Keys not given at time of completion?

pinkshoes

Adezoo said:

loubel said:

Why was completion delayed and who served notice to complete?

They need to instruct a different solicitor to deal with this as it is no longer conveyancing that they need help with.

It was because the seller couldn’t confirm the tenants were gone, they were given 10 more days and they said the tenants were gone. As soon as they completed, the keys were not given and they said the tenants were still in. 

WHO is they? The seller? Did they put it in writing that the tenants had left?

Your friend is now a LL. They need to sort out all paperwork and evict the tenants while keeping evidence of all costs that are mounting. If you can prove the seller lied about vacant possession then they need to pay all costs.

I'm sure this technically is still a failed completion and all money should be paid back?!?!

Adezoo

pinkshoes said:

Adezoo said:

loubel said:

Why was completion delayed and who served notice to complete?

They need to instruct a different solicitor to deal with this as it is no longer conveyancing that they need help with.

It was because the seller couldn’t confirm the tenants were gone, they were given 10 more days and they said the tenants were gone. As soon as they completed, the keys were not given and they said the tenants were still in. 

WHO is they? The seller? Did they put it in writing that the tenants had left?

Your friend is now a LL. They need to sort out all paperwork and evict the tenants while keeping evidence of all costs that are mounting. If you can prove the seller lied about vacant possession then they need to pag all costs.

I'm sure this technically is still a failed completion and all money should be paid back?!?!

The seller yes, they had to make sure the tenants were gone before proceeding with completion. But they still went ahead lying because they wanted to save money (probably) because I believe you can get some fines for completing late. It’s messy because now they have to go through all this because 

Alderbank

housebuyer143 said:

Alderbank said:

The usual procedure is that on completion day the buyer's solicitor gives the money to the seller's solicitor and tells his client that the house is now theirs and he asks them to get back to him if there are any irregularities such being unable to gain access. At this stage the money is still held by the solicitors. A few days later, with no problems reported, the seller's solicitor hands the money to the seller.
Last time I sold I moved out on the Tuesday and my solicitor phoned me the following Friday to tell me to check that the money was now in my bank (I did not have a mortgage).

That's not my experience. I sold last year and I had the money in my bank the same day of completion..

Sounds like they trusted you more than they trusted me!
The principle of course is that the lender's precious money is held by the two solicitors until they are both satisfied that the transaction fully complies with the lender's requirements. They carry professional indemnity insurance for this.

user1977

Alderbank said:

housebuyer143 said:

Alderbank said:

The usual procedure is that on completion day the buyer's solicitor gives the money to the seller's solicitor and tells his client that the house is now theirs and he asks them to get back to him if there are any irregularities such being unable to gain access. At this stage the money is still held by the solicitors. A few days later, with no problems reported, the seller's solicitor hands the money to the seller.
Last time I sold I moved out on the Tuesday and my solicitor phoned me the following Friday to tell me to check that the money was now in my bank (I did not have a mortgage).

That's not my experience. I sold last year and I had the money in my bank the same day of completion..

Sounds like they trusted you more than they trusted me!
The principle of course is that the lender's precious money is held by the two solicitors until they are both satisfied that the transaction fully complies with the lender's requirements. They carry professional indemnity insurance for this.

No, once completion has occurred the buyer's lender has no control over the completion funds. Solicitors do have professional indemnity insurance, but there's no principle that either solicitor is warranting that vacant possession has been provided, or that they're liable because the vendor is in breach of contract.

p00hsticks

Alderbank said:

housebuyer143 said:

Alderbank said:

The usual procedure is that on completion day the buyer's solicitor gives the money to the seller's solicitor and tells his client that the house is now theirs and he asks them to get back to him if there are any irregularities such being unable to gain access. At this stage the money is still held by the solicitors. A few days later, with no problems reported, the seller's solicitor hands the money to the seller.
Last time I sold I moved out on the Tuesday and my solicitor phoned me the following Friday to tell me to check that the money was now in my bank (I did not have a mortgage).

That's not my experience. I sold last year and I had the money in my bank the same day of completion..

Sounds like they trusted you more than they trusted me!
The principle of course is that the lender's precious money is held by the two solicitors until they are both satisfied that the transaction fully complies with the lender's requirements. They carry professional indemnity insurance for this.

I've also been told to expect the money in my bank account on the day of completion or at the very latest the day after.....

Schwarzwald

Ultimately, even if the vendor said tenants gonna leave, why did they exchange before this actually happening?
you might not be able to access the property freely ahead of completion, but waiting for the vendor to confirm tenants left and subsequently scheduling a last site visit in person to confirm exactly that sounds like the prudent thing to do.

they jumped gun and completed without that and now inherited quite a problem it sounds.
not sure reg breach of contract, but as much as you like to blame the vendor and solicitor, they should accept some responsibility too.


probably indeed best to get a new property lawyer to assess if the completion can be reversed or how the tenants can be evicted

lika_86

Adezoo said:

user1977 said:

housebuyer143 said:

user1977 said:

housebuyer143 said:

marcia_ said:

Adezoo said:

user1977 said:

Are they sure the transaction has actually completed? Just because they've paid money to their solicitor doesn't mean completion has happened.

They are the homeowners but since completion day they’ve been waiting for keys. There are tenants inside which were supposed to move but still living in the house. They’ve been told they can’t do much apart from getting a new lawyer

 So probably they are now landlords and need to follow legal guidelines to get the tenants out 

The lawyer has screwed up if they were expecting vacant possession, as the tenants should have been gone before they completed.

Have they? It's not part of the lawyer's job to pop round and check the tenants have actually gone.

Yes, they should be confirming with the other side that they will be providing vacant possession on completion. They should have at s minimum asked their client to check it was empty at exchange or confirmed with the other side that it was.

OP said "before exchanging they were told the tenants have moved out already"

The buyers have a mortgage which requires vacant possession, so to satisfy the lender, they should be ensuring this is the case.

The lender's solicitor can't personally "ensure" it, all they can do is get other parties to tell them what the position on the ground is.

At the end of the day, from a buyer perspective you can’t go in the house and check, can you? Until the house is yours, any personal check should be made by the seller. The seller was the landlord that should have made sure the house was vacant and it is left in a good state. 

Of course you can and should. You just arrange a pre-exchange viewing through the estate agent. This is good practice irrespective of tenants to check condition before legally committing yourself to buy.

housebuyer143

Schwarzwald said:

Ultimately, even if the vendor said tenants gonna leave, why did they exchange before this actually happening?
you might not be able to access the property freely ahead of completion, but waiting for the vendor to confirm tenants left and subsequently scheduling a last site visit in person to confirm exactly that sounds like the prudent thing to do.

they jumped gun and completed without that and now inherited quite a problem it sounds.
not sure reg breach of contract, but as much as you like to blame the vendor and solicitor, they should accept some responsibility too.


probably indeed best to get a new property lawyer to assess if the completion can be reversed or how the tenants can be evicted

I don't think it's right or fair to blame the buyers. FTBs normally have little clue about the process and just trust what they are told. If the lawyer told them to exchange and didn't mention checking the house to ensure they are gone, why would they assume they need to do this? 

babyblade41

You need a litigating solicitor not a conveyancing one..that is the first step .\

The previous owner has money from the sale so you can start adding up costs that he will have to pay you eventually.

The buyer needs to bear some responsibility  but too late for that and their conveyancing solicitor is not at fault here , you were supposed to check just before exchange, your solicitor would nave told you this especially being a tenanted property

Nothing can be done now it should be passed over to a litigation solicitor to sort out , first thing Tuesday morning you need to instruct one pronto 

Bendy_House

I don't see why a different solicitor is required - unless the current conveyancing one is truly incompetent ( in which case you escalate this )

Folk often claim "My solicitor is useless!", when in fact they are doing exactly what they can and should do, but their client expects something more or different.

Throw all the emotive talk aside, and your friends should look at their contract, as said repeatedly; was this supposed to be 'vacant possession'?

If so, the seller is clearly in breach, and presumably bears the costs. 

THAT'S the issue, surely, and nothing else?

All this talk of the buyer becoming a landlord and having to evict 'their' new tenant

Ok, I am not a legal bod, but why should this be much different to it being the actual property OWNER refusing to move out, instead of their tenants? They are in breach of 'vacant possession', end of. So the buyer should be asking their solicitor what happens when there's such a breach?! They SURELY should know!

If they really don't, then they are not a competent conveyancer, and I would personally be reporting them to whichever organisation oversees them, and also posting some accurate reviews to point out their lack of knowledge.

If the conveyancer cannot HANDLE such cases - ie it's genuinely beyond their remit - then, fair do's, but they SHOULD be able to direct you on what you need to do.

But, surely, this IS within their remit - THEY put the contract together, and this included 'vacant possession'. Ergo, seller in breach. 

I don't see the buyer as having any responsibility here for what happened. Nor EITHER conveyancer. It's not any of these folks tasks to PHYSICALLY check the house is empty BEFORE completion. It just isn't.

The seller is in breach. So, what happens when a seller is in breach?! That's it!

The buyer shouldn't have to evict these tenants, any more than the buyer shouldn't have to evict the actual vendor if THEY had decided not to move out! 

THE VENDOR IS IN BREACH!

A Q - does such a breach actually mean that 'completion' has NOT occurred? 

If it has, tho', then your friend should be checking their insurance cover, just in case it surely won't be a LL insurance cover :-(

On that note, does their insurance include Legal Protection? If so, call them up and ask for guidance - who do they need to nail down to get this sorted? These situations must happen quite often.

But, buyer is in breach!

(I wonder if they'll claim, "They DID move out, but must have snuck back in..."! If they try anything like that, then the simple fact that the vendor did not hand over the keys should discount it.)

The only folk responsible here are the vendors. 

This is scary, tho'.