Buying from a buy to let investor

tbo127

If buying a property from a buy to let investor as opposed to someone who previously lived in it, is it harder to negotiate with them? 

theartfullodger

They will only really care about one thing, money.  Maybe speed of purchase (cash buyer who can complete in a week attractive.)

moneysavinghero

May make it easier to negotiate if they are not emotionally attached to the property. But if the tenant is still in place it may make it harder to actually get inside your own property once you have purchased it.

ratechaser

Just make very sure that it's not got tenants in situ before you spend any significant money on it... (assuming you're not the tenant of course!)

searchlight123

yep, as above. do not exchange until you are sure the property has vacant possession.  very, very important. do not take the sellers word that the tenants will be gone by the time you move in (if indeed there are still tenants living there now?)

gettingtheresometime

tonygold said:

yep, as above. do not exchange until you are sure the property has vacant possession.  very, very important. do not take the sellers word that the tenants will be gone by the time you move in (if indeed there are still tenants living there now?)

I'd even be tempted to do a house visit after they've gone as well before I exchanged

eddddy

tonygold said:

yep, as above. do not exchange until you are sure the property has vacant possession.  very, very important. do not take the sellers word that the tenants will be gone by the time you move in (if indeed there are still tenants living there now?)

(Just to be pedantic - I think you mean "do not exchange until the property is vacant" i.e. the tenants have gone. Presumably the property is being sold with "vacant possession" on completion.)

FWIW, I'd guess that the seller's solicitor will give the seller very firm advice not to exchange contracts until the tenants are gone.

Arguably, it would be a bigger risk for the seller than the buyer to exchange contracts with tenants still in the property.  The seller is likely to be sued for damages by the buyer, if the property isn't vacant in time for the completion date.



 

LAD917

I've had good luck with former buy-to-lets. They tend to be chain-free and move quickly.  They sometimes also tend to be a bit run-down or lower-grade than other properties on the market, and you may be able to negotiate a significant discount v. owner-grade quality / finishes.

The one "watch-out" is that sometimes the vendors know literally nothing about the property.  I bought one flat from overseas investors who had never set foot in the property.  They didn't even know what type of heat it had.  I got a legendary deal (22% off ask), so I thought it was worth the risk, but my solicitor was sending me emails in big bold red letters about the risks the situation presented. 

tbo127

Actually this is a good point which I didn’t even think about. The advert didn’t say vacant possession. 

davidmcn

tbo127 said:

Actually this is a good point which I didn’t even think about. The advert didn’t say vacant possession. 

How do you know it's a buy to let investor, if all you're working from is an advert?

Though if it's being sold with tenants in situ, I'd generally expect that to be made clear.

tbo127

davidmcn said:

tbo127 said:

Actually this is a good point which I didn’t even think about. The advert didn’t say vacant possession. 

How do you know it's a buy to let investor, if all you're working from is an advert?

Though if it's being sold with tenants in situ, I'd generally expect that to be made clear.

The estate agent told me when I phoned them that it’s currently a buy to let and tenanted at the moment. Although I also told the estate agent I plan to live in it so presumably they are selling it as vacant possession.