Bought a house - now tenant wont move out

DoaM

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Would the contact the OP and uncle's friend signed not have included a clause about vacant possession meaning the uncle's friend is in breach of contract? Assuming such a clause exists.

Corrected that for you.

davidmcn

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Would the contact the OP and uncle signed not have included a clause about vacant possession meaning the uncle is in breach of contract? Assuming such a clause exists.

We don't even know there was a contract.

xylophone

Would the contact the OP and uncle's friend signed not have included a clause about vacant possession meaning the uncle is in breach of contract? Assuming such a clause exists.

It seems that the OP's uncle had no financial interest in the property - he was a friend of both the vendor of the property and the tenants of the property. (Post 1)

The OP says that he used a solicitor in the purchase - one assumes therefore that there was a formal contract of sale?

I suppose that the OP was naive enough to assume that because the vendor and tenants were personal friend of his uncle, they could be trusted to keep to their word?

The solicitor should not have been so naive and should have protected his client's interests?

franklee

If the contract specified vacant possession then why can't the OP sue the vendor for breach of contract? The OP could just say they didn't stop completion as they were unaware the tenant was still present when the sale completed.

Surely it is the vendor who legally promised vacant possession? If not then the OP and solicitor should have been arranging a BTL mortgage and expect the OP to be a landlord. I cannot see any solicitor would let exchange happen keeping both options open when there is a mortgage involved.

Whats more when the situation became clear surely the first port of call for the OP is to tell their solicitor? So what did they say?

Comms69

franklee wrote: »

If the contract specified vacant possession then why can't the OP sue the vendor for breach of contract? The OP could just say they didn't stop completion as they were unaware the tenant was still present when the sale completed. - 1 day later, sure, 3 months later, having accepted rent, no

Surely it is the vendor who legally promised vacant possession? If not then the OP and solicitor should have been arranging a BTL mortgage and expect the OP to be a landlord. I cannot see any solicitor would let exchange happen keeping both options open when there is a mortgage involved.

Whats more when the situation became clear surely the first port of call for the OP is to tell their solicitor? So what did they say?

I agree, it seems they said nothing.


I suspect they were happy with the arrangement as it was paying the mortgage and they had no rush in moving (possibly their own tenancy had not ended)

franklee

Comms69 wrote: »

1 day later, sure, 3 months later, having accepted rent, no

Has the OP accepted rent, the posts don't say either way. I would expect most people to mention rent arrears but given as hoc way everyone has behaved in this case who knows - it may be due to being mates the rent has been delayed too :eek:

Pixie5740

xylophone wrote: »

It seems that the OP's uncle had no financial interest in the property - he was a friend of both the vendor of the property and the tenants of the property. (Post 1)

The OP says that he used a solicitor in the purchase - one assumes therefore that there was a formal contract of sale?

I suppose that the OP was naive enough to assume that because the vendor and tenants were personal friend of his uncle, they could be trusted to keep to their word?

The solicitor should not have been so naive and should have protected his client's interests?

Gee whizz it was a typo, ok? I originally typed 'uncle' instead of 'uncle's friend'.