Keys not given at time of completion?

UnderOffer

“The house went through a late completion because the seller couldn’t confirm the house was vacant. The seller was given a 10 days reminder to complete, so that the sale would go through. In this case, the more you delay, the more you’ll have to compensate the buyer for it. The seller then confirmed that the tenants have left and went through completion. When you complete, you essential get the keys but they were delaying a bit because they didn’t have the keys. A bit later, they “discover” the tenants never left the house. The tenants said they were going to leave just before competition, they just needed time to move out. But the seller would have had to check to declare the house as vacant?”… 

Are you saying that your friend and the seller didn’t complete on the original proposed date due to being alerted to the fact that the property was still occupied? Your friends solicitor then served the 10 day notice to complete and at no point towards the end those 10 days did your friend check that it had then definitely been vacated? Even though they were aware it had already defaulted on the proposed completion date? 

That’s crazy, I would have been super alert to the issues and insisted on visiting before agreeing to take possession. 

Tiglet2

UnderOffer said:

Are you saying that your friend and the seller didn’t complete on the original proposed date due to being alerted to the fact that the property was still occupied? Your friends solicitor then served the 10 day notice to complete and at no point towards the end those 10 days did your friend check that it had then definitely been vacated? Even though they were aware it had already defaulted on the proposed completion date? 

That’s crazy, I would have been super alert to the issues and insisted on visiting before agreeing to take possession. 

These were my thoughts too.  Something is amiss here.

Adezoo

UnderOffer said:

“The house went through a late completion because the seller couldn’t confirm the house was vacant. The seller was given a 10 days reminder to complete, so that the sale would go through. In this case, the more you delay, the more you’ll have to compensate the buyer for it. The seller then confirmed that the tenants have left and went through completion. When you complete, you essential get the keys but they were delaying a bit because they didn’t have the keys. A bit later, they “discover” the tenants never left the house. The tenants said they were going to leave just before competition, they just needed time to move out. But the seller would have had to check to declare the house as vacant?”… 

Are you saying that your friend and the seller didn’t complete on the original proposed date due to being alerted to the fact that the property was still occupied? Your friends solicitor then served the 10 day notice to complete and at no point towards the end those 10 days did your friend check that it had then definitely been vacated? Even though they were aware it had already defaulted on the proposed completion date? 

That’s crazy, I would have been super alert to the issues and insisted on visiting before agreeing to take possession. 

They are first time buyers. Why would they think the seller would lie to them? Nothing wrong with giving an extra 10 days, packing isn’t easy. The problem here is that the completion went ahead with a false vacant property. 

74jax

Adezoo said:

UnderOffer said:

“The house went through a late completion because the seller couldn’t confirm the house was vacant. The seller was given a 10 days reminder to complete, so that the sale would go through. In this case, the more you delay, the more you’ll have to compensate the buyer for it. The seller then confirmed that the tenants have left and went through completion. When you complete, you essential get the keys but they were delaying a bit because they didn’t have the keys. A bit later, they “discover” the tenants never left the house. The tenants said they were going to leave just before competition, they just needed time to move out. But the seller would have had to check to declare the house as vacant?”… 

Are you saying that your friend and the seller didn’t complete on the original proposed date due to being alerted to the fact that the property was still occupied? Your friends solicitor then served the 10 day notice to complete and at no point towards the end those 10 days did your friend check that it had then definitely been vacated? Even though they were aware it had already defaulted on the proposed completion date? 

That’s crazy, I would have been super alert to the issues and insisted on visiting before agreeing to take possession. 

They are first time buyers. Why would they think the seller would lie to them? Nothing wrong with giving an extra 10 days, packing isn’t easy. The problem here is that the completion went ahead with a false vacant property. 

Why wouldn't they think this, or even consider checking?? 

The biggest purchase, most expensive purchase they have most likely ever made. From someone they don't know, have no dealings with, isn't a friend or family member, and they don't check a fact they are aware of? 

peterhjohnson

Adezoo said:

 Why would they think the seller would lie to them?

... because the seller has already lied once!!!!

sheramber

The last three houses I have bought I have collected the keys from the seller , at the house, after they moved out.

penners324

The transaction needs undoing, completion hasn't happened as no vacant possession.

Original conveyancer needs telling so they can go about undoing the work.

Tiglet2

Adezoo said:

UnderOffer said:

“The house went through a late completion because the seller couldn’t confirm the house was vacant. The seller was given a 10 days reminder to complete, so that the sale would go through. In this case, the more you delay, the more you’ll have to compensate the buyer for it. The seller then confirmed that the tenants have left and went through completion. When you complete, you essential get the keys but they were delaying a bit because they didn’t have the keys. A bit later, they “discover” the tenants never left the house. The tenants said they were going to leave just before competition, they just needed time to move out. But the seller would have had to check to declare the house as vacant?”… 

Are you saying that your friend and the seller didn’t complete on the original proposed date due to being alerted to the fact that the property was still occupied? Your friends solicitor then served the 10 day notice to complete and at no point towards the end those 10 days did your friend check that it had then definitely been vacated? Even though they were aware it had already defaulted on the proposed completion date? 

That’s crazy, I would have been super alert to the issues and insisted on visiting before agreeing to take possession. 

They are first time buyers. Why would they think the seller would lie to them? Nothing wrong with giving an extra 10 days, packing isn’t easy. The problem here is that the completion went ahead with a false vacant property. 

The solicitor would have been aware that tenants were still in the property due to the failed completion on the original date.  You confirmed that the solicitor served notice to complete within the extra 10 days.  Sounds as though the buyers didn't check that the property was empty the night before, or as soon as the seller 'lied' that the property had been vacated, just to confirm to themselves and the solicitor that the tenants had gone.  As far as I can recall, all solicitors do ask you to confirm that a tenanted property is vacant, by either requesting a viewing before exchange, or by doing a drive by.

I do understand that the seller is at fault here for 'lying', but the buyers have to take some responsibility for not checking that the property was vacant, initially before exchange took place and then after completion failed the first time.

Unfortunately, as far as the buyer and sellers solicitors are concerned, they do not visit the property, so have to rely on their respective clients to confirm that the property is vacant.  The solicitor ensures that the transfer of the property to the new owners is done legally, which it was, because they believed vacant possession had been confirmed.  The problem now is how to deal with this going forward.

Assuming there is a residential mortgage on the property, the lender will need to be told what has happened.  Presumably, the conveyancing solicitor will be trying to update the title register to show the new owners as Registered Proprietors.  The buyers will need to speak to their solicitor to ascertain what the next steps are, but as the conveyancing solicitor will have little experience in this unusual development, are likely to direct the buyers to a litigation solicitor.

Obviously, as others have advised, it might be possible to issue a Section 21 to evict the tenants and just wait until the courts send in the bailiffs to get the tenants out, but that could take about a year and your lender will not happy as the mortgage is 'residential' rather than 'buy to let'.

Your friends need to consult a solicitor with experience in this situation.  After exhausting the knowledge and helpfulness of their current conveyancing solicitor, they will need to consider instructing a new solicitor to deal with it.

Surrey_EA

Adezoo said:

UnderOffer said:

“The house went through a late completion because the seller couldn’t confirm the house was vacant. The seller was given a 10 days reminder to complete, so that the sale would go through. In this case, the more you delay, the more you’ll have to compensate the buyer for it. The seller then confirmed that the tenants have left and went through completion. When you complete, you essential get the keys but they were delaying a bit because they didn’t have the keys. A bit later, they “discover” the tenants never left the house. The tenants said they were going to leave just before competition, they just needed time to move out. But the seller would have had to check to declare the house as vacant?”… 

Are you saying that your friend and the seller didn’t complete on the original proposed date due to being alerted to the fact that the property was still occupied? Your friends solicitor then served the 10 day notice to complete and at no point towards the end those 10 days did your friend check that it had then definitely been vacated? Even though they were aware it had already defaulted on the proposed completion date? 

That’s crazy, I would have been super alert to the issues and insisted on visiting before agreeing to take possession. 

They are first time buyers. Why would they think the seller would lie to them? Nothing wrong with giving an extra 10 days, packing isn’t easy. The problem here is that the completion went ahead with a false vacant property. 

Being first time buyers shouldn't necessarily mean that someone is thunderously naïve! 

Requiring an extra 10 days to ensure the property is vacant after the agreed completion date is incredibly unusual and would have set off alarm bells so loud they would have given you temporary hearing loss.

born_again

user1977 said:

born_again said:

lisyloo said:

i don’t know - but to the floor - is there any route via the bank for a fraudulent transfer as this is essentially a con.
i suspect not but worth asking the question.

Mortgage company need to know & should have been informed as soon as this was known. Same with solicitor. They could have stopped the completion & possibly the funds being recalled.

Nobody can recall the funds once completion has happened.

The mortgage co could consider this as fraud. Which widens the scope. 

There is also the point on insurance. If the OP (friends) are not living there & tenants are in place. Then unless it's landlords ins anything that happens could be very costly.