Buying House - Tenant refusing to leave...

Lord_Baltimore

Paul_the_Painter wrote: »

3. A court ordering repossession following the landlord taking proceedings in court.

For the benefit of the OP, the salient point needed to be stated for absolute clarity.

The fact is the vendor can repossess, if necessary by eviction, by instigating court proceedings. It is clear now that the tenant does not hold all the cards on the table.

Kynthia

The problem is the seller and the buyer are both extremely upset at the tenant for not moving out when the notice expired. However most of us know here that the tenant doesn't have to leave by that date and may have good reasons for not doing so, none of which are necessarily to disrupt the lives of the OP. So everyone's plans shouldn't have been based around the tenant moving out by this date and blaming the tenant, who is the only one of the three parties who has had little choice about this situation occurring, is silly.


The tenant may need more time to save for a new deposit and fees, they may not be able to afford to move and need to be evicted in order to receive assistance, they may already have found somewhere but it isn't available for a few more days, they may know the s21 is invalid so are waiting until valid notice is given, are maybe having difficulty finding a suitable property to move into, might have children and be trying to tie the move date to the holidays, might have been away for much of the notice and haven't had time to property search, might be having difficulty passing new credit checks for a place due to a change in circumstances or credit history since the current tenancy began, etc, etc.

pimento

appliancerepair wrote: »

Clearly you don't know whether this is in reality the case (rather than there's been a wreck up with the s.21 documentation, for instance), however this circumstance does harvest up a considerable amount. Committees say the inhabitant has made themselves willfully homeless (and along these lines not qualified for assistance from them) on the off chance that they move out before receipt of the expulsion notice.

Was this Google translated from the original Mandarin?

Lord_Baltimore

Kynthia wrote: »

The tenant may need more time to save for a new deposit and fees, they may not be able to afford to move and need to be evicted in order to receive assistance, they may already have found somewhere but it isn't available for a few more days, they may know the s21 is invalid so are waiting until valid notice is given, are maybe having difficulty finding a suitable property to move into, might have children and be trying to tie the move date to the holidays, might have been away for much of the notice and haven't had time to property search, might be having difficulty passing new credit checks for a place due to a change in circumstances or credit history since the current tenancy began, etc, etc.

Well, I think we all know there are a lot of potential 'ifs' 'buts' 'mights' and 'maybes'.

However, lest we stray into the equivalent of an episode of Eastenders (and probably one of the better ones at that:)) it remains that the tenant will leave eventually and it might not necessarily be at her leisure.

I should add that after the heart-rending circumstances you have suggested as possibilities for the delay, I am simply stating the legal case without emotion to the possible circumstances.

It could, for example, quite easily be that this tenant is an obnoxious sponger seeking to milk whomever she can whether that be a private landlord or the taxpayer.

I'm not saying she is, I'm saying there are 2 sides to every story and which is why I personally feel the advice imparted here ought to be devoid of speculation.

[Deleted User]

The speculation occurred because the OP seemed to blame the tenant for not moving out promptly. Other people have tried to explain the tenant may not have much choice. You yourself have suggested the tenant may be a 'sponger' in spite of asking for non emotive responses on this thread! I could give an Eastenders tale about my situation (similar to tenant quoted here) but decided not to.

At the end of the day, blame is a waste of time, if the OP wants to buy a house with a tenant removed, they will have to decide if they can wait til legal processes are gone through or the tenant moves out of their own accord. Simples. No one here can say how long that will take because there are too many variables and we don't know the seller, buyer or tenant and what they are willing/can do.

The only certain thing we can say is don't exchange until vacant possession is obtained. Don't depend on what anyone says they will do, what paperwork has been issued until it has actually happened.

Lord_Baltimore

deannatrois wrote: »

You yourself have suggested the tenant may be a 'sponger' in spite of asking for non emotive responses on this thread!

If you read the context again, you will hopefully understand that I used an emotive term to counter-balance an entire thread of emotive terms; the purpose being to illustrate that emotion and speculation about the circumstances are irrelevant to the legal position. There really is no point trying to guess what the social position is of the tenant, the seller or the buyer.

You have mentioned some of your circumstances in a different thread but refrained from doing so in this thread because you rightly know that too is irrelevant.

Other than that, I think you've fairly summarised the overall opinion .

Amen.

[Deleted User]

It wasn't irrelevant, because it probably explains why the tenant hasn't moved as the OP clearly feels they should have done (dang, isn't life awkward sometimes lol?) But it would have been emotive, and I didn't feel that was helpful. Other people have made the point quite nicely.


But as you aren't in this situation, obviously "why" is irrelevant to you.

Lord_Baltimore

deannatrois wrote: »

But as you aren't in this situation, obviously "why" is irrelevant to you.

And "why", more importantly than it having a significance for me, is irrelevant to the advice.

theartfullodger

Landlord is exercising their absolute legal right to evict tenant for no reason at all: (if evicting for a reason we would be discussing S8 not s21)

Tenant is exercising their absolute legal right to not leave before court order & bailiffs: (s5, same act, Housing Act 1988)

Seems to me both sides & prospective purchaser have equal rights to feel "in the right" or "affronted & upset" by actions of the other partie(s).

flora48

Well OP, I would be viewing the other house now! This seems likely to be come a protracted process.