Property is tenanted after vacant possession purchase! Please help!

martindow

Winter_Phoenix wrote: »

It doesn't sound at all far-fetched to me.

Nor to me. Especially with a flat where it could be impossible to check whether it is empty without the seller letting you in. It's not like a house where you can peer through windows.

G_M

* the buyer's (son's) solicitor will have ensured the contract said 'vacant possession'. basic duty done.

* IF the buyer (son), or someone else (eg estate agent, seller's solicitor etc) had informed the buyer's solicitor that there were tenants in occupation, then the solicitor should have taken additional precautions, eg (as advised above) to warn the buyer of the risks, and to ensure the buyer checks the property is vacant before Echanging contracts.

* but solicitors are not claire voyant - if no one tells them there are tenants, they cannot know what advice to give. So: did son ever tell his solicitor?

* it appears son was aware of the tenants, so clearly he had some responsibility to investigate the matter before handing over £X00,000, even if only with a Q to his solicitor......

* most (sadly not all) books/online guides etc on buying property advise checking the property is not occupied by tenants (or sick granny bedridden and unmovable upstairs) either at Exchnge and/or Completion. ANY occupant who is not immediate family of the seller raises questions needing answers.

dancingfairy

Trouble is if completion did happen then your son is now a landlord, this will bring its own problems in terms if the mortgage perhaps not being valid, needing landlords insurance, having to comply with gas and other safety legislation. I *think* also you would need to sort things with the tenants deposit and possibly have to give it back and might have to start eviction from scratch ( which could be costly and time consuming).
I think (but your solicitor is best placed to advise you obviously) that you will need to argue that completion didn't happen as you weren't given vacant possession and will need to try and get your money back.
What a nightmare.
Your son needs to keep notes on everything now (letters, phone calls etc) and will need to keep receipts for every additional expense incurred. I think he is meant to minimise the costs but he may also wish to do this anyway in case he can't reclaim them for some time/ at all for some reason.
I'd also suggest now you are aware of a tenant in the property you stay away for now. Clearly there are ongoing issues with the seller and the tenant if the police have already been called. You really don't want to be involved in any of that.
I hope your solicitor can advise you tomorrow.
What a nightmare.
Df

dancingfairy

It could take 6 months plus to evict the tenant or may not be possible legally if he has been there 10 years ( he may have a special legally protected tenancy, its unlikely but possible).
The tenant has nowhere to go so you know will not leave voluntarily and is writing for the council. Hi en how stretched the councils are they often don't steo in until bailiffs are physically at the door. It can sadly take many months to get to this stage.
Df

chilli1

Thanks for the information guys.
Give you an update tomorrow.

Mrs_pbradley936

We had a nightmare with my mother-in law's flat after she died. We had tenants in there for about a year after she died found by an agent. We used the same agent to sell the flat. Despite being in the same room about 25 feet by 40 feet the sales and lettings people did not speak to each other hence they forgot to issue the notice to leave.

As it turned out the buyer was a first time buyer and just continued to live with his parents but my solicitor did not pay the agents commission because he had to sort it all out and invited them to challenge him.

We did not need the money for the few weeks it took to sort out but I have no idea what would have happened if the buyer had nowhere to stay or we had commitments for the sale money.

AnnieO1234

Sorry OP could you clarify, did you not say tenants in a room? Are/were they actually lodgers? Xxx

G_M

AnnieO1234 wrote: »

Sorry OP could you clarify, did you not say tenants in a room? Are/were they actually lodgers? Xxx

To clarify (it's important) - if the occupants had one room in the sellers home, and shared that home with the seller (their landlord), then yes, they'd be lodgers ('excluded occupiers' ie excluded from tenancy protection).

Your son could move in (replacing the previous owners/landlord and as the new landlord could evict quickly/easily.

So the distinction between 'tenant' (hard/slow to evict) and lodger (quick /easy) is important.

However, if a lodger is left in sole occupation of a property (not sharing with landlord) he becomes a tenant and then obtains the protection/rights of a tenant. If that is the case, son should move in.

Mulder00

Interesting - I was almost in the current tenant's position once where the landlord was in the process of selling the property. We asked to get out of the AST one month early to allow for vacant possession and he was actually being quite difficult about it, trying to keep us in the property until the very last minute. In the end we managed to convince him - but this made me wonder if this was possible a landlord that was trying the same thing?

duchy

chilli1 wrote: »

Its my sons first home purchase, i helped with a deposit.
The tenants been there for ten years, he tells me a notice has been served but he needs a court order to be housed.
We just left him in the flat in peace, as i can not see its his fault.
where is he to go with a small child.
The seller has some explaining to do.

So did he SHOW you the notice to quit paperwork ....or even his tenancy agreement.

Or are you taking it on trust ?

Your solicitor will need copies of these before they can do anything.