"But to let only"

RedfordML

Stupid question, does this mean that if you buy it comes with tenants in already or do you sign the contract to agree to put tenants in the property?


Seen a lovely 4 bed, BTLO (buy to let only) - what stops me buying it, giving notice to the tenants (if there are any) and living in it myself?


House is on for a nice price but the BTLO is unknown to me...


Thanks

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

The tenants could have a Regulated Tenancy - almost impossible to evict them unless the tenant breaks the contract in a big way, wants to leave, or dies.


Or it could be another, unknown, reason. Ask the EA?

lewishardwick

Could be a such serious structural defect that no lender would even consider it as security...

Quite a few reasons.

HouseBuyer77

Guess it could also be a leasehold that prevents residential occupation by the owner?

No idea why such a thing would exist but I think it's legally possible.

G_M

As Bluebird says.

But eve if the tenants were on a periodic (monthy) AST (and hence could be evicted relatively easily) you'd

* have to either pay cash or use a BTL mortgage (not standard residential)
* become a LL with all that that involves

However Bluebirds scenario is more likely or the seller would have evicted and be selling with vacant possession for a higher price.

G_M

lewishardwick wrote: »

Could be a such serious structural defect that no lender would even consider it as security...

Quite a few reasons.

Then it would be "cash purchase only".

Many landlords take out mortgages.....

RedfordML

Cheers for all the replies...


I agree with this "However Bluebirds scenario is more likely or the seller would have evicted and be selling with vacant possession for a higher price"


I believe its a freehold property and its on a new build estate so would be surprised if it was anything structural

agrinnall

RedfordML wrote: »

I believe its a freehold property and its on a new build estate so would be surprised if it was anything structural

It may then be that the developer was required to include a proportion of social housing properties and there is a restrictive covenant on this property that means it has to be let rather than occupied by the owner.