We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Keys not given at time of completion?
Comments
-
Yes but in that case they have to be accountable. People wouldn’t have to go to court if people were just honest from the jump. This situation could have been avoided.Ath_Wat said:
Of course they shouldn't, but people do lots of things they shouldn't do. That's why we have courts. But courts can be very slow and very expensive, which is why it is best to check in advance, as far as you can, that people are not going to try and swindle you, especially when spending hundreds of thousands of pounds.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case we are talking about tenants who know about it, but don’t want to leave. The seller shouldn’t have gone through with it knowing they were still in the house, simple as that. Not even declare it as vacant. You’re basically lying.SusieT said:
It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move out.Adezoo said:
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 involvedSusieT 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.
As an example, I used to have 2 rented properties, 1 I sold tenanted so the buyer was a landlord and the contract passed to them. The other, they gave notice and I had the estate agent round while the tenant was still there for photos, but they did not actively market it until they had left and it was empty even though I was 99% certain they were going (and would have been happy to show viewers aroind). Reason being that I did not want to end up in the situation whereby they give notice and fail to leave. I most certainly would not have exchanged until the house was empty. A tenant can be given notice to leave on say 30 November as the house is for sale, but legally there is nothing to stop them from staying put until they or a court end the tennancy. Your friend does not know what their status is, and needs to urgently seek legal advice.I checked with my friends and they have now taken a lawyer to deal with the situation. I asked for more information and they said they first viewed the house 6 months ago, and the tenants were still in, but moving out. Unless these people are new tenants, I don’t understand how you take 6 months to leave.0 -
I really don't know what point you are trying to make. Of course they should have been honest; they weren't. People often are not. Nobody should be unaware of the fact that people lie, and everybody should act accordingly.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case they have to be accountable. People wouldn’t have to go to court if people were just honest from the jump. This situation could have been avoided.Ath_Wat said:
Of course they shouldn't, but people do lots of things they shouldn't do. That's why we have courts. But courts can be very slow and very expensive, which is why it is best to check in advance, as far as you can, that people are not going to try and swindle you, especially when spending hundreds of thousands of pounds.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case we are talking about tenants who know about it, but don’t want to leave. The seller shouldn’t have gone through with it knowing they were still in the house, simple as that. Not even declare it as vacant. You’re basically lying.SusieT said:
It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move out.Adezoo said:
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 involvedSusieT 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.
As an example, I used to have 2 rented properties, 1 I sold tenanted so the buyer was a landlord and the contract passed to them. The other, they gave notice and I had the estate agent round while the tenant was still there for photos, but they did not actively market it until they had left and it was empty even though I was 99% certain they were going (and would have been happy to show viewers aroind). Reason being that I did not want to end up in the situation whereby they give notice and fail to leave. I most certainly would not have exchanged until the house was empty. A tenant can be given notice to leave on say 30 November as the house is for sale, but legally there is nothing to stop them from staying put until they or a court end the tennancy. Your friend does not know what their status is, and needs to urgently seek legal advice.I checked with my friends and they have now taken a lawyer to deal with the situation. I asked for more information and they said they first viewed the house 6 months ago, and the tenants were still in, but moving out. Unless these people are new tenants, I don’t understand how you take 6 months to leave.
It often takes more than six months to get tenants out. If they want to leave of course it can be quicker, but they probably didn't want to leave, and in that case six months is nothing. Again, most people know this, even if they have just watched a few "Here come the bailiffs!" type tv shows.
Your friends have been really poorly advised throughout, but they have to take some responsibility for not researching this stuff themselves, if your understanding of the story is accurate.2 -
Ath_Wat said:
I really don't know what point you are trying to make. Of course they should have been honest; they weren't. People often are not. Nobody should be unaware of the fact that people lie, and everybody should act accordingly.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case they have to be accountable. People wouldn’t have to go to court if people were just honest from the jump. This situation could have been avoided.Ath_Wat said:
Of course they shouldn't, but people do lots of things they shouldn't do. That's why we have courts. But courts can be very slow and very expensive, which is why it is best to check in advance, as far as you can, that people are not going to try and swindle you, especially when spending hundreds of thousands of pounds.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case we are talking about tenants who know about it, but don’t want to leave. The seller shouldn’t have gone through with it knowing they were still in the house, simple as that. Not even declare it as vacant. You’re basically lying.SusieT said:
It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move out.Adezoo said:
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 involvedSusieT 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.
As an example, I used to have 2 rented properties, 1 I sold tenanted so the buyer was a landlord and the contract passed to them. The other, they gave notice and I had the estate agent round while the tenant was still there for photos, but they did not actively market it until they had left and it was empty even though I was 99% certain they were going (and would have been happy to show viewers aroind). Reason being that I did not want to end up in the situation whereby they give notice and fail to leave. I most certainly would not have exchanged until the house was empty. A tenant can be given notice to leave on say 30 November as the house is for sale, but legally there is nothing to stop them from staying put until they or a court end the tennancy. Your friend does not know what their status is, and needs to urgently seek legal advice.I checked with my friends and they have now taken a lawyer to deal with the situation. I asked for more information and they said they first viewed the house 6 months ago, and the tenants were still in, but moving out. Unless these people are new tenants, I don’t understand how you take 6 months to leave.
It often takes more than six months to get tenants out. If they want to leave of course it can be quicker, but they probably didn't want to leave, and in that case six months is nothing. Again, most people know this, even if they have just watched a few "Here come the bailiffs!" type tv shows.
Your friends have been really poorly advised throughout, but they have to take some responsibility for not researching this stuff themselves, if your understanding of the story is accurate.Ath_Wat said:
I really don't know what point you are trying to make. Of course they should have been honest; they weren't. People often are not. Nobody should be unaware of the fact that people lie, and everybody should act accordingly.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case they have to be accountable. People wouldn’t have to go to court if people were just honest from the jump. This situation could have been avoided.Ath_Wat said:
Of course they shouldn't, but people do lots of things they shouldn't do. That's why we have courts. But courts can be very slow and very expensive, which is why it is best to check in advance, as far as you can, that people are not going to try and swindle you, especially when spending hundreds of thousands of pounds.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case we are talking about tenants who know about it, but don’t want to leave. The seller shouldn’t have gone through with it knowing they were still in the house, simple as that. Not even declare it as vacant. You’re basically lying.SusieT said:
It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move out.Adezoo said:
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 involvedSusieT 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.
As an example, I used to have 2 rented properties, 1 I sold tenanted so the buyer was a landlord and the contract passed to them. The other, they gave notice and I had the estate agent round while the tenant was still there for photos, but they did not actively market it until they had left and it was empty even though I was 99% certain they were going (and would have been happy to show viewers aroind). Reason being that I did not want to end up in the situation whereby they give notice and fail to leave. I most certainly would not have exchanged until the house was empty. A tenant can be given notice to leave on say 30 November as the house is for sale, but legally there is nothing to stop them from staying put until they or a court end the tennancy. Your friend does not know what their status is, and needs to urgently seek legal advice.I checked with my friends and they have now taken a lawyer to deal with the situation. I asked for more information and they said they first viewed the house 6 months ago, and the tenants were still in, but moving out. Unless these people are new tenants, I don’t understand how you take 6 months to leave.
It often takes more than six months to get tenants out. If they want to leave of course it can be quicker, but they probably didn't want to leave, and in that case six months is nothing. Again, most people know this, even if they have just watched a few "Here come the bailiffs!" type tv shows.
Your friends have been really poorly advised throughout, but they have to take some responsibility for not researching this stuff themselves, if your understanding of the story is accurate.
In the case where the law is not part of it I can even understand, not when your signing papers basically lying. If lying when selling/buying a house wasn’t a problem, most checks would be useless.Ath_Wat said:
I really don't know what point you are trying to make. Of course they should have been honest; they weren't. People often are not. Nobody should be unaware of the fact that people lie, and everybody should act accordingly.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case they have to be accountable. People wouldn’t have to go to court if people were just honest from the jump. This situation could have been avoided.Ath_Wat said:
Of course they shouldn't, but people do lots of things they shouldn't do. That's why we have courts. But courts can be very slow and very expensive, which is why it is best to check in advance, as far as you can, that people are not going to try and swindle you, especially when spending hundreds of thousands of pounds.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case we are talking about tenants who know about it, but don’t want to leave. The seller shouldn’t have gone through with it knowing they were still in the house, simple as that. Not even declare it as vacant. You’re basically lying.SusieT said:
It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move out.Adezoo said:
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 involvedSusieT 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.
As an example, I used to have 2 rented properties, 1 I sold tenanted so the buyer was a landlord and the contract passed to them. The other, they gave notice and I had the estate agent round while the tenant was still there for photos, but they did not actively market it until they had left and it was empty even though I was 99% certain they were going (and would have been happy to show viewers aroind). Reason being that I did not want to end up in the situation whereby they give notice and fail to leave. I most certainly would not have exchanged until the house was empty. A tenant can be given notice to leave on say 30 November as the house is for sale, but legally there is nothing to stop them from staying put until they or a court end the tennancy. Your friend does not know what their status is, and needs to urgently seek legal advice.I checked with my friends and they have now taken a lawyer to deal with the situation. I asked for more information and they said they first viewed the house 6 months ago, and the tenants were still in, but moving out. Unless these people are new tenants, I don’t understand how you take 6 months to leave.
It often takes more than six months to get tenants out. If they want to leave of course it can be quicker, but they probably didn't want to leave, and in that case six months is nothing. Again, most people know this, even if they have just watched a few "Here come the bailiffs!" type tv shows.
Your friends have been really poorly advised throughout, but they have to take some responsibility for not researching this stuff themselves, if your understanding of the story is accurate.Tenants that are moving out shouldn’t take 6 months. If they tenants said, well we’re not moving then that’s something else. The sale wouldn’t have gone through simple.0 -
The tenants lied. I'm not sure why it's that hard to understand people lie.Adezoo said:Ath_Wat said:
I really don't know what point you are trying to make. Of course they should have been honest; they weren't. People often are not. Nobody should be unaware of the fact that people lie, and everybody should act accordingly.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case they have to be accountable. People wouldn’t have to go to court if people were just honest from the jump. This situation could have been avoided.Ath_Wat said:
Of course they shouldn't, but people do lots of things they shouldn't do. That's why we have courts. But courts can be very slow and very expensive, which is why it is best to check in advance, as far as you can, that people are not going to try and swindle you, especially when spending hundreds of thousands of pounds.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case we are talking about tenants who know about it, but don’t want to leave. The seller shouldn’t have gone through with it knowing they were still in the house, simple as that. Not even declare it as vacant. You’re basically lying.SusieT said:
It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move out.Adezoo said:
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 involvedSusieT 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.
As an example, I used to have 2 rented properties, 1 I sold tenanted so the buyer was a landlord and the contract passed to them. The other, they gave notice and I had the estate agent round while the tenant was still there for photos, but they did not actively market it until they had left and it was empty even though I was 99% certain they were going (and would have been happy to show viewers aroind). Reason being that I did not want to end up in the situation whereby they give notice and fail to leave. I most certainly would not have exchanged until the house was empty. A tenant can be given notice to leave on say 30 November as the house is for sale, but legally there is nothing to stop them from staying put until they or a court end the tennancy. Your friend does not know what their status is, and needs to urgently seek legal advice.I checked with my friends and they have now taken a lawyer to deal with the situation. I asked for more information and they said they first viewed the house 6 months ago, and the tenants were still in, but moving out. Unless these people are new tenants, I don’t understand how you take 6 months to leave.
It often takes more than six months to get tenants out. If they want to leave of course it can be quicker, but they probably didn't want to leave, and in that case six months is nothing. Again, most people know this, even if they have just watched a few "Here come the bailiffs!" type tv shows.
Your friends have been really poorly advised throughout, but they have to take some responsibility for not researching this stuff themselves, if your understanding of the story is accurate.Ath_Wat said:
I really don't know what point you are trying to make. Of course they should have been honest; they weren't. People often are not. Nobody should be unaware of the fact that people lie, and everybody should act accordingly.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case they have to be accountable. People wouldn’t have to go to court if people were just honest from the jump. This situation could have been avoided.Ath_Wat said:
Of course they shouldn't, but people do lots of things they shouldn't do. That's why we have courts. But courts can be very slow and very expensive, which is why it is best to check in advance, as far as you can, that people are not going to try and swindle you, especially when spending hundreds of thousands of pounds.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case we are talking about tenants who know about it, but don’t want to leave. The seller shouldn’t have gone through with it knowing they were still in the house, simple as that. Not even declare it as vacant. You’re basically lying.SusieT said:
It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move out.Adezoo said:
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 involvedSusieT 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.
As an example, I used to have 2 rented properties, 1 I sold tenanted so the buyer was a landlord and the contract passed to them. The other, they gave notice and I had the estate agent round while the tenant was still there for photos, but they did not actively market it until they had left and it was empty even though I was 99% certain they were going (and would have been happy to show viewers aroind). Reason being that I did not want to end up in the situation whereby they give notice and fail to leave. I most certainly would not have exchanged until the house was empty. A tenant can be given notice to leave on say 30 November as the house is for sale, but legally there is nothing to stop them from staying put until they or a court end the tennancy. Your friend does not know what their status is, and needs to urgently seek legal advice.I checked with my friends and they have now taken a lawyer to deal with the situation. I asked for more information and they said they first viewed the house 6 months ago, and the tenants were still in, but moving out. Unless these people are new tenants, I don’t understand how you take 6 months to leave.
It often takes more than six months to get tenants out. If they want to leave of course it can be quicker, but they probably didn't want to leave, and in that case six months is nothing. Again, most people know this, even if they have just watched a few "Here come the bailiffs!" type tv shows.
Your friends have been really poorly advised throughout, but they have to take some responsibility for not researching this stuff themselves, if your understanding of the story is accurate.
In the case where the law is not part of it I can even understand, not when your signing papers basically lying. If lying when selling/buying a house wasn’t a problem, most checks would be useless.Ath_Wat said:
I really don't know what point you are trying to make. Of course they should have been honest; they weren't. People often are not. Nobody should be unaware of the fact that people lie, and everybody should act accordingly.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case they have to be accountable. People wouldn’t have to go to court if people were just honest from the jump. This situation could have been avoided.Ath_Wat said:
Of course they shouldn't, but people do lots of things they shouldn't do. That's why we have courts. But courts can be very slow and very expensive, which is why it is best to check in advance, as far as you can, that people are not going to try and swindle you, especially when spending hundreds of thousands of pounds.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case we are talking about tenants who know about it, but don’t want to leave. The seller shouldn’t have gone through with it knowing they were still in the house, simple as that. Not even declare it as vacant. You’re basically lying.SusieT said:
It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move out.Adezoo said:
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 involvedSusieT 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.
As an example, I used to have 2 rented properties, 1 I sold tenanted so the buyer was a landlord and the contract passed to them. The other, they gave notice and I had the estate agent round while the tenant was still there for photos, but they did not actively market it until they had left and it was empty even though I was 99% certain they were going (and would have been happy to show viewers aroind). Reason being that I did not want to end up in the situation whereby they give notice and fail to leave. I most certainly would not have exchanged until the house was empty. A tenant can be given notice to leave on say 30 November as the house is for sale, but legally there is nothing to stop them from staying put until they or a court end the tennancy. Your friend does not know what their status is, and needs to urgently seek legal advice.I checked with my friends and they have now taken a lawyer to deal with the situation. I asked for more information and they said they first viewed the house 6 months ago, and the tenants were still in, but moving out. Unless these people are new tenants, I don’t understand how you take 6 months to leave.
It often takes more than six months to get tenants out. If they want to leave of course it can be quicker, but they probably didn't want to leave, and in that case six months is nothing. Again, most people know this, even if they have just watched a few "Here come the bailiffs!" type tv shows.
Your friends have been really poorly advised throughout, but they have to take some responsibility for not researching this stuff themselves, if your understanding of the story is accurate.Tenants that are moving out shouldn’t take 6 months. If they tenants said, well we’re not moving then that’s something else. The sale wouldn’t have gone through simple.
You can't control anyone else's actions, but you can control your own.
The tenants said 'yes we are moving out'. And haven't. Not paying rent. And to evict through the courts can take years - ensuring everything is place and legal. And it isn't in place and he's not taken steps to become a legal landlord.
Again - You can't control anyone else's actions, but you can control your own - had your friend checked facts (what they knew) and ensured the property was vacant, this wouldn't have happened. It has happened, so now they need to legally evict and it could take years. They have a solicitor now, so nothing we say will top their words, other than stop people doing the same thing who read this thread.Forty and fabulous, well that's what my cards say....2 -
Well, not necessarily - the vendor could have lied about what the tenants had said.74jax said:
The tenants lied. I'm not sure why it's that hard to understand people lie.Adezoo said:Ath_Wat said:
I really don't know what point you are trying to make. Of course they should have been honest; they weren't. People often are not. Nobody should be unaware of the fact that people lie, and everybody should act accordingly.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case they have to be accountable. People wouldn’t have to go to court if people were just honest from the jump. This situation could have been avoided.Ath_Wat said:
Of course they shouldn't, but people do lots of things they shouldn't do. That's why we have courts. But courts can be very slow and very expensive, which is why it is best to check in advance, as far as you can, that people are not going to try and swindle you, especially when spending hundreds of thousands of pounds.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case we are talking about tenants who know about it, but don’t want to leave. The seller shouldn’t have gone through with it knowing they were still in the house, simple as that. Not even declare it as vacant. You’re basically lying.SusieT said:
It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move out.Adezoo said:
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 involvedSusieT 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.
As an example, I used to have 2 rented properties, 1 I sold tenanted so the buyer was a landlord and the contract passed to them. The other, they gave notice and I had the estate agent round while the tenant was still there for photos, but they did not actively market it until they had left and it was empty even though I was 99% certain they were going (and would have been happy to show viewers aroind). Reason being that I did not want to end up in the situation whereby they give notice and fail to leave. I most certainly would not have exchanged until the house was empty. A tenant can be given notice to leave on say 30 November as the house is for sale, but legally there is nothing to stop them from staying put until they or a court end the tennancy. Your friend does not know what their status is, and needs to urgently seek legal advice.I checked with my friends and they have now taken a lawyer to deal with the situation. I asked for more information and they said they first viewed the house 6 months ago, and the tenants were still in, but moving out. Unless these people are new tenants, I don’t understand how you take 6 months to leave.
It often takes more than six months to get tenants out. If they want to leave of course it can be quicker, but they probably didn't want to leave, and in that case six months is nothing. Again, most people know this, even if they have just watched a few "Here come the bailiffs!" type tv shows.
Your friends have been really poorly advised throughout, but they have to take some responsibility for not researching this stuff themselves, if your understanding of the story is accurate.Ath_Wat said:
I really don't know what point you are trying to make. Of course they should have been honest; they weren't. People often are not. Nobody should be unaware of the fact that people lie, and everybody should act accordingly.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case they have to be accountable. People wouldn’t have to go to court if people were just honest from the jump. This situation could have been avoided.Ath_Wat said:
Of course they shouldn't, but people do lots of things they shouldn't do. That's why we have courts. But courts can be very slow and very expensive, which is why it is best to check in advance, as far as you can, that people are not going to try and swindle you, especially when spending hundreds of thousands of pounds.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case we are talking about tenants who know about it, but don’t want to leave. The seller shouldn’t have gone through with it knowing they were still in the house, simple as that. Not even declare it as vacant. You’re basically lying.SusieT said:
It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move out.Adezoo said:
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 involvedSusieT 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.
As an example, I used to have 2 rented properties, 1 I sold tenanted so the buyer was a landlord and the contract passed to them. The other, they gave notice and I had the estate agent round while the tenant was still there for photos, but they did not actively market it until they had left and it was empty even though I was 99% certain they were going (and would have been happy to show viewers aroind). Reason being that I did not want to end up in the situation whereby they give notice and fail to leave. I most certainly would not have exchanged until the house was empty. A tenant can be given notice to leave on say 30 November as the house is for sale, but legally there is nothing to stop them from staying put until they or a court end the tennancy. Your friend does not know what their status is, and needs to urgently seek legal advice.I checked with my friends and they have now taken a lawyer to deal with the situation. I asked for more information and they said they first viewed the house 6 months ago, and the tenants were still in, but moving out. Unless these people are new tenants, I don’t understand how you take 6 months to leave.
It often takes more than six months to get tenants out. If they want to leave of course it can be quicker, but they probably didn't want to leave, and in that case six months is nothing. Again, most people know this, even if they have just watched a few "Here come the bailiffs!" type tv shows.
Your friends have been really poorly advised throughout, but they have to take some responsibility for not researching this stuff themselves, if your understanding of the story is accurate.
In the case where the law is not part of it I can even understand, not when your signing papers basically lying. If lying when selling/buying a house wasn’t a problem, most checks would be useless.Ath_Wat said:
I really don't know what point you are trying to make. Of course they should have been honest; they weren't. People often are not. Nobody should be unaware of the fact that people lie, and everybody should act accordingly.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case they have to be accountable. People wouldn’t have to go to court if people were just honest from the jump. This situation could have been avoided.Ath_Wat said:
Of course they shouldn't, but people do lots of things they shouldn't do. That's why we have courts. But courts can be very slow and very expensive, which is why it is best to check in advance, as far as you can, that people are not going to try and swindle you, especially when spending hundreds of thousands of pounds.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case we are talking about tenants who know about it, but don’t want to leave. The seller shouldn’t have gone through with it knowing they were still in the house, simple as that. Not even declare it as vacant. You’re basically lying.SusieT said:
It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move out.Adezoo said:
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 involvedSusieT 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.
As an example, I used to have 2 rented properties, 1 I sold tenanted so the buyer was a landlord and the contract passed to them. The other, they gave notice and I had the estate agent round while the tenant was still there for photos, but they did not actively market it until they had left and it was empty even though I was 99% certain they were going (and would have been happy to show viewers aroind). Reason being that I did not want to end up in the situation whereby they give notice and fail to leave. I most certainly would not have exchanged until the house was empty. A tenant can be given notice to leave on say 30 November as the house is for sale, but legally there is nothing to stop them from staying put until they or a court end the tennancy. Your friend does not know what their status is, and needs to urgently seek legal advice.I checked with my friends and they have now taken a lawyer to deal with the situation. I asked for more information and they said they first viewed the house 6 months ago, and the tenants were still in, but moving out. Unless these people are new tenants, I don’t understand how you take 6 months to leave.
It often takes more than six months to get tenants out. If they want to leave of course it can be quicker, but they probably didn't want to leave, and in that case six months is nothing. Again, most people know this, even if they have just watched a few "Here come the bailiffs!" type tv shows.
Your friends have been really poorly advised throughout, but they have to take some responsibility for not researching this stuff themselves, if your understanding of the story is accurate.Tenants that are moving out shouldn’t take 6 months. If they tenants said, well we’re not moving then that’s something else. The sale wouldn’t have gone through simple.4 -
I still don't understand what you are getting at. Yes, somebody lied. Yes, they were wrong, morally and legally. That's why you can take them to court and get redress. What else do you think should happen here?Adezoo said:Ath_Wat said:
I really don't know what point you are trying to make. Of course they should have been honest; they weren't. People often are not. Nobody should be unaware of the fact that people lie, and everybody should act accordingly.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case they have to be accountable. People wouldn’t have to go to court if people were just honest from the jump. This situation could have been avoided.Ath_Wat said:
Of course they shouldn't, but people do lots of things they shouldn't do. That's why we have courts. But courts can be very slow and very expensive, which is why it is best to check in advance, as far as you can, that people are not going to try and swindle you, especially when spending hundreds of thousands of pounds.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case we are talking about tenants who know about it, but don’t want to leave. The seller shouldn’t have gone through with it knowing they were still in the house, simple as that. Not even declare it as vacant. You’re basically lying.SusieT said:
It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move out.Adezoo said:
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 involvedSusieT 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.
As an example, I used to have 2 rented properties, 1 I sold tenanted so the buyer was a landlord and the contract passed to them. The other, they gave notice and I had the estate agent round while the tenant was still there for photos, but they did not actively market it until they had left and it was empty even though I was 99% certain they were going (and would have been happy to show viewers aroind). Reason being that I did not want to end up in the situation whereby they give notice and fail to leave. I most certainly would not have exchanged until the house was empty. A tenant can be given notice to leave on say 30 November as the house is for sale, but legally there is nothing to stop them from staying put until they or a court end the tennancy. Your friend does not know what their status is, and needs to urgently seek legal advice.I checked with my friends and they have now taken a lawyer to deal with the situation. I asked for more information and they said they first viewed the house 6 months ago, and the tenants were still in, but moving out. Unless these people are new tenants, I don’t understand how you take 6 months to leave.
It often takes more than six months to get tenants out. If they want to leave of course it can be quicker, but they probably didn't want to leave, and in that case six months is nothing. Again, most people know this, even if they have just watched a few "Here come the bailiffs!" type tv shows.
Your friends have been really poorly advised throughout, but they have to take some responsibility for not researching this stuff themselves, if your understanding of the story is accurate.Ath_Wat said:
I really don't know what point you are trying to make. Of course they should have been honest; they weren't. People often are not. Nobody should be unaware of the fact that people lie, and everybody should act accordingly.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case they have to be accountable. People wouldn’t have to go to court if people were just honest from the jump. This situation could have been avoided.Ath_Wat said:
Of course they shouldn't, but people do lots of things they shouldn't do. That's why we have courts. But courts can be very slow and very expensive, which is why it is best to check in advance, as far as you can, that people are not going to try and swindle you, especially when spending hundreds of thousands of pounds.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case we are talking about tenants who know about it, but don’t want to leave. The seller shouldn’t have gone through with it knowing they were still in the house, simple as that. Not even declare it as vacant. You’re basically lying.SusieT said:
It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move out.Adezoo said:
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 involvedSusieT 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.
As an example, I used to have 2 rented properties, 1 I sold tenanted so the buyer was a landlord and the contract passed to them. The other, they gave notice and I had the estate agent round while the tenant was still there for photos, but they did not actively market it until they had left and it was empty even though I was 99% certain they were going (and would have been happy to show viewers aroind). Reason being that I did not want to end up in the situation whereby they give notice and fail to leave. I most certainly would not have exchanged until the house was empty. A tenant can be given notice to leave on say 30 November as the house is for sale, but legally there is nothing to stop them from staying put until they or a court end the tennancy. Your friend does not know what their status is, and needs to urgently seek legal advice.I checked with my friends and they have now taken a lawyer to deal with the situation. I asked for more information and they said they first viewed the house 6 months ago, and the tenants were still in, but moving out. Unless these people are new tenants, I don’t understand how you take 6 months to leave.
It often takes more than six months to get tenants out. If they want to leave of course it can be quicker, but they probably didn't want to leave, and in that case six months is nothing. Again, most people know this, even if they have just watched a few "Here come the bailiffs!" type tv shows.
Your friends have been really poorly advised throughout, but they have to take some responsibility for not researching this stuff themselves, if your understanding of the story is accurate.
In the case where the law is not part of it I can even understand, not when your signing papers basically lying. If lying when selling/buying a house wasn’t a problem, most checks would be useless.Ath_Wat said:
I really don't know what point you are trying to make. Of course they should have been honest; they weren't. People often are not. Nobody should be unaware of the fact that people lie, and everybody should act accordingly.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case they have to be accountable. People wouldn’t have to go to court if people were just honest from the jump. This situation could have been avoided.Ath_Wat said:
Of course they shouldn't, but people do lots of things they shouldn't do. That's why we have courts. But courts can be very slow and very expensive, which is why it is best to check in advance, as far as you can, that people are not going to try and swindle you, especially when spending hundreds of thousands of pounds.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case we are talking about tenants who know about it, but don’t want to leave. The seller shouldn’t have gone through with it knowing they were still in the house, simple as that. Not even declare it as vacant. You’re basically lying.SusieT said:
It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move out.Adezoo said:
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 involvedSusieT 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.
As an example, I used to have 2 rented properties, 1 I sold tenanted so the buyer was a landlord and the contract passed to them. The other, they gave notice and I had the estate agent round while the tenant was still there for photos, but they did not actively market it until they had left and it was empty even though I was 99% certain they were going (and would have been happy to show viewers aroind). Reason being that I did not want to end up in the situation whereby they give notice and fail to leave. I most certainly would not have exchanged until the house was empty. A tenant can be given notice to leave on say 30 November as the house is for sale, but legally there is nothing to stop them from staying put until they or a court end the tennancy. Your friend does not know what their status is, and needs to urgently seek legal advice.I checked with my friends and they have now taken a lawyer to deal with the situation. I asked for more information and they said they first viewed the house 6 months ago, and the tenants were still in, but moving out. Unless these people are new tenants, I don’t understand how you take 6 months to leave.
It often takes more than six months to get tenants out. If they want to leave of course it can be quicker, but they probably didn't want to leave, and in that case six months is nothing. Again, most people know this, even if they have just watched a few "Here come the bailiffs!" type tv shows.
Your friends have been really poorly advised throughout, but they have to take some responsibility for not researching this stuff themselves, if your understanding of the story is accurate.Tenants that are moving out shouldn’t take 6 months. If they tenants said, well we’re not moving then that’s something else. The sale wouldn’t have gone through simple.
Whether the tenants should be able to move out in six months is immaterial. What matters is that your friends were told by the vendor they had gone and your friends completed, when they hadn't gone and they shouldn't have completed. (They shouldn't even have exchanged but that appears to have been their choice). The tenants were not party to the transaction and have no responsibility for it.1 -
I am happy to hear that. But I guess one thing i am wondering is if they have actually contacted the tenants? I mean, when the rent is due where is this going to be paid? If they have not been contacted they may end up paying the seller for example.Adezoo said:
They are getting advice from solicitor to solve the case to be honestNiv said:
OP. Apologies if you have responded but I cannot see it.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
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.YNWA
Target: Mortgage free by 58.1 -
Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case they have to be accountable. People wouldn’t have to go to court if people were just honest from the jump. This situation could have been avoided.Ath_Wat said:
Of course they shouldn't, but people do lots of things they shouldn't do. That's why we have courts. But courts can be very slow and very expensive, which is why it is best to check in advance, as far as you can, that people are not going to try and swindle you, especially when spending hundreds of thousands of pounds.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case we are talking about tenants who know about it, but don’t want to leave. The seller shouldn’t have gone through with it knowing they were still in the house, simple as that. Not even declare it as vacant. You’re basically lying.SusieT said:
It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move out.Adezoo said:
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 involvedSusieT 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.
As an example, I used to have 2 rented properties, 1 I sold tenanted so the buyer was a landlord and the contract passed to them. The other, they gave notice and I had the estate agent round while the tenant was still there for photos, but they did not actively market it until they had left and it was empty even though I was 99% certain they were going (and would have been happy to show viewers aroind). Reason being that I did not want to end up in the situation whereby they give notice and fail to leave. I most certainly would not have exchanged until the house was empty. A tenant can be given notice to leave on say 30 November as the house is for sale, but legally there is nothing to stop them from staying put until they or a court end the tennancy. Your friend does not know what their status is, and needs to urgently seek legal advice.I checked with my friends and they have now taken a lawyer to deal with the situation. I asked for more information and they said they first viewed the house 6 months ago, and the tenants were still in, but moving out. Unless these people are new tenants, I don’t understand how you take 6 months to leave.
If you look on similar threads on here, you will see that tenants can (and do) say whatever they like. The law is on their side if they don't want to leave. The Citizens Advice Bureau will advise tenants who don't want to leave or have nowhere to go, to stay put until the courts decide to evict them and send in the bailiffs. This is the only way the tenants can get help from the Council, as they are then deemed to be homeless. If they leave earlier than this, the Council won't help them. Some tenants are happy to leave because they want to buy their own property or they have somewhere else to go to, or will leave when given a financial incentive to go by their landlord.
The only way to deal with a tenanted property that you want to buy and live in is to wait until the tenants have gone, either voluntarily or because the courts are evicting them, before you exchange and after you've checked they have actually gone (a viewing or drive by). This gives the buyers the protection they need before committing thousands of pounds to the purchase.
Somewhere along the way your friends thought the tenants, stating that they were moving out, was legally agreed when it was nothing of the sort, just some vague reference to moving out at some point in the future. If both sets of solicitors had been aware (it sounds as though they weren't), your friends would not have exchanged, let alone completed.
Now your friends have to seek advice on the next steps to take and it sounds as though they have now instructed a solicitor to assist.
1 -
The solicitor will tell them what they need to do.Niv said:
I am happy to hear that. But I guess one thing i am wondering is if they have actually contacted the tenants? I mean, when the rent is due where is this going to be paid? If they have not been contacted they may end up paying the seller for example.Adezoo said:
They are getting advice from solicitor to solve the case to be honestNiv said:
OP. Apologies if you have responded but I cannot see it.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
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.2 -
I am not saying the tenants have part of it. I am saying that the property shouldn’t have been declared as vacant if it wasn’t just before completion. If the tenants were going to leave, and the seller noticed they didn’t, then either gets it sorted or put a stop to the completion. Either way, they would have to compensate.Ath_Wat said:
I still don't understand what you are getting at. Yes, somebody lied. Yes, they were wrong, morally and legally. That's why you can take them to court and get redress. What else do you think should happen here?Adezoo said:Ath_Wat said:
I really don't know what point you are trying to make. Of course they should have been honest; they weren't. People often are not. Nobody should be unaware of the fact that people lie, and everybody should act accordingly.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case they have to be accountable. People wouldn’t have to go to court if people were just honest from the jump. This situation could have been avoided.Ath_Wat said:
Of course they shouldn't, but people do lots of things they shouldn't do. That's why we have courts. But courts can be very slow and very expensive, which is why it is best to check in advance, as far as you can, that people are not going to try and swindle you, especially when spending hundreds of thousands of pounds.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case we are talking about tenants who know about it, but don’t want to leave. The seller shouldn’t have gone through with it knowing they were still in the house, simple as that. Not even declare it as vacant. You’re basically lying.SusieT said:
It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move out.Adezoo said:
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 involvedSusieT 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.
As an example, I used to have 2 rented properties, 1 I sold tenanted so the buyer was a landlord and the contract passed to them. The other, they gave notice and I had the estate agent round while the tenant was still there for photos, but they did not actively market it until they had left and it was empty even though I was 99% certain they were going (and would have been happy to show viewers aroind). Reason being that I did not want to end up in the situation whereby they give notice and fail to leave. I most certainly would not have exchanged until the house was empty. A tenant can be given notice to leave on say 30 November as the house is for sale, but legally there is nothing to stop them from staying put until they or a court end the tennancy. Your friend does not know what their status is, and needs to urgently seek legal advice.I checked with my friends and they have now taken a lawyer to deal with the situation. I asked for more information and they said they first viewed the house 6 months ago, and the tenants were still in, but moving out. Unless these people are new tenants, I don’t understand how you take 6 months to leave.
It often takes more than six months to get tenants out. If they want to leave of course it can be quicker, but they probably didn't want to leave, and in that case six months is nothing. Again, most people know this, even if they have just watched a few "Here come the bailiffs!" type tv shows.
Your friends have been really poorly advised throughout, but they have to take some responsibility for not researching this stuff themselves, if your understanding of the story is accurate.Ath_Wat said:
I really don't know what point you are trying to make. Of course they should have been honest; they weren't. People often are not. Nobody should be unaware of the fact that people lie, and everybody should act accordingly.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case they have to be accountable. People wouldn’t have to go to court if people were just honest from the jump. This situation could have been avoided.Ath_Wat said:
Of course they shouldn't, but people do lots of things they shouldn't do. That's why we have courts. But courts can be very slow and very expensive, which is why it is best to check in advance, as far as you can, that people are not going to try and swindle you, especially when spending hundreds of thousands of pounds.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case we are talking about tenants who know about it, but don’t want to leave. The seller shouldn’t have gone through with it knowing they were still in the house, simple as that. Not even declare it as vacant. You’re basically lying.SusieT said:
It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move out.Adezoo said:
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 involvedSusieT 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.
As an example, I used to have 2 rented properties, 1 I sold tenanted so the buyer was a landlord and the contract passed to them. The other, they gave notice and I had the estate agent round while the tenant was still there for photos, but they did not actively market it until they had left and it was empty even though I was 99% certain they were going (and would have been happy to show viewers aroind). Reason being that I did not want to end up in the situation whereby they give notice and fail to leave. I most certainly would not have exchanged until the house was empty. A tenant can be given notice to leave on say 30 November as the house is for sale, but legally there is nothing to stop them from staying put until they or a court end the tennancy. Your friend does not know what their status is, and needs to urgently seek legal advice.I checked with my friends and they have now taken a lawyer to deal with the situation. I asked for more information and they said they first viewed the house 6 months ago, and the tenants were still in, but moving out. Unless these people are new tenants, I don’t understand how you take 6 months to leave.
It often takes more than six months to get tenants out. If they want to leave of course it can be quicker, but they probably didn't want to leave, and in that case six months is nothing. Again, most people know this, even if they have just watched a few "Here come the bailiffs!" type tv shows.
Your friends have been really poorly advised throughout, but they have to take some responsibility for not researching this stuff themselves, if your understanding of the story is accurate.
In the case where the law is not part of it I can even understand, not when your signing papers basically lying. If lying when selling/buying a house wasn’t a problem, most checks would be useless.Ath_Wat said:
I really don't know what point you are trying to make. Of course they should have been honest; they weren't. People often are not. Nobody should be unaware of the fact that people lie, and everybody should act accordingly.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case they have to be accountable. People wouldn’t have to go to court if people were just honest from the jump. This situation could have been avoided.Ath_Wat said:
Of course they shouldn't, but people do lots of things they shouldn't do. That's why we have courts. But courts can be very slow and very expensive, which is why it is best to check in advance, as far as you can, that people are not going to try and swindle you, especially when spending hundreds of thousands of pounds.Adezoo said:
Yes but in that case we are talking about tenants who know about it, but don’t want to leave. The seller shouldn’t have gone through with it knowing they were still in the house, simple as that. Not even declare it as vacant. You’re basically lying.SusieT said:
It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move out.Adezoo said:
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 involvedSusieT 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.
As an example, I used to have 2 rented properties, 1 I sold tenanted so the buyer was a landlord and the contract passed to them. The other, they gave notice and I had the estate agent round while the tenant was still there for photos, but they did not actively market it until they had left and it was empty even though I was 99% certain they were going (and would have been happy to show viewers aroind). Reason being that I did not want to end up in the situation whereby they give notice and fail to leave. I most certainly would not have exchanged until the house was empty. A tenant can be given notice to leave on say 30 November as the house is for sale, but legally there is nothing to stop them from staying put until they or a court end the tennancy. Your friend does not know what their status is, and needs to urgently seek legal advice.I checked with my friends and they have now taken a lawyer to deal with the situation. I asked for more information and they said they first viewed the house 6 months ago, and the tenants were still in, but moving out. Unless these people are new tenants, I don’t understand how you take 6 months to leave.
It often takes more than six months to get tenants out. If they want to leave of course it can be quicker, but they probably didn't want to leave, and in that case six months is nothing. Again, most people know this, even if they have just watched a few "Here come the bailiffs!" type tv shows.
Your friends have been really poorly advised throughout, but they have to take some responsibility for not researching this stuff themselves, if your understanding of the story is accurate.Tenants that are moving out shouldn’t take 6 months. If they tenants said, well we’re not moving then that’s something else. The sale wouldn’t have gone through simple.
Whether the tenants should be able to move out in six months is immaterial. What matters is that your friends were told by the vendor they had gone and your friends completed, when they hadn't gone and they shouldn't have completed. (They shouldn't even have exchanged but that appears to have been their choice). The tenants were not party to the transaction and have no responsibility for it.0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards