1st time buyer, tenants in the house

getmore4less

MoLatif wrote: »

Many thanks to you all for your numerous and detailed responses.

Pricewise, it was a bit cheaper than it could have been but certainly not bargain basement. Other similar ones on the estate have sold for 5-8k more this year and tgis house seemed to be in good shape.

Also the owner said that the tenants have already got accomodatuin lined up. None of this in writing, and if theyve already lined up tgeir next place why not move out sooner.

go round and ask them when they plan to move

Benight

lookstraightahead wrote: »

The tenants might not want to leave. It's not up to the property owner/landlord.

Really? It certainly is in England & Wales under an ASTA and the correct paperwork has been done, which as I mentioned previously, the OP should ensure their own solicitor has checked has been by the vendor.

There has been a recent suggestion this might change in the future, but I can't see it myself.
The country needs private landlords prepared to let properties; it no longer has anywhere near enough corporation housing to meet demand - thank Maggie for that;)

There will be a reluctance for private landlords to let, if the current rules on ASTAs are changed significantly to their disadvantage.

Benight

hb2 wrote: »

Yes, we have bought/sold property - including one that had tenants when it was put up for sale. These tenants had left before exchange. ....

Are you claiming that you had this specifically written into the contract before exchange, or was it just serendipitous that the tenants left?

davidmcn

Benight wrote: »

Really? It certainly is in England & Wales under an ASTA and the correct paperwork has been done.

Yes, but the point is that if they don't leave when expected the landlord needs to go to court first for an eviction - with no guarantees about how long that will take.

GDB2222

steampowered wrote: »

Even for a slam dunk case, it still takes a lot of legal fees and several months to get "specific performance" of a contract for sale. By that time the mortgage offer will be long gone.

The courts generally prefer to award damages, rather than requiring specific performance. I'm not sure why.

In practice, if the buyer and seller have any sense, they'll settle a case like this, rather than going to court. The buyer will be entitled to the return of his deposit, anyway, as it's held by the solicitor as stakeholder. It's not up to the seller whether the buyer gets his deposit back. So, the only negotiation is about how much compo the buyer is entitled to.

The landlord can usually get vacant possession. It's often just a matter of paying the tenants to vacate, as they know they are in a strong position. So, a sensible seller has this all lined up, with a payment for the tenants agreed, to be paid once they move out.

Benight

davidmcn wrote: »

Yes, but the point is that if they don't leave when expected the landlord needs to go to court first for an eviction - with no guarantees about how long that will take.

About the same amount of time as if the owner themselves do not leave.
At least the owner could "bribe" others to leave sooner rather than later. If the owner doesn't want to leave a property they are selling, there is probably more issues than a few extra quid to resolve.

Benight

GDB2222 wrote: »

The courts generally prefer to award damages, rather than requiring specific performance. I'm not sure why.

In practice, if the buyer and seller have any sense, they'll settle a case like this, rather than going to court. The buyer will be entitled to the return of his deposit, anyway, as it's held by the solicitor as stakeholder. It's not up to the seller whether the buyer gets his deposit back. So, the only negotiation is about how much compo the buyer is entitled to.

The landlord can usually get vacant possession. It's often just a matter of paying the tenants to vacate, as they know they are in a strong position. So, a sensible seller has this all lined up, with a payment for the tenants agreed, to be paid once they move out.

Generally not the case of damages when the seller themselves does not offer up the property, because the issue then may be getting those damages off the seller who may still have to sell the property to fund such damages.

Much easier for the court to arrange for eviction on those no longer legally permitted to occupy the property, and grant new owner full rights to it. That's all within the court's powers to enforce (assuming the necessary preparatory work has all been done )

lookstraightahead

Benight wrote: »

About the same amount of time as if the owner themselves do not leave.
At least the owner could "bribe" others to leave sooner rather than later. If the owner doesn't want to leave a property they are selling, there is probably more issues than a few extra quid to resolve.

A tenant can legally remain in a property that a new person owns. An owner who sells and doesn't move out after completion is acting illegally. You're not comparing apples with apples

Slithery

lookstraightahead wrote: »

The tenants might not want to leave. It's not up to the property owner/landlord.

Benight wrote: »

Really? It certainly is in England & Wales under an ASTA and the correct paperwork has been done.

I'm not sure what an ASTA is but in England and Wales a landlord can never end a tenancy. The only people that can are the tenants or a judge.