Bought a house - now tenant wont move out

diggingdude

You had a lawyer? And they let you do this? Don't believe it as mortgage company wouldn't allow

AdrianC

There is no way that the lender's solicitor would allow exchange - much less completion - without being assured of vacant possession.


Either you outright lied to your solicitor - in which case, this is a situation entirely of your own making - or this is a wind-up.


I'll play it at face value...

You are their landlord. You have all the legal responsibilities of a landlord. Your tenant has all the legal rights of a tenant. You can issue them a section 21 notice, which gives them two months notice that you will seek possession. But they've already indicated that's not going to work - presumably, they need proof of eviction to get emergency social housing. So once the s21 expires, you need to issue possession proceedings. This is long-winded and costs you money. If there is any failing in the paperwork during the tenancy (including when the previous owner was landlord), your s21 is invalid. If everything is good, the court will then give you that "eviction letter", and you can start the ball rolling on enforcing the order - physically evicting them.


And, yes, if your lender find out that they've been misinformed, you will find yourself needing to repay that mortgage sharpish.

Kim786

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Did you buy it with vacant possession? This is the normal process when buying a house to live in. Your solicitor should have made sure this was the case at point of exchange.


Obviously this differs if you were buying a B2L with a sitting tenant.

Comms69 wrote: »

You’re a landlord; you’re in trouble.

You can get them to move out by serving notice and going to court.

Don’t blame the tenants; this is YOUR fault. You are the rude one.

The tenant has done NOTHING wrong!

Serve s.21; go to court; get your property back; return tenants deposit - yes YOU owe it.

They agreed to move out prior to sale and i let gave them some time to find another house to rent as they had kids. They have now turned and are basically saying they will not move out at all.

I admit this is my fault and i am willing to pay any amounts they are owed.

00ec25

Kim786 wrote: »

Wish me good luck guys.

it is not luck you need, it is simply a case of educating yourself on due process.

yes there is due process. We live in a country governed by the rule of law and that means you will eventually get them out if you follow due process.

offering money is simply a short cut to avoid due process. If it works good on it, but luck has no part in the either whether they accept money to go or whether you need to follow due process.

read G-M's guides already linked to in post#2, particularly the one on how to evict

Bossypants

Kim786 wrote: »

They agreed to move out prior to sale and i let gave them some time to find another house to rent as they had kids. They have now turned and are basically saying they will not move out at all.

I admit this is my fault and i am willing to pay any amounts they are owed.

Whatever came before is totally irrelevant to the present day. Serve them a valid section 21 and go from there.

[Deleted User]

Its not luck you need. Its knowledge.

Did the tenants give your uncle a deposit? Is it protected? Are you in England. If they gave a deposit, don't have prescribed information and its not protected the S21 will be found invalid.

Check your exact position before issuing a S21 otherwise it could be a waste of time and eventually, court fees. You can use google, join a LL's association, look at useful forums, or even go to your solicitor.

Even when offering large sums of money, if the tenant is on benefits or has a bad credit rating, their options could be limited. They already said they'd move out before you bought the place and didn't so either have a problem moving on they can't surmount or are trying it on i.e. you can't trust they will do what they said they will do.

If you do go this route (giving them money) move in the property immediately. Otherwise there is nothing stopping them breaking in and moving back in the next day. I have seen this happen.

Rosemary7391

Bossypants wrote: »

Whatever came before is totally irrelevant to the present day. Serve them a valid section 21 and go from there.

It's going to be really relevant to the validity of the S21! Or if a section 21 is even something that can be served - aren't there older tenancies where S21 cannot be used? My question - why was the seller "was selling a house privately cheaply"?


OP - When did the tenants move in? What paperwork have your received regarding the tenancy? Is your solicitor aware that completion occurred with the tenants still living there?



A thought - if the contract specified vacant possession, could the OP have any redress against the seller at this stage..?

Comms69

deannatrois wrote: »

Its not luck you need. Its knowledge.

Did the tenants give your uncle a deposit? Is it protected? Are you in England. If they gave a deposit, don't have prescribed information and its not protected the S21 will be found invalid.

Check your exact position before issuing a S21 otherwise it could be a waste of time and eventually, court fees. You can use google, join a LL's association, look at useful forums, or even go to your solicitor.

Even when offering large sums of money, if the tenant is on benefits or has a bad credit rating, their options could be limited. They already said they'd move out before you bought the place and didn't so either have a problem moving on they can't surmount or are trying it on i.e. you can't trust they will do what they said they will do.

If you do go this route (giving them money) move in the property immediately. Otherwise there is nothing stopping them breaking in and moving back in the next day. I have seen this happen.

As long as a deed of surrender is done properly they would simply be arrested.

AdrianC

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

A thought - if the contract specified vacant possession, could the OP have any redress against the seller at this stage..?

No.
If the buyer had expected vacant possession, which the vendor could not provide, then the sale would simply not have completed - and the vendor would have been liable for costs incurred.


But the buyer was well aware of the lack of vacant possession, and seemingly conspired with the solicitor to mislead the lender. Completion occurred on the basis that vacant possession was neither available nor sought.

Rosemary7391

AdrianC wrote: »

No.
If the buyer had expected vacant possession, which the vendor could not provide, then the sale would simply not have completed - and the vendor would have been liable for costs incurred.


But the buyer was well aware of the lack of vacant possession, and seemingly conspired with the solicitor to mislead the lender. Completion occurred on the basis that vacant possession was neither available nor sought.

Is that not a nice way of saying fraud...? Very sticky situation for OP