Keys not given at time of completion?

Adezoo

loubel said:

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.

Yes not the best situation to be honest. Hopefully they’ll able to resolve it amicably 

Ath_Wat

Adezoo said:

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. 

 It's not in the least illegal, and who would be telling him it was?  What crime do you think would be committed and who would he be "threatening" if the house was empty?  Nobody else would have the slightest interest in it.  The problem is almost certainly that they had not left, and the keys were irrelevant.

It is not the "picking up of the keys" that has been delayed but the previous occupants leaving the house, and talking about "the keys" in these situations is misleading.  If the house has been vacated and you can't pick up the keys because the estate agent is closed, or someone has lost them, you still own the house and it's your choice whether you break in or go to a hotel; you do whichever is easiest for you

Surrey_EA

Adezoo said:

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?

Yes you can exchange on a property before the tenants have vacated, but this thread is a perfect example of why it is an incredibly unwise thing to do.

Gavin83

Adezoo said:

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?

Evicting stubborn tenants could take years. Would you really wish to have the gap between exchange and completion that long? The mortgage deal will expire and a lot could happen in that time. Keep the gap between exchange and completion as small as possible.

Adezoo said:

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. 

It’s not illegal to break down your own door. What is illegal is breaking down the door while tenants are present. That makes all the difference.

Tiglet2

Surrey_EA said:

Adezoo said:

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?

Yes you can exchange on a property before the tenants have vacated, but this thread is a perfect example of why it is an incredibly unwise thing to do.

While it is possible, no solicitor would recommend it.  So why was this transaction allowed to exchange?

Tiglet2

Only transactions where the property is owner occupied, would vacant possession on completion (i.e. after exchange) be applicable, NOT on a tenanted property.

Ath_Wat

Gavin83 said:

Adezoo said:

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. 

It’s not illegal to break down your own door. What is illegal is breaking down the door while tenants are present. That makes all the difference.

In that case, I suspect, it was not tenants who were still present but the previous owners.

Surrey_EA

Tiglet2 said:

Surrey_EA said:

Adezoo said:

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?

Yes you can exchange on a property before the tenants have vacated, but this thread is a perfect example of why it is an incredibly unwise thing to do.

While it is possible, no solicitor would recommend it.  So why was this transaction allowed to exchange?

They would actively advise against it in fact!

Niv

Niv said:

In the short term the OPs friend needs to acknowledge that they are now landlords and ensure they are doing all that they have to in that respect. I saw a suggestion of issuing a section 21... well I understand there are a number of conditions that need to be satisfied before a valid notice can be issued of which I would presume the new landlords are not aware of.

OP - Have your friends made contact with their new tenants to understand the lay of the land? Do your friends tenants realise they have a new landlord?  Do they actually intend to leave? Do they have your friends contact details? Do they have your friends bank details - so they can pay their rent? etc etc 

OP. Apologies if you have responded but I cannot see it.

For all the toing and froing about keys etc. What is your friend actually doing about their situation? As others have said they need to establish what sort of tenancy their tenants have and then go from there.

While I appreciate that your friend doesn't want to be a landlord they very much appear to be one so need to look into how they get out of it. 'I didn't know what to do' is no defence if something goes horribly wrong with the tenants. 

user1977

Surrey_EA said:

Tiglet2 said:

Surrey_EA said:

Adezoo said:

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?

Yes you can exchange on a property before the tenants have vacated, but this thread is a perfect example of why it is an incredibly unwise thing to do.

While it is possible, no solicitor would recommend it.  So why was this transaction allowed to exchange?

They would actively advise against it in fact!

Solicitors ought to advise against it, yes - but ultimately it's up to the clients.