Buying a house with sitting tenants

AdrianC

rorb10 said:

The estate agents have said the tenants will move out if neccessary and I've checked the listing again and it mentions "no onward chain". 

Then it's not being sold with sitting tenants, it's being sold with vacant possession. Your solicitor will not let you exchange, let alone complete, unless that house is empty...

The only remaining question is when that will be.

MaryNB

rorb10 said:

Sorry, I said bid but I meant to say make an offer as this will be with a residential mortgage for us to live in. We're based in Wales.

The estate agents have said the tenants will move out if neccessary and I've checked the listing again and it mentions "no onward chain". 

I've messaged the estate agent for further info.

Thanks everyone for their help. 

That's not very reassuring...

If they haven't issued an S21 yet walk away (6 month S21 applies in Wales). Especially given the current lockdown I cannot see why the tenants would be willing to move before the end of the notice period. Unless the landlord gives them a financial incentive to leave. You might be dealing with a landlord who wants to keep getting rent until the day they sell it. Landlord either has to price it low since they can only sell to another BTL landlord with tenants in situ, or get the tenants out if they wants full market value.

saajan_12

rorb10 said:

I recently viewed a house which I am strongly considering bidding for. The thing that concerns me is that there are currently tenants there and as a first time buyer, I do not want to take on any landlord responsibilities and not go through the hassle of evicting the tenants.

I messaged the estate agents last night to put forward to the seller if they would consider evicting the tenants beforehand if we agree to buy the property, make it a condition of the contract. The estate agents messaged this morning (clearly not spoken to owner) telling me it is the responsibility of the seller to ensure the house is unoccupied when selling the house which I'm a bit skeptical as it contradicts everything I've read when I researched the topic.

I know this would be more on the side of getting legal advice, but can anyone offer any information?

Both are correct. Contractually, the agent is right but your recourse if the seller breaches might not suit you.

In theory, if you agree to buy with "vacant possession" then yes it is the seller's responsibility to ensure the property is unoccupied. That responsibility is through the contract that you exchange. 

Meanwhile in tenancy law, the seller has no mechanism to physically make the property vacant if the tenants still want to remain in a timely way. The seller would have to either get the tenant's agreement to leave, or serve notice + go to court + wait for bailiffs. This process can trip up if the seller hasn't followed every one of a long list of requirements, and even if not it can easily take 6-12 months. 

So if the seller fails to fulfill their responsiblity and get the property vacated, then completion doesn't happen. You would sue for losses for the breach of contract, but practically it means you dont' get a house in the timescale you wanted. It could take some time to recover the deposit / losses back. Up to you to decide how likely this is and how it would impact your life plans. 

greatcrested

rorb10 said:

The estate agents have said the tenants will move out if neccessary and I've checked the listing again and it mentions "no onward chain". 

This is the kind of blase statement estate agents make to 're-assure' a buyer and get a deal struck. It cannot be relied on.

Yes- possibly the tenants are wonderful cooperative people who will move out voluntarily whenever their landlord requests them to.

Equally possibly they will have nowhere to go, or be concerned about their children's local schooling, or not be able to afford to move, or.....

In that latter case, as others have said, it could take around 12 months currently for the landlord (the owner/seller) to get a court to evict them.

And meanwhile you will have spent £1000+ on a solicitor, mortgage application, survey etc only to be left sitting around waiting.....

I would make clear that you will not commence the purchase process (ie instruct solicitor, apply for mortgage etc) until the property is actually vacant (and you've viewed again to check).

Many sellers in thispositionwant the best of both worlds: a sale progressing plus rent coming in to the last minute. They do not appreciate the risk to their buyers, or the fact that most buyers will (as I advise above) not progress till the property is empty.

eddddy

rorb10 said:

Sorry, I said bid but I meant to say make an offer as this will be with a residential mortgage for us to live in. We're based in Wales.

The estate agents have said the tenants will move out if neccessary and I've checked the listing again and it mentions "no onward chain". 

I've messaged the estate agent for further info.

Thanks everyone for their help. 

The situation is very likely to be as follows:

• You will be buying a vacant (empty) house
• So the current owners will arrange for the current tenants to move out before you buy it

But...

• The tenants might be happy to move out at short notice
• Or the tenants might not be happy to move out at short notice, in which case it might take months for the current owners to evict them. (And if the tenants are angry at being evicted, they might even wreck the property)

So you might have to wait many months until you can buy the house.

Did you meet the tenants at the viewing? Did they suggest that they would be happy to move out at short notice? (But even if they say they are happy to move out at short notice, they might change their minds later.)

Mgman1965

Some years ago I found a gorgeous house in a lovely village that was very reasonably priced being sold with a sitting tenant.

No problem I thought, we were in rented accommodation so could wait up to a year or so for his AST to end and not renew it (it was a lovely old railway station house with derelict parcel office attatched ripe for extending into).

EA was a bit cagey and evasive about the tenant, and the tenancy agreement,  but eventually admitted it was not an AST, but a very old open ended one, and tenant would only go when he wanted to, and had no intention of doing so (the tenant was a single man in his early 50's, and been there for years, and had took over tenancy from his elderly mother who died).  

I pulled out hugely dissapointed as it was highly likely he could be sitting tight for another 20yrs or so. 

AdrianC

Mgman1965 said:

Some years ago I found a gorgeous house in a lovely village that was very reasonably priced being sold with a sitting tenant.

No problem I thought, we were in rented accommodation so could wait up to a year or so for his AST to end and not renew it (it was a lovely old railway station house with derelict parcel office attatched ripe for extending into).

EA was a bit cagey and evasive about the tenant, and the tenancy agreement,  but eventually admitted it was not an AST, but a very old open ended one, and tenant would only go when he wanted to, and had no intention of doing so (the tenant was a single man in his early 50's, and been there for years, and had took over tenancy from his elderly mother who died).  

I pulled out hugely dissapointed as it was highly likely he could be sitting tight for another 20yrs or so. 

Do you remember Jeanne Calment, the French woman who was the oldest person recorded to date? Met Van Gogh when she was young, and eventually died at the age of 122 in the late 1990s?

In France, they have a well-recognised setup whereby an elderly person will sell their property to somebody in exchange for life occupancy and a life-long monthly pension. In effect, equity release straight into a private annuity. Well, she did that...
The buyer thought he was getting an absolute bargain, because she was 90 at the time...
He died first.
His family inherited the obligation to pay the monthly stipend. And, of course, eventually the property... But by the time she finally died, more than twice the value had been paid...

GHolmesAdmin

Do you have no concerns about making people homeless? Who would buy a house but only if the occupiers are forced out first? I wouldn't go anywhere near this for many reasons but mostly empathy for other people.

eddddy

GHolmesAdmin said:

Do you have no concerns about making people homeless? Who would buy a house but only if the occupiers are forced out first? I wouldn't go anywhere near this for many reasons but mostly empathy for other people.

There's nothing in this thread saying that anyone is being made homeless. There could be many backstories...

• The tenants might have given notice, so the LL has decided to sell up.
• Or the tenants might be happy to move to another property (maybe taking advantage of the reducing rents at the moment)
• Or the tenants might have happily accepted a payment to move out

Silvertabby

AdrianC said:

Mgman1965 said:

Some years ago I found a gorgeous house in a lovely village that was very reasonably priced being sold with a sitting tenant.

No problem I thought, we were in rented accommodation so could wait up to a year or so for his AST to end and not renew it (it was a lovely old railway station house with derelict parcel office attatched ripe for extending into).

EA was a bit cagey and evasive about the tenant, and the tenancy agreement,  but eventually admitted it was not an AST, but a very old open ended one, and tenant would only go when he wanted to, and had no intention of doing so (the tenant was a single man in his early 50's, and been there for years, and had took over tenancy from his elderly mother who died).  

I pulled out hugely dissapointed as it was highly likely he could be sitting tight for another 20yrs or so. 

Do you remember Jeanne Calment, the French woman who was the oldest person recorded to date? Met Van Gogh when she was young, and eventually died at the age of 122 in the late 1990s?

In France, they have a well-recognised setup whereby an elderly person will sell their property to somebody in exchange for life occupancy and a life-long monthly pension. In effect, equity release straight into a private annuity. Well, she did that...
The buyer thought he was getting an absolute bargain, because she was 90 at the time...
He died first.
His family inherited the obligation to pay the monthly stipend. And, of course, eventually the property... But by the time she finally died, more than twice the value had been paid...

I thought that the 'Jeanne' Calment who died in the late 1990s was actually her daughter?  Or were they never able to prove that?