Buying from property developer who has house sitters in place

lrcfoto

Hi
We are looking to buy from a property developer who seems to do up properties and then put house sitters in place on some sort of one month rolling contract until the property is sold. The research I've done on the forum seems to suggests that I should not spend any money until I get legal assurances from his solicitor as to when the property will become vacant, and shouldn't exchange until the property is vacant and I'm able to inspect the property again. Does this sound reasonable and are there any other issues/pitfalls we should be concerned about?
Many thanks for any advice.

G_M

There is a difference between a tenant and a house sitter.

A house sitter has few rights and can be evicted easily. A tenant has stronger rights and may not leave when asked, and may take months to evict.

However, determining exactly which this is may not be easy. Even if documentation describes the occupant as a house sitter, if rent is being paid, they are likely to be tenants, who may decide to stay......

pathtofreedom

Agree to exhange / complete only once you've seen it empty. They can sort everything else out and draw the contracts up. You could say you want to see it on the saturday to check it is empty, and then you'll exchange / complete the week after. If you go there and it still has someones stuff in etc then don't do the exchange.

macman

As long as your contract says that you are buying with vacant possession, you have nothing to worry about. As above, a 'house sitter' has no rights whatsoever and can be removed without notice.

Bossypants

G_M wrote: »

There is a difference between a tenant and a house sitter.

A house sitter has few rights and can be evicted easily. A tenant has stronger rights and may not leave when asked, and may take months to evict.

However, determining exactly which this is may not be easy. Even if documentation describes the occupant as a house sitter, if rent is being paid, they are likely to be tenants, who may decide to stay......

This times x100. It's been a Very Long Time since I did Land Law, so this is in no way advice to be relied on, but the one thing I distinctly remember is that determining what 'bracket' a person living in a house falls under (i.e. tenant, lodger, house sitter, guest) is very much based on the spirit of the law, rather than whatever word is used in the contract they have. In other words, if it looks like a dog, walks like a dog and barks like a dog, the courts will recognise it as a dog and assign it corresponding rights, no matter how many times the contract talks about it using the word 'parrot'.

Tread carefully!

lrcfoto

Thanks so much for all replies. Viewing the property again on Monday so will be armed with the above advice to tackle the estate agent about (as well as our solicitor if we go ahead).

G_M

macman wrote: »

As long as your contract says that you are buying with vacant possession, you have nothing to worry about. As above, a 'house sitter' has no rights whatsoever and can be removed without notice.

As far as the law is concerned, yes, it is up to the seller to provide vacant possession on Completion.

But does the OP, or any buyer, actually want to have to go to law to deal with non-compliance? If the seller stupidly assumes the 'tenant' will leave when asked, and Exchanges, and then come Completion the tenant is still there, the buyer has all the hassle, not to mention homelessness, of forcing the seller to compensate for the cost and inconvenience of eviction.

And if the seller thinks the 'house sitter' can just be evicted, but the house sitter then claims to be a tenant because they are paying rent (perhaps not in cash, but in 'kind' eg painting/decorating?), the above scenaio becomes more likely.