Keys not given at time of completion?

Ath_Wat

Adezoo said:

Ath_Wat said:

sheramber said:

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

Again though, this is not so much about getting the keys, as checking the house was vacant.  If they said "oh, sorry, we accidentally packed the keys in a suitcase and have sent them to Rotherham" it wouldn't hold you up in taking possession of the house and calling in a locksmith.  Obviously getting the keys saves you hassle but legally means nothing.

Previous threads have suggested that the majority of posters here, at least, will have called the locksmith, changed the locks and binned the old keys anyway within a very short time of moving in.

Yes, read a post about a guy that didn’t get the keys until the day after because the completion ran a bit later. He was ready to move in but had to get a hotel for the night. 

Please stop talking about keys.  What matters is if the house has been vacated.  The person in your example could have entered the house without keys if it was vacant.

Adezoo

Ath_Wat said:

Adezoo said:

Ath_Wat said:

sheramber said:

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

Again though, this is not so much about getting the keys, as checking the house was vacant.  If they said "oh, sorry, we accidentally packed the keys in a suitcase and have sent them to Rotherham" it wouldn't hold you up in taking possession of the house and calling in a locksmith.  Obviously getting the keys saves you hassle but legally means nothing.

Previous threads have suggested that the majority of posters here, at least, will have called the locksmith, changed the locks and binned the old keys anyway within a very short time of moving in.

Yes, read a post about a guy that didn’t get the keys until the day after because the completion ran a bit later. He was ready to move in but had to get a hotel for the night. 

Please stop talking about keys.  What matters is if the house has been vacated.  The person in your example could have entered the house without keys if it was vacant.

The guy on my example had issue with that too, they said it was illegal for him to do so. 

I am not talking about keys as I don’t think they matter in this case, check my previous answers. 

Ath_Wat

Adezoo said:

Ath_Wat said:

Adezoo said:

Ath_Wat said:

sheramber said:

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

Again though, this is not so much about getting the keys, as checking the house was vacant.  If they said "oh, sorry, we accidentally packed the keys in a suitcase and have sent them to Rotherham" it wouldn't hold you up in taking possession of the house and calling in a locksmith.  Obviously getting the keys saves you hassle but legally means nothing.

Previous threads have suggested that the majority of posters here, at least, will have called the locksmith, changed the locks and binned the old keys anyway within a very short time of moving in.

Yes, read a post about a guy that didn’t get the keys until the day after because the completion ran a bit later. He was ready to move in but had to get a hotel for the night. 

Please stop talking about keys.  What matters is if the house has been vacated.  The person in your example could have entered the house without keys if it was vacant.

The guy on my example had issue with that too, they said it was illegal for him to do so. 

I am not talking about keys as I don’t think they matter in this case, check my previous answers. 

Why did he have an issue with that; were the previous occupants still there?

That is all that matters, not whether anyone has keys. It is not illegal to break into your own house, if vacant, and handing over keys carries absolutely no legal significance in the sale of a house.

SusieT

At exchange the date for completion with vacant posession is set - the seller had exchanged knowing that the house would not be vacant since tenants were still there and appear to have had no legal requirement to leave.
If either party do not complete, they are liable for the costs incurred by the other party (and that will go up and down the whole chain if there is one).
The seller of this property was liable for any costs incurred by your friend from the original completion date until the date the property "completed"
As the property was not vacant your friend should have immediately contacted their solicitor/conveyancer to claim from the previous owner as they were in breach of contract and they had not given vacant posession.
Right now, your friend is in deep doodoo, they have a residential mortgage with a tenanted property, they have no contract with the tenant, they have no idea if/when the tenant will leave or what the status is, they cannot evict them as they have no idea what the status is, they have no idea what the condition of the property is as they cannot enter it if it is tenanted - probably a lot more as well.
They urgently need to talk to an experienced solicitor who deals with this sort of thing, as they are currently standing in a minefield with no easy route out.

Tiglet2

I repeat my earlier message:

Your friends should not not have EXCHANGED before the tenants vacated.

Was your solicitor actually aware that the property was tenanted before exchanging?

I don't know who was lying, but someone must have been, otherwise this situation would not have arisen.

Why did your friends give their authority to exchange?  Did they know there were tenants in the property when they viewed?  Did your solicitor know there were tenants in the property during the conveyancing process?  Why did your solicitor actually exchange if it was known that tenants occupied the property?  

Alderbank

Adezoo, you haven’t answered yet what form of tenancy the people in the house have?

That's really important. We have assumed that they have AST (assured shorthold tenancy) because they are the most common but there are other possibilities.

The occupiers may not actually be legally tenants at all. If your Auntie Mary becomes your house-sitter while you are on holiday she does not become your tenant and she has no security of tenure. Legally she is an excluded occupier. So are an owner’s grown-up children still living in the family home. So are lodgers. Excluded occupiers are quite easy to remove.

Your friends should be aware that some suggestions here such as the steps needed to set up s21 could actually create a binding tenancy where none exists.

It could be a non-excluded tenancy. It might be an Assured Tenancy. These are all different with different rules.

The sellers could have given proper notice to end a fixed term or periodic tenancy, complied with all the rules and have obtained an eviction notice from the court. That could well be the case here. Tenants usually leave voluntarily at this stage but if the landlord allows it they can simply stay put. The owner has power of eviction but he would have to pay for court officers to do it which can be expensive and stressful (I know, I have attended some of these when I worked for Housing Associations), but that notice of eviction gives guaranteed, swift vacant possession. 

You probably don’t know which kind of tenancy it is. A valid tenancy will have a signed tenancy agreement containing all the information. If you can find out from your friends which (if any) of the above applies we can give you some useful advice instead of random guesses.

loubel

It is not advisable to exchange with tenants in as it can lead to completion being delayed if they don't leave in time for completion (as happened here) which can cause difficulties for a buyer who has arranged removals etc, or if they are in a chain. But if the buyer is happy with the risk of such a delay then exchanging contracts is at the seller's risk as they will be the ones in breach of contract if they cannot complete.

Presumably the buyer's solicitor had discussed this with them and they understood the risk and would have been advised to make sure that the tenants had actually left before completing (by visiting the property not just asking the seller). If the solicitor knew about the tenants but didn't give this advice then a complaint is in order. If they didn't know or gave the advice and were ignored them they are not at fault for the buyer's poor choices.

We don't know what actually happened before exchange and between exchange and completion to get the buyer into this mess though because the OP is not the buyer and presumably doesn't know what discussions were had and is just flabbergasted by the situation.

The buyer needs to talk to their solicitors to understand what has happened and why (one would presume they have already done this) and (as they seem to already have been told) instruct new solicitors to deal with suing the seller for breaching the contract and evicting the tenant. This is going to be a slow and costly dispute.

Adezoo

Ath_Wat said:

Adezoo said:

Ath_Wat said:

Adezoo said:

Ath_Wat said:

sheramber said:

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

Again though, this is not so much about getting the keys, as checking the house was vacant.  If they said "oh, sorry, we accidentally packed the keys in a suitcase and have sent them to Rotherham" it wouldn't hold you up in taking possession of the house and calling in a locksmith.  Obviously getting the keys saves you hassle but legally means nothing.

Previous threads have suggested that the majority of posters here, at least, will have called the locksmith, changed the locks and binned the old keys anyway within a very short time of moving in.

Yes, read a post about a guy that didn’t get the keys until the day after because the completion ran a bit later. He was ready to move in but had to get a hotel for the night. 

Please stop talking about keys.  What matters is if the house has been vacated.  The person in your example could have entered the house without keys if it was vacant.

The guy on my example had issue with that too, they said it was illegal for him to do so. 

I am not talking about keys as I don’t think they matter in this case, check my previous answers. 

Why did he have an issue with that; were the previous occupants still there?

That is all that matters, not whether anyone has keys. It is not illegal to break into your own house, if vacant, and handing over keys carries absolutely no legal significance in the sale of a house.

I am trying to look for the discussion on here, but can’t seem to find it. Once I do I’ll post it. The completion was delayed for few hours to which they had to delay the picking of the keys due to miscommunication. The buyer was ready to move which he did, hired a van and was at the location. He threaten to break down the door to which he was told is illegal. 

Adezoo

SusieT said:

At exchange the date for completion with vacant posession is set - the seller had exchanged knowing that the house would not be vacant since tenants were still there and appear to have had no legal requirement to leave.
If either party do not complete, they are liable for the costs incurred by the other party (and that will go up and down the whole chain if there is one).
The seller of this property was liable for any costs incurred by your friend from the original completion date until the date the property "completed"
As the property was not vacant your friend should have immediately contacted their solicitor/conveyancer to claim from the previous owner as they were in breach of contract and they had not given vacant posession.
Right now, your friend is in deep doodoo, they have a residential mortgage with a tenanted property, they have no contract with the tenant, they have no idea if/when the tenant will leave or what the status is, they cannot evict them as they have no idea what the status is, they have no idea what the condition of the property is as they cannot enter it if it is tenanted - probably a lot more as well.
They urgently need to talk to an experienced solicitor who deals with this sort of thing, as they are currently standing in a minefield with no easy route out.

I am sure the tenants would have been made aware, I couldn’t possible imagine not knowing the house is up for sale. There would be photo taken, sometimes the for sale sign up etc. That’s what they did, they had to get another solicitor involved

Adezoo

Tiglet2 said:

I repeat my earlier message:

Your friends should not not have EXCHANGED before the tenants vacated.

Was your solicitor actually aware that the property was tenanted before exchanging?

I don't know who was lying, but someone must have been, otherwise this situation would not have arisen.

Why did your friends give their authority to exchange?  Did they know there were tenants in the property when they viewed?  Did your solicitor know there were tenants in the property during the conveyancing process?  Why did your solicitor actually exchange if it was known that tenants occupied the property?  

To be honest, you can exchange before they’re out. Things can go wrong but the completion date could have been set way later to ensure this. As soon as the seller ensures it’s vacant by completion, what exactly is the issue?