Keys not given at time of completion?

ciderboy2009

Bendy_House said:

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

The reason the conveyancing solicitor is saying that another solicitor is required will be because there is a chance that they were negligent and the purchaser may have a claim against them.  In addition, conveyancing companies rarely have any litigation specialists.

If the purchaser wants to get this fixed then their only option will be to instruct another solicitor.

In the meantime, the purchaser is now a landlord and needs to check what notificationsthey need to give the tenants - if they don't get this right then they might be unable toevict them.

In addition, the purchaser should check their mortgage terms - they are more than likely in breach of them.

housebuyer143

ciderboy2009 said:

Bendy_House said:

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

The reason the conveyancing solicitor is saying that another solicitor is required will be because there is a chance that they were negligent and the purchaser may have a claim against them.  In addition, conveyancing companies rarely have any litigation specialists.

If the purchaser wants to get this fixed then their only option will be to instruct another solicitor.

In the meantime, the purchaser is now a landlord and needs to check what notificationsthey need to give the tenants - if they don't get this right then they might be unable toevict them.

In addition, the purchaser should check their mortgage terms - they are more than likely in breach of them.

And their insurance. That's a biggy as if it burns down and it's not insured for non owner occupiers, they will likely have invalidated it. 

TripleH

The first priority is for the Op to check their paperwork.

Does it say vacant possession on completion or not? Was this agreed with your solicitor?

Whilst the Op appears to be a landlord, we're they aware that was what the buyer thought?

I would go round to the house, knock on the door and ask the 'tenants' if they know what is going on? They could be under the impression nothing has changed, salecfell through and are now paying rent to someone who doesn't own the property.

ciderboy2009

TripleH said:
...

I would go round to the house, knock on the door and ask the 'tenants' if they know what is going on? They could be under the impression nothing has changed, salecfell through and are now paying rent to someone who doesn't own the property.

If the purchaser hasn't served the relevant documentation on the tenants to indicate that they are the new landlord( which I would assume is the case as they don't even seem to realise that they are now a landlord) then the tenants are potentially doing nothing wrong by paying as per their existing tenancy agreement.

I wouldn't suggest visiting the tenants until the purchaser has taken legal advice - if they're not careful then they could say or do something which causes even more problems.

Bendy_House

Can anyone answer this 'simple' question: If the contract says 'vacant possession on completion', and the house is not vacated on the completion date, does that mean that legal 'completion' has NOT occurred?

If 'vacant' is a requirement of the 'completion', and 'vacant' has not occurred, then has 'completion'?

Have i found a loophole?!! Am I a cheniuz?!!!

user1977

Bendy_House said:

Can anyone answer this 'simple' question: If the contract says 'vacant possession on completion', and the house is not vacated on the completion date, does that mean that legal 'completion' has NOT occurred?

If 'vacant' is a requirement of the 'completion', and 'vacant' has not occurred, then has 'completion'?

Have i found a loophole?!! Am I a cheniuz?!!!

Sorry to disappoint you, but no. Money has changed hands, title and security have (presumably) been registered - completion has occurred. And I suppose the vendor's keys could be handed over (not sure why they haven't). But vendor is in breach of the contract because they've failed to provide vacant possession.

Jumblebumble

user1977 said:

The advice given to you in your similar thread from January might be helpful:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6324280/completion-date-passed-but-nothing-happened/p1

Ah but that was the OP
This problem is apparently their "friend's" issue

Adezoo

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

The seller shouldn’t have said the property was vacant before completing. If they couldn’t ensure the people left they should have delayed the completion, and incur whatever fee. 

Adezoo

Bendy_House said:

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'.

Thank you. I don’t even understand the people on here saying they are the new landlord. But the property was supposed to be vacant and they now have to take another lawyer because the one they had can’t take responsibility? 

housebuyer143

Adezoo said:

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

The seller shouldn’t have said the property was vacant before completing. If they couldn’t ensure the people left they should have delayed the completion, and incur whatever fee. 

I imagine the buyers will have happily cancelled the sale without penalty if they were told the tenants had no intention of leaving.