Finders fee for tenants in situ?

G_M

lemontart wrote: »

!!!!!!. you are buying a property with SITTING tenants

I've spent too much time making myself go blind.... Can't see where the OP said that.

He said "Finders fee for tenants in situ?" which is very different.

But nonetheless, to be sure, I suggested he check:

Unrelated, make sure you do 'due diligence' on the tenants, and the tenancy:

* is it an AST?

macman

Whether she he is buying the flat with vacant possession or not, I can see no possible way that the OP should pay such a fee. The LA has not 'found' the tenants-the OP did.
The OP is not taking over an existing tenancy, because she will be presumably creating a new one if the tenants remain.
Why am I not surprised that an LA should attempt to claim such a ludicrous fee though?

G_M

macman wrote: »

Whether she he is buying the flat with vacant possession or not, I can see no possible way that the OP should pay such a fee. The LA has not 'found' the tenants-the OP did.
The OP is not taking over an existing tenancy, because she will be presumably creating a new one if the tenants remain.
Why am I not surprised that an LA should attempt to claim such a ludicrous fee though?

Errrr.... how can you say that?

She might choose to offer the tenants a new tenancy, and they might accept. Equally they might choose to remain on their existing tenancy, whether it is in a fixed term or periodic.

They cannot be forced to agree to a new one. Though she could choose to serve a S21 and seek possession if they refuse her offer. But then that would seem to defeat the purpose of buying a property with tenants in situ......

More likely she'll simply let the existing tenancy continue (on the assumption she's done her due diligence and is satisfied with it).

BarryBlue

I think they have a downright cheek and I would not be paying them a penny either. I am currently purchasing an apartment to let, which has a tenant living in it. I have said that I will not exchange until she is out as I don't want her as my tenant, and she is leaving at the beginning of December.

I shall be using my letting agent. The current agent is actually the selling agent and I think he expects me to keep him on, but I have no intention of doing so. Once the tenant is gone, we shall exchange & complete, do a quick makeover, and get a new tenant through the agent I use.

ognum

Maud2013 wrote: »

Apparently this is common! Even the estate agent selling the property (who is not the letting agent) says that this is the norm...

This is not the norm, I have flats that I have bought with tenants in situ. I have moved their management to the management company I use and have never paid any letting agency for this priverlidge.

I have no contract with their current agency and if needed I would arrange for them to be given notice to leave on the day I took possesion but contract them again.

Do make sure their deposit is returned by the old agency and requested and registered by you or your new agency.

I have always had a meeting with the tenants to explain to them what will be happening, how and when their rents will be collected and how to make contact if they feel worried or unsure of what is happening.

ognum

BarryBlue wrote: »

I think they have a downright cheek and I would not be paying them a penny either. I am currently purchasing an apartment to let, which has a tenant living in it. I have said that I will not exchange until she is out as I don't want her as my tenant, and she is leaving at the beginning of December.

I shall be using my letting agent. The current agent is actually the selling agent and I think he expects me to keep him on, but I have no intention of doing so. Once the tenant is gone, we shall exchange & complete, do a quick makeover, and get a new tenant through the agent I use.

Yes, it is always good to make the current agent think you will keep them on, it does ensure they are happy to do buisness with you. When the property is yours you can do what you like.