Residential mortgage, but tenants in situ

macman

The notice period is currently 6m, but the tenant does not have to leave until a possession order is granted. With current backlogs, that will take another year or so, so unless they voluntarily vacate, the earliest date for vacant possession will be October '22: worst case early '23.
The EA is clearly delusional.
You really should have done your research before shelling out fees; the 6m notice has been in place since 29/8/20.
Yes, you would need to start again if you want to switch to a BTL mortgage, and yes, the rates are higher than for residential, as are the deposits.

gcpbuyer

Wow.  Ok 

Btw, let's say the tenants did agree to leave (the vendor pays them to be out in 6 weeks for example), how do we prove that the property is vacant possession. 

getmore4less

You go round and see it is empty of all their belongings BEFORE exchange.


A tactic of agents is to get you spending money  so you have bought into the property and get reluctant to cause delays or  pull out.

Then you can compound the earlier errors  by continuing when you should really stop.


Often a reasonable strategy(not without flaws) is to just ask the tenants face to face  and gauge their reactions as early in the process as possible.


if you want to buy a place to live in then don't even consider this one any further  till you are sure the tenants are going and don't exchange till they have gone. 

sharp910sh

The same thing happened to me well. Well I was considering putting an offer in they said oh the tenants will leave in two months. I said no the current law says 6 months notice and even then they do not have to leave. In the end I left it. For any one else buying a property with tenants do not trust estate agents on anything they say. I would say pull out or wait 6+++ months if you got time to waste. 

moneysavinghero

Ask the EA why they decided to breach The Property Ombudsman code of practice for Estate Agents Sections 1d, 1e, 1g, 7i and 7m

Basically your EA is either a numpty or corrupt or possibly a bit of both. You are now in the situation where you wonder if you should walk away, but because you have spent money already (the EA manipulated you into doing this by giving false information) you are more likely to continue with the transaction.

gcpbuyer

moneysavinghero said:

Ask the EA why they decided to breach The Property Ombudsman code of practice for Estate Agents Sections 1d, 1e, 1g, 7i and 7m

Basically your EA is either a numpty or corrupt or possibly a bit of both. You are now in the situation where you wonder if you should walk away, but because you have spent money already (the EA manipulated you into doing this by giving false information) you are more likely to continue with the transaction.

Thanks for the information. 

Do you think I should report them?

moneysavinghero

gcpbuyer said:

moneysavinghero said:

Ask the EA why they decided to breach The Property Ombudsman code of practice for Estate Agents Sections 1d, 1e, 1g, 7i and 7m

Basically your EA is either a numpty or corrupt or possibly a bit of both. You are now in the situation where you wonder if you should walk away, but because you have spent money already (the EA manipulated you into doing this by giving false information) you are more likely to continue with the transaction.

Thanks for the information. 

Do you think I should report them?

Depends what you decide to do. If you decide that actually you want to pull out then you have nothing to lose by reporting them, you might not get anywhere with it or you might get some of your costs refunded.

If you decide you are going to continue with the purchase then i don't see much point.

gcpbuyer

Ok thanks

Just reading through those sections and I'm noticing a lot of breaches:

• Incorrect information given about length of notice to be served (2 months instead of 6)
• Saying that notice would be served once the survey is booked (they didn't serve notice)
• Listing the furniture as coming with the property, then trying to sell it to me (I pointed it out it was included in the original ad)
• On the agents' website, listing the leasehold as being longer than it actually is (correct length of leasehold was given via the email that arranged the first viewing). 
• Listing the service charge as being 1/3 cheaper than it actually is 

I let the last two slide as they communicated these via email during viewing (and the service charge can vary)