Keys not given at time of completion?

Adezoo

Jumblebumble said:

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

It’s a friend issue not mine, I would have done worse can’t lie 😂😂

Adezoo

housebuyer143 said:

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.

I don’t think they would have been happy but they wouldn’t have mind waiting, at least they wouldn’t have started paying for a mortgage without being able to move in. 

housebuyer143

Adezoo 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 )

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? 

It's because legally they are. The property is their legal property and the person in occupation has a tenancy agreement which is transferred to the new owner upon sale. They do not cease being tenants due to this mix up.

user1977

Adezoo 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 )

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'.

I don’t even understand the people on here saying they are the new landlord.

Does your friend understand it though? That's what matters. 

Might be easier if they were posting here themselves.

Adezoo

user1977 said:

Adezoo 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 )

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'.

I don’t even understand the people on here saying they are the new landlord.

Does your friend understand it though? That's what matters. 

Might be easier if they were posting here themselves.

They are going through that hard time, and I thought to ask for help from others who might know how to deal with situation like this. 

born_again

Interesting no one has mention "Mortgage Provider" Here.

If it was for vacant possession. Then contacting them may help to put some pressure on. End of the day, they will not be happy as they have lent funds to someone who is not living in the house as they expect. Which maybe & most likely is a breach of the T/C of the mortgage.

lisyloo

born_again said:

Interesting no one has mention "Mortgage Provider" Here.

If it was for vacant possession. Then contacting them may help to put some pressure on. End of the day, they will not be happy as they have lent funds to someone who is not living in the house as they expect. Which maybe & most likely is a breach of the T/C of the mortgage.

Who do you think the mortgage company will put pressure on?
im thinking the OPs friend.

sevenhills

It would be strange for a solicitor to ok the funds without the keys?
Perhaps the solicitor saw a eviction notice instead?
Surely the solicitor has some responsibility here.

user1977

sevenhills said:

It would be strange for a solicitor to ok the funds without the keys?
Perhaps the solicitor saw a eviction notice instead?
Surely the solicitor has some responsibility here.

OP has said they were told vacant possession was being granted. I'm not sure what more you expect the buyer's solicitor to have done?

sevenhills

user1977 said:

sevenhills said:

It would be strange for a solicitor to ok the funds without the keys?
Perhaps the solicitor saw a eviction notice instead?
Surely the solicitor has some responsibility here.

OP has said they were told vacant possession was being granted. I'm not sure what more you expect the buyer's solicitor to have done?

The new owner cannot access his new property without the keys. If there were no keys someone should have arranged for a locksmith.
Or it's quite possible that the OP is not telling us all the full story, as it's his friend.