Keys not given at time of completion?

Ath_Wat

Adezoo said:

Ath_Wat said:

Adezoo said:

Ath_Wat said:

Adezoo said:

Ath_Wat said:

Adezoo said:

SusieT said:

Adezoo said:

SusieT said:

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

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

It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move 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.

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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.

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:

Adezoo said:

Ath_Wat said:

Adezoo said:

SusieT said:

Adezoo said:

SusieT said:

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

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

It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move 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.

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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.

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:

Adezoo said:

Ath_Wat said:

Adezoo said:

SusieT said:

Adezoo said:

SusieT said:

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

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

It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move 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.

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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.

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. 

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. 

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?

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.

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. 

Why do you keep saying that?  Of course it shouldn't.  Nobody says it should.  The recourse for them doing something they shouldn't have done is to take them to court.  What are you looking for people to say?  

It's as if someone stole your friend's unlocked car and some people have said "he shouldn't have left it unlocked" and you keep repeating "but they shouldn't have stolen it".  Nobody is in disagreement about that, but advising them not to leave it unlocked in future is still good advice.

Incidentally it's not a matter of "the seller noticed they didn’t", it's the seller's job to ensure and verify they have left preferably before exchange, and certainly well in advance of the completion day.  Tenants should not be moving out on the day of completion like homeowners, to save the landlord having any void without rent.  That is absolutely non-standard and again should have rung bells with anyone advsing your friends.

Adezoo

Tiglet2 said:

Adezoo said:

Ath_Wat said:

Adezoo said:

SusieT said:

Adezoo said:

SusieT said:

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

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

It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move 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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

They can until the court evicts them that’s true. But as a previous tenant, I never push my boundaries and if I intend to leave, I do so. The law protects tenants which is good, but some people take the !!!!!! out this. Good thing they took the lawyer, hopefully they get all the help and compensation for it. 

TripleH

I think your friends need to ensure they have all information gathered and a chronological order of events established before they see a new solicitor about this (unless too late).

This sounds one big mess from the start but they also need to establish where they stand ASAP with the property because if things go wrong, be it outside their control, they could suffer from the mistakes of others. Wait and see is sadly not an option.

Adezoo

TripleH said:

I think your friends need to ensure they have all information gathered and a chronological order of events established before they see a new solicitor about this (unless too late).

This sounds one big mess from the start but they also need to establish where they stand ASAP with the property because if things go wrong, be it outside their control, they could suffer from the mistakes of others. Wait and see is sadly not an option.

Yeah they’ve done that straightaway after finding out. I wouldn’t wish this on anyone especially after waiting for so long just to be disappointed. I am waiting to hear more updates and hopefully they get their house 

Ath_Wat

Adezoo said:

Tiglet2 said:

Adezoo said:

Ath_Wat said:

Adezoo said:

SusieT said:

Adezoo said:

SusieT said:

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

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

It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move 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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

They can until the court evicts them that’s true. But as a previous tenant, I never push my boundaries and if I intend to leave, I do so. The law protects tenants which is good, but some people take the !!!!!! out this. Good thing they took the lawyer, hopefully they get all the help and compensation for it. 

You know the vendor lied when they said the tenants had left.  We know nothing about the tenants except what the vendor has claimed they have said.

Why are you assuming the vendor did not also lie when they said the tenants intended to leave?  

Stop being concerned about what the tenants have done and concentrate on what the vendor has done.  That is the person they need to take to court and get compensation from.  The tenants are nothing to do with it.

Adezoo

Ath_Wat said:

Adezoo said:

Tiglet2 said:

Adezoo said:

Ath_Wat said:

Adezoo said:

SusieT said:

Adezoo said:

SusieT said:

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

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

It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move 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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

They can until the court evicts them that’s true. But as a previous tenant, I never push my boundaries and if I intend to leave, I do so. The law protects tenants which is good, but some people take the !!!!!! out this. Good thing they took the lawyer, hopefully they get all the help and compensation for it. 

You know the vendor lied when they said the tenants had left.  We know nothing about the tenants except what the vendor has claimed they have said.

Why are you assuming the vendor did not also lie when they said the tenants intended to leave?  

Stop being concerned about what the tenants have done and concentrate on what the vendor has done.  That is the person they need to take to court and get compensation from.  The tenants are nothing to do with it.

Can you read? I’ve said the vendor is at fault, who cares about the tenant? The time they viewed the property the tenants had their stuff ready to live, confirming they would do so. They can change their mind, but I am focusing on the vendor here. Why are you talking about the tenants? The seller went through completion after stalling saying that they have now left, when they didn’t. 

Ath_Wat

Adezoo said:

Ath_Wat said:

Adezoo said:

Tiglet2 said:

Adezoo said:

Ath_Wat said:

Adezoo said:

SusieT said:

Adezoo said:

SusieT said:

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

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

It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move 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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

They can until the court evicts them that’s true. But as a previous tenant, I never push my boundaries and if I intend to leave, I do so. The law protects tenants which is good, but some people take the !!!!!! out this. Good thing they took the lawyer, hopefully they get all the help and compensation for it. 

You know the vendor lied when they said the tenants had left.  We know nothing about the tenants except what the vendor has claimed they have said.

Why are you assuming the vendor did not also lie when they said the tenants intended to leave?  

Stop being concerned about what the tenants have done and concentrate on what the vendor has done.  That is the person they need to take to court and get compensation from.  The tenants are nothing to do with it.

Can you read? I’ve said the vendor is at fault, who cares about the tenant? The time they viewed the property the tenants had their stuff ready to live, confirming they would do so. They can change their mind, but I am focusing on the vendor here. Why are you talking about the tenants? The seller went through completion after stalling saying that they have now left, when they didn’t. 

I was talking about the tenants because you were.  You said "But as a previous tenant, I never push my boundaries and if I intend to leave, I do so. The law protects tenants which is good, but some people take the !!!!!! out this."

Maybe I can't read very well, but that does appear to me to be criticising the tenants.  Does it not to you?

Adezoo

Ath_Wat said:

Adezoo said:

Ath_Wat said:

Adezoo said:

Tiglet2 said:

Adezoo said:

Ath_Wat said:

Adezoo said:

SusieT said:

Adezoo said:

SusieT said:

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

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

It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move 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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

They can until the court evicts them that’s true. But as a previous tenant, I never push my boundaries and if I intend to leave, I do so. The law protects tenants which is good, but some people take the !!!!!! out this. Good thing they took the lawyer, hopefully they get all the help and compensation for it. 

You know the vendor lied when they said the tenants had left.  We know nothing about the tenants except what the vendor has claimed they have said.

Why are you assuming the vendor did not also lie when they said the tenants intended to leave?  

Stop being concerned about what the tenants have done and concentrate on what the vendor has done.  That is the person they need to take to court and get compensation from.  The tenants are nothing to do with it.

Can you read? I’ve said the vendor is at fault, who cares about the tenant? The time they viewed the property the tenants had their stuff ready to live, confirming they would do so. They can change their mind, but I am focusing on the vendor here. Why are you talking about the tenants? The seller went through completion after stalling saying that they have now left, when they didn’t. 

I was talking about the tenants because you were.  You said "But as a previous tenant, I never push my boundaries and if I intend to leave, I do so. The law protects tenants which is good, but some people take the !!!!!! out this."

Maybe I can't read very well, but that does appear to me to be criticising the tenants.  Does it not to you?

Yes, as a tenant if I got a notice to leave, I’ll leave just not to cause any trouble. For me it’s not worth the headache. I am not criticising the tenants, they could stay as much as they want to. The seller is at fault because they confirmed they left and signed those papers. The tenants might have decided not to leave for all I know. 

What I was responding to, is people saying that the tenants knew nothing about it. Which I would believe if there was no viewing at all. But landlords do tell their tenants when they want to sell a house.  

Brie

I still think a crucial thing is to go and talk to the tenants.  Do they actually know the house has been sold?  Do they intend to leave?  If they are, when?  If they aren't, are they paying rent still?  To whom?  What's happened with their deposit?  

And then I would talk to a solicitor.  No point in paying for a very expensive hour only to be asked simple questions like "have the tenants any intention to move?" and then have to pay for another expensive hour to give the answer.

KittenChops

Adezoo said:

Ath_Wat said:

Adezoo said:

Ath_Wat said:

Adezoo said:

Tiglet2 said:

Adezoo said:

Ath_Wat said:

Adezoo said:

SusieT said:

Adezoo said:

SusieT said:

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

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

It is not a case of the tenants being aware, as legally they did not HAVE to move 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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

They can until the court evicts them that’s true. But as a previous tenant, I never push my boundaries and if I intend to leave, I do so. The law protects tenants which is good, but some people take the !!!!!! out this. Good thing they took the lawyer, hopefully they get all the help and compensation for it. 

You know the vendor lied when they said the tenants had left.  We know nothing about the tenants except what the vendor has claimed they have said.

Why are you assuming the vendor did not also lie when they said the tenants intended to leave?  

Stop being concerned about what the tenants have done and concentrate on what the vendor has done.  That is the person they need to take to court and get compensation from.  The tenants are nothing to do with it.

Can you read? I’ve said the vendor is at fault, who cares about the tenant? The time they viewed the property the tenants had their stuff ready to live, confirming they would do so. They can change their mind, but I am focusing on the vendor here. Why are you talking about the tenants? The seller went through completion after stalling saying that they have now left, when they didn’t. 

I was talking about the tenants because you were.  You said "But as a previous tenant, I never push my boundaries and if I intend to leave, I do so. The law protects tenants which is good, but some people take the !!!!!! out this."

Maybe I can't read very well, but that does appear to me to be criticising the tenants.  Does it not to you?

Yes, as a tenant if I got a notice to leave, I’ll leave just not to cause any trouble. For me it’s not worth the headache. I am not criticising the tenants, they could stay as much as they want to. The seller is at fault because they confirmed they left and signed those papers. The tenants might have decided not to leave for all I know. 

What I was responding to, is people saying that the tenants knew nothing about it. Which I would believe if there was no viewing at all. But landlords do tell their tenants when they want to sell a house.  

Re the bit I've bolded above; perhaps the landlord told them he was selling to another landlord.