Buying a house without vacant possession, Would you?

flambo33

our mortgage offer expires mid august, the seller originally wanted 4 months to evict the tenant... we had to insist on 3 or our offer would have expired. This is looking riskier by the comment... It's also looking unlikely that we'll be able to get the insurance for the specific period due to our personal circumstances. my solicitors have suggested we could insist on them insuring and repairing... getting very messy here if something was to go wrong. going to have a serious discussion tonight with my partner and see where we actually stand... losing 1000£ is a nasty pinch

theartfullodger

Regardless of the tenancy paperwork the vendor shows you, if tenant moved in early enough (1997 or 1989) they could have not AST but AT or "Rent Act" tenancy and will be nigh on impossible to evict, if they keep paying rent &, if "Rent Act" the rent will be low - nuffink you can do about that really - and the place worth less than you thought.
http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/private_renting/private_renting_agreements

Ask TENANT when they 1st moved in:

pinkshoes

Their terms and conditions seem VERY one sided!!

I would ONLY agree to it if they change the clause so that if they do not have vacant posession 3 months after exchange, then the sale is cancelled and they forfeit 10% of the purchase price, as would happen with a failed completion.

It would appear they want to have their cake and eat it.

glasgowdan

lush_walrus wrote: »

Yes, if I were in a positon to wait and see what happens within the next three months. If I were desperate to buy or having to give notice myself then no.

Prices are falling off a bit at the moment in most parts of the U.K, due to the big rush pre April inflating prices in a part of the year generally quiet so if it did fall through you may find an equal or better deal. If your area is a rising market maybe consider that too. Ultimately if they do not go you can drop out without penalty. You have already paid the fees for survey so minimum risk monetarily it's just time lost and worry.

Hi, interesting comments about prices being inflated etc. I'm trying to buy and have felt a bit of this due to a great shortage of houses for sale. Can i ask if you know of any sources of data on the housing market?

mrginge

So the proposed solution is for the seller to insure the property between exchange and completion.

Given that in pretty much all house sales that would already be the case, why is such a condition not contained in all sale contracts? There would then be no need for buyers to ever insure between exchange and completion.

beeg0d

The main reason i woulnt accept that contract is simply one of fairness. The contract is VERY 1 sided. if affectvly commits you to buying the propety but gets no commitment from the vender. If the vender decides to change his mind at any point in those 3 months he can without penality (make a mistake on the S21, delays applying a court date, forget to turn upto court, delay balifs etc).

The only way i would accept such a contract is if there was some actual penalties for the vender for failing to compleate the contract. or at the very least some safegards against him intentally delaying the process (must send a valid s21 no more then 1 working day after exchange (served no more then 3 working days after exchange) giving no more then the minimum notice legal *.Must apply to courts for posesion no more then 1 working day after expiry *. Most show up at court for hearing *. must appoint bailifs as soon as legally possiable to act as soon as legally possiable *.

* = failier to comply leads to penality (could be what ever you think is fair, IMO as you stand to loose 10% if you dont comply then for me it should also be 10%, but if just got a moral victory to try and even the contract it could be as simple as just covering your costs todate).

Just to ask your convaycener isnt on a no sale no fee baises is he? i only ask as if he is that could explain why he is happy with such an unusual and 1 sided contract.

flambo33

Some very helpful comments coming through, thank you. I've emailed my solicitor highlighting these issues. The seller has not been very flexible so far so I'd guess this purchase is going to fall through, although i hope it doesn't

Annisele

The contract may well say the seller has to rectify any issues, but I'd be concerned he might not have enough money to do that.

It's unusual not to get the tenants out before exchange. It's certainly not illegal, unlawful or impossible - it's just unusual. If your seller hasn't got the tenants out already, there's a reason for that. The reason might be that he can't afford to pay his mortgage with no tenants. But if he's that financially strapped, how is he going to afford to fix everything after the tenants trash the place?

I wouldn't touch that contract with a bargepole, but then I'm pretty risk averse. If I was getting a stonkingly good deal, and if I was confident the seller was serious about wanting to sell to me at the agreed price, then I might consider it. But if prices rise in the meantime, I dont' see why your seller wouldn't just delay eviction for a bit to take advantage.

franklee

flambo33 wrote: »

[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]As you are struggling to find a reputable insurer why don’t we ask them to amend the contract so the seller insures until completion and then add in something to say if the property is damaged between exchange of contracts and completion you may treat the contract as terminated with no further obligations or add in an obligation on the seller to reinstate the property prior to completion. What do you think?[/FONT][/FONT]

That's incredibly woolly. Who decides if anything that happens is damage or just fair wear and tear? What if there's accidental damage as opposed to deliberate. Let's say a door handle falls off - can you pull out - really? Who decides if it's been repaired to a satisfactory standard? If you and the vendor disagree will they force you to complete? You then have to defend it saying you won't. What if there is damage but they claim it already existed before exchange - how do you prove it's new?

If the tenant doesn't move out voluntarily at the end of their two months S21 notice then it'll take a lot longer than one more month to evict them. Will there be undue pressure put on the tenant, will you be unwittingly contributing to an illegal eviction. What if the property seems vacant but the tenant then claims an illegal eviction?

Is the tenant likely to find another private let easily? Are they earning enough, do they have pets or children, do they smoke, will they need council assistance, are they on benefits? If any of these apply it's going to be harder for them to move on in a timely manner as it makes finding the next let harder.

Dan-Dan

flambo33 wrote: »

[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]The Seller has agreed to sell the property with vacant possession which means it will be in a state for you to physically and legally occupy it.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]Normally, notice will be served on the tenant before we exchange but in this case the buyer doesn’t want to do this in case you withdraw and he loses the tenant. Instead, we are exchanging on the basis that the seller will serve notice within 7 days and completion will take place within 14 days of the tenant moving out. If he doesn’t move out within three months’, you or the seller can withdraw and you get your deposit back. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]You would be bonkers to proceed on the basis of vacant possession knowing about the tenant without this clause in the contract but the contract means you aren’t going to lose anything if he doesn’t vacate (other than three months waiting for him to vacate), and don’t forget the people on this forum probably aren’t aware of this clause or are legally trained – just because it’s not common place doesn’t mean its incorrect. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]As you are struggling to find a reputable insurer why don’t we ask them to amend the contract so the seller insures until completion and then add in something to say if the property is damaged between exchange of contracts and completion you may treat the contract as terminated with no further obligations or add in an obligation on the seller to reinstate the property prior to completion. What do you think?[/FONT][/FONT]

Is this really,honestly word for word from a legal professional?

Did they get their degree from a Mcdonalds happy meal?