Buying a previously rented property

ah93

Hi All,

I have searched the internet, and cannot find an answer to my question.

We are in the process of buying a house, at the stage of the searches and survey.

The house was previously rented out on a long term lease, but after 6 months, the tenant was removed as they weren't paying the rent. The house has been vacant since.

I had a call from the seller/landlord, the other day, and he has informed me for legal reasons, he is having to advertise the house to rent on Rightmove, but with no intention to rent out the property. He has clarified he is selling us the house, and we also have in writing from the estate agents that he will not be renting the property out.

Something isn't sitting right with me. I have tried to contact our solicitor who surprise surprise isn't getting back to me. So now I feel stuck.

Does anyone know about this legal requirement with an empty rental property, who can give me some peace of mind please?

AnotherJoe

Doesn't sound right to me. Tell the EA you are thinking of pulling out and see if they can get an answer. Ask them what the legal reasons are.

And as an aside what is it about solicitors that mean they think are are entitled to ignore their clients?

Pixie5740

ah93 wrote: »

Hi All,

I have searched the internet, and cannot find an answer to my question.

We are in the process of buying a house, at the stage of the searches and survey.

The house was previously rented out on a long term lease, but after 6 months, the tenant was removed as they weren't paying the rent. The house has been vacant since.

I had a call from the seller/landlord, the other day, and he has informed me for legal reasons, he is having to advertise the house to rent on Rightmove, but with no intention to rent out the property. He has clarified he is selling us the house, and we also have in writing from the estate agents that he will not be renting the property out.

Something isn't sitting right with me. I have tried to contact our solicitor who surprise surprise isn't getting back to me. So now I feel stuck.

Does anyone know about this legal requirement with an empty rental property, who can give me some peace of mind please?

How was the tenant removed? Was the tenant illegally evicted or was there a court order with court appointed bailiff?. If the tenancy has not been legally ended then should you buy the property you will become landlords with all the legal responsibilities that come along with that.

What kind of tenancy was in place? You say long term, how long term is that? A tenancy that started before 15th January 1989?

I ask these questions because the only reason I can think of as to why the current owner would not be selling with vacant possession is because he does not have vacant possession because there is a legally binding tenancy in place.

AnotherJoe

Pixie5740 wrote: »

How was the tenant removed? Was the tenant illegally evicted or was there a court order with court appointed bailiff?. If the tenancy has not been legally ended then should you buy the property you will become landlords with all the legal responsibilities that come along with that.

What kind of tenancy was in place? You say long term, how long term is that? A tenancy that started before 15th January 1989?

I ask these questions because the only reason I can think of as to why the current owner would not be selling with vacant possession is because he does not have vacant possession because there is a legally binding tenancy in place.

But that doesn't match with advertising it for rental.

ah93

Thank you both so much!

So We were informed that the tenant wasn't pay her rent and was removed. It was a year long lease.

The vendor told me that it was something to do with legal/insurance, that he cannot have an empty house whilst it is nearing the end of the year long lease. So he has to atleast advertise the property to show willing, to whoever is chasing him. He has told me he will be turning away enquiries. Does any of this make sense?

We had our offer accepted at the end of September and he told me h only found out about this on Tuesday...

Finally got through to my solicitor who is as baffled as I am. She is chasing this now for me. So maybe I wont contact the EA until she has got back to me?

Solicitor has also told me that we are not legally bound at this point, and are obviously bumping up legal costs... Really worried now as this was going so smoothly!

AnotherJoe

This still makes no sense, surely he can cancel his insurance and get different ? And a rented property could have voids so being empty cant be the issue. Who is "chasing him" ? If its for "legal reasons' then he's lying to whoever is "chasing him" by pretending its for rent when it isnt.

Perhaps he's simply trying to save £200 quid by not changing insurance policies from BTL to residential/unoccupied but thats going to look pretty stupid if it loses him his buyer. In which case now he's lying to you. He's definitely lying to someone.

ah93

AnotherJoe - I agree, I believe it is something to do with his insurance. I don't really know what to do right now. Do I take the bull by the horns and contact our EA, or wait for the solicitor?

It makes no sense either as he works within the Mortgage industry in our EA. So I can't believe he would be messing us about?

This really is our dream house and I don't want to lose it at all!

theartfullodger

Ask vendor for copy of court possession order against tenant. If there wasn't one it's probably illegal eviction so tenant may have right to move back in:. Even after it's sold & you living there

ah93

I've just found this on a website, and believe this is the situation our vendor is in?

"Problems Selling A Rental Property With No Sitting Tenants -
Selling a rental property while it is empty eliminates a lot of complications in selling the house with sitting tenants and opens the market to private buyers who need a residential mortgage



HOWEVER, empty property increases the risk of unlawful occupation, property damage (deliberate or otherwise) and insurance cover/costs ESPECIALLY IF A PROPERTY TAKES A LONG TIME TO SELL.

It also means a loss of income (rent), increased expenses (utility bills, insurance) and liability (council tax) for a potentially significant period of time."

Cakeguts

None of it makes sense. The bit about the insurance doesn't make sense when taken with the comment about some sort of legal issue.



There is something going on here that makes me doubtful that this sale will go through. Not only that but there is something about this property that you are not being told.



You will know if there is something odd going on by how the house was priced. If it was cheaper than you would expect for the area that it is in or it seems good value or better than you though you could get for your budget then there is going to be a huge problem somewhere that hasn't been disclosed.



I am just wondering if it has been let on behalf of a family member who has been in a carehome and who has now died and the house needs to go through probate as part of an estate and he is trying to hand on until they get probate before he sells. The lease was for a year so he obviously expected it to be let for at least a year.



The only thing I can think of is this. He let the house with power or attorney for family member in a carehome. He let it on a year's lease but the family member has since died. He can't sell the house until he gets probate but there is something to do with his insurance that means that he has to pretend that he is going to let the house again but not actually do it. So the legal bit and the insurance are different issues but it has been communicated to you as one issue. Whatever it is you are not being told the whole story.



This dream home could quite easily turn into a nightmare.

Pixie5740

AnotherJoe wrote: »

But that doesn't match with advertising it for rental.

Good point well made. Whatever is going on the current owner is being economical with the truth.