Required to vacate immediately once equity transferred?

espritlibre87

My ex-partner is purchasing my share of the equity on our property. I currently live here but the intention is to buy elsewhere with the money from him buying me out, and then he will move back into the property as the sole owner. So far the process has been amicable - we have been discussing a tenancy agreement to cover us both for the short period of time I would remain there whilst sorting out a new place. However he has just told me that he's been informed it's a "legal requirement" for me to have already moved out before the transfer of equity can take place. I've never heard of this before and was hoping somebody might be able to clarify this for me? I can't secure a new property until my name is removed from the deeds of this one. I'll admit I'm not an expert in this area at all but it seems unlikely that there would be a statutory obligation for me to vacate a property on these grounds when I can't move elsewhere until I'm off the mortgage?

My ex is wiling to be reasonable around this and try to work out a solution, but this wouldn't be the first time he's got his facts wrong. I've googled and scoured Citizens Advice but am none the wiser - I cannot find anything that states I would have to leave immediately (or even before, as my ex seems to believe). Any advice would be gratefully received!

unforeseen

Presumably he is getting a mortgage? That normally stipulates 5hat vacant possession is a requirement.

espritlibre87

Ah okay. Yes, he is. But is that still the case if it's for a property he already owns?

journeymanpro

Well the property the mortgage company are paying for won't be vacant will it!

ViolaLass

can't you arrange your new place to start the day of the transfer of equity?

espritlibre87

My understanding is that vacant possession entails making the property available to the buyer to 'physically and legally occupy' - I was under the impression this doesn't necessarily mean something as straightforward as 'leave the property'. I'm aware it works the other way in that somebody could vacate a property but if they have left stuff around that impedes access it's not considered vacant possession, so could this not be reversed? He will still be able to occupy the property at any point in the interim (and indeed has always been able to if he'd chosen to).

davidmcn

How swiftly are you proposing to move out once completion of the transfer of equity takes place? Hours, weeks...? The lender is presumably lending on the basis that your partner will be the sole occupier - they will be suspicious of a situation where someone else is occupying the property, and who might be less easy to evict if they wanted to repossess.

getmore4less

You should have a place ready to buy and do the transfer at the same time just like you would selling and buying a new house(which is what you are doing).

Have you been looking.

delay the equity transfer till you have found somewhere.

xnoxxnox

This is what a property chain is. Where everyone packs and moves on the same day. And everyone exchanges ahead of time and complete simultaneously. Ideally, you should move on. Another option is for you to become a single lodger for the intermittent period of time - which means that you can be kicked out without notice and you have no claims to the property (i.e. you are not a squatter). Vacate, from legal point of view, means that mortgage provider can repossess the property and that 3rd parties (i.e. yourself) are not in the way of preventing that.

silvercar

Easiest solution is for your ex to move in on completion day. You would need to move out in order to meet the mortgage requirement for vacant possession and him being sole occupier.

You could then move back in as a guest or lodger of your ex. Any rent you then pay to him would be exempt from tax under the rent-a-room scheme.

I don't see a major issue in how long you are out of the property - one night in the local premier inn would provide the evidence that the property was vacant and you were elsewhere. (At least of people, no-one is really bothered about possessions/ furniture that were once under joint ownership).

Most important factor is your ex moving in.

stator

If he intended to be a landlord to you for even a short period he would need permission from the lender.
What he is trying to do is take out a normal residential mortgage for a non-residential situation. This won't work.
It's not a legal requirement but it is a requirement of his mortgage lender.
You'll have to find a different way of organising everything or you'll be be defrauding the lender.