Buying House - Tenant refusing to leave...

kwmlondon

Ooh, a bit of a barney here, and no mistake!

I'll just add my experience. Back in Easter last year, with an offer in place on my flat, I put an offer in on a house that had tenants in place. The offer was accepted but it took from Easter to August for the tenants to move out - the LL was a total !*%$!!**! by the way.

I had several months of agonising wait, not knowing when/if they were going to leave because I know that they could just decide not to go and the LL would have to go through a process of evicting them. There was also the worry that they would trash the place (as it turns out, that would have actually been helpful as it was so rotten).

However....

I got a bargain. There was no way I could have found a property like that, at that price, without there being SOME kind of issue to contend with. Even taking into account that the property needed heavy refurbishment, it was worth waiting out the process as it was a total bargain.

If the property you're looking at isn't your dream home and at a dream price I would recommend walking away. You are going to be taking on a very stressful situation that could go on for a long time. If you can get somewhere similar at a price that isn't that much higher I'd take that option. Your vendor should be offering a bargain if he/she's asking you to put up with an indefinite wait and god-knows-what state the place will be in at the end.

Oh, and finally, you may want to consider contacting the vendor to see if between you and them you could find a couple of grand to persuade the tenant to go? In this game you have to swallow your pride and accept that some people have less to lose than you have to gain in a transaction. |It may be worth your while to make it worth their while.

Just saying.

MattinLondon

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.

So you rent a house to someone and you can never end the tenancy?

I still don't understand why so many people are feeling sorry for the tenant when the seller and ourselves will end up being the ones that lose out financially.

The situation is that we are first time buyers, we're buying close to London and there's not many available properties. Houses go very fast and most of the houses we've seen have had tenants in them. It's all fine and dandy to say only look at houses that are vacant but then we're going to be looking for another year to find something and prices would've jumped another 20%.

We're not greedy landlords looking to make a quick buck. We just got married and want to start a family - something we can't do in our one bed rented flat.

As suggested we are looking again (say goodbye to weekend again) and have a place to see tonight. Wish us luck...

Lord_Baltimore

kwmlondon wrote: »

Oh, and finally, you may want to consider contacting the vendor to see if between you and them you could find a couple of grand to persuade the tenant to go? In this game you have to swallow your pride and accept that some people have less to lose than you have to gain in a transaction. |It may be worth your while to make it worth their while.

Just saying.

Or instead of lining the pockets of the tenant, the OP could retain his offer on the property on condition that it is available eventually with vacant possession whilst at the same time continuing to look for another property. Commit to whichever is achieved first - a different place or the original place with the tenant out on her ear without any financial inducement.

At that point the OP can decide if he actually wants the original place after all. All's fair in love and war. .

*puts on tin hat*

Good luck Matt with the new house search:)

benjus

MattinLondon wrote: »

So you rent a house to someone and you can never end the tenancy?

The point is that the landlord cannot just march in and evict the tenant. From a legal perspective, the tenancy would be terminated by a court (at the landlord's instigation), not the landlord themselves.

MattinLondon wrote: »

I still don't understand why so many people are feeling sorry for the tenant when the seller and ourselves will end up being the ones that lose out financially.

The situation is that we are first time buyers, we're buying close to London and there's not many available properties. Houses go very fast and most of the houses we've seen have had tenants in them. It's all fine and dandy to say only look at houses that are vacant but then we're going to be looking for another year to find something and prices would've jumped another 20%.

I sympathise with your situation, having recently bought in the London area. Buying a property with tenants in situ can get you a good deal - but you must go in with your eyes open and know the risks. The agent will just say what you want to hear - don't take their word for it that valid notice has been served on the tenants, and factor into your plans that it could take several months to get the tenants out even if the notice was validly served. Having in-situ tenants brings another party to the sale process - but one with no interest in co-operating with the process and no contact with anyone else in the process except the vendor. It's hardly surprising that it often throws a spanner into the works.

DaftyDuck

MattinLondon wrote: »

We just got married and want to start a family - something we can't do in our one bed rented flat.

I think you'll find you can start one there....

The only person with limited control in this matter is the tenant. The LL chose to put his house on the market whilst the property was still tenanted. You, as buyer, chose to move forward on purchasing a property with tenants.

The tenants have the choice - to move out a.s.a.p., or to move out a.late.a.p. The only sure thing is, they'll eventually have to move out. The LL has a choice - to sell, or not sell, to sell with or without tenants. The buyer (you) has similar choice - buy this house with tenant delaying matters, wait for LL to evict them, then charge ahead, or buy another property with no tenancy at all.

Neither you, nor the LL will have unpredictable losses. However, the tenant will lose their home, and it will be through no fault of their own. There is, like many things in this sphere, a regulated process of law that needs to be followed, and that aims (vaguely) to make things reasonably fair on all parties.

I may sound rather sympathetic to the tenants, and I am. I'm also a landlord, and regular house buyer.

fairy_lights

Another point worth mentioning is that you only have the vendor's word for it that he gave the tenants notice. It's not unheard of for landlords to leave giving notice until the last minute so they can keep receiving rent right up to the point of sale.

*~Zephyr~*

MattinLondon wrote: »

I still don't understand why so many people are feeling sorry for the tenant when the seller and ourselves will end up being the ones that lose out financially.

But the tenant does loose out financially. They now have to find money for a new bond (payable before she gets her deposit from this place back) and stump up the cost of a removal van. Plus she has to actually search for and find an acceptable place to move to. What? Do you think she should settle for any old Sh*thole just because you want to buy her home?

Moving is a massive inconvenience for everyone. And it's made worse when you have to move because of someone else's whim and not through personal choice.

Can you not have a little human decency and compassion here? As said previously, you knew the place was tenanted and you made the choice to purchase anyway. The tenant has no choice here. Stop being such an !!!!!hole about it.

Dan-Dan

fairy_lights wrote: »

Another point worth mentioning is that you only have the vendor's word for it that he gave the tenants notice. It's not unheard of for landlords to leave giving notice until the last minute so they can keep receiving rent right up to the point of sale.

If a tenant moves out when agreed , why would the landlord lose rent ?

fairy_lights

Dan-Dan wrote: »

If a tenant moves out when agreed , why would the landlord lose rent ?

If the landlord gives notice, but then the sale takes longer than two months to go through they could end up with a period where the property is left empty. Which is better for a sale, obviously, but the LL would lose the rent they could be making during that period.
I'm not saying that's what's happened in this case but it is a possibility.

MattinLondon

*~Zephyr~* wrote: »

But the tenant does loose out financially. They now have to find money for a new bond (payable before she gets her deposit from this place back) and stump up the cost of a removal van. Plus she has to actually search for and find an acceptable place to move to. What? Do you think she should settle for any old Sh*thole just because you want to buy her home?

Moving is a massive inconvenience for everyone. And it's made worse when you have to move because of someone else's whim and not through personal choice.

Can you not have a little human decency and compassion here? As said previously, you knew the place was tenanted and you made the choice to purchase anyway. The tenant has no choice here. Stop being such an !!!!!hole about it.

She's not being thrown out tomorrow. She's been given the notice period that is agreed upon in the contract that she signed. What's the point of these contracts if she can now decide she doesn't like those terms.