold from underneath them so will have to move eventually. The tenant's life has been completely disrupted.

Yes, and I empathise. I also empathise with the OP who is seeking to buy a home. But I don't think social work is relevant to this forum nor does it impact on the legalities of property buying, selling etc.

It is nice to be human, but it doesn't change the facts of tenancy status.

Pixie5740

You're quite right. The OP's desire to exchange has no bearing on the fact that there is a tenancy in place which neither the OP nor the vendor can end.

xylophone

Moving between rentals is not cheap, estate agent fee's & van hire, time & effort moving phone, internet and utilities contracts and changing all of your documentation and telling all of your friends.

All very true but surely anybody who rents has to accept and prepare for the fact that the landlord may want to sell the property at some stage?

And anybody who chooses to become a landlord has to familiarise himself with the law relating to ending a tenancy and to accept that if he wishes to sell, he would be wise to obtain vacant possession before he does so?

And anybody who wishes to buy a house should be aware that problems may arise if the property is tenanted at the commencement of the process?

Lord_Baltimore

Pixie5740 wrote: »

You're quite right. The OP's desire to exchange has no bearing on the fact that there is a tenancy in place which neither the OP nor the vendor can end.

You clearly know more about this process than I do. I agree that the OP's desires have no bearing on the tenancy but I was under the impression that the vendor could regain possession of the property, if necessary and eventually, by eviction through court process?

Paul_the_Painter

What Pixie is saying Baltimore, is that a tenancy can only be ended by
1. The tenant giving notice
2. The tenant agreeing to move out when the landlord requests it (sec 21)
3. A court ordering repossession following the landlord taking proceedings in court. (Usually following a section 21)

You are both saying the same thing, but in a different way.

Essentially a tenant can end a tenancy with no reference to whether or not the landlord agrees, however a landlord cannot end a tenancy if the tenant does not agree unless a court so orders. (Which can take months)