Viewing a flat with tenants in situ

elsien

This is the worst case scenario if the tenants decline to leave .
And which is why vacant possession is so important unless it’s a buy to let. Don’t believe a word the estate agent says about the tenants leaving until they’ve actually gone. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6424417/bailiffs-are-our-last-resort/p1

deannagone

When my one and only private LL was selling the property we lived in, I had to sit in the garden, with the LL whilst buyers were shown round.  If I had been permitted to speak to the prospective buyer, I could have told them lots of interesting stuff about what was wrong with the property.  But obviously that didn't happen.  Frankly I wouldn't have purchased it, needed a lot of money spending on it (and was very cold with boiler that worked when it pleased, lots of bad DIY work done on it in the past) and it was actually rented again once I left.

julicorn

I'd read a lot of horror stories and warnings on here before, but for us, it worked out well. 

We viewed our house in October last year, with tenants still in. The estate agents who were handling the sale had also been the ones who the tenants rented through, and the tenants had already signed a tenancy agreement for a new house at that point (with the same agents) to move into late November. Of course, estate agents could have lied, but the tenants had made such an effort cleaning, tidying and generally presenting the property well when we viewed it that I didn't get the sense they wanted to throw spanners in the works. 

They moved out on the 30th of November, and left the property absolutely immaculate, cleaner than any seller in a chain would ever be able to. Even left us a couple of house plants, some useful shelving and a Henry hoover. We were then left without an onward chain, and completed on the 20th of December. We of course viewed the property again after they had moved out, and also didn't exchange until then. 

I completely get that we were lucky and that it definitely won't always work out like that, but after being messed around with by a seller in a chain, this was a really positive experience all round. 

propertyrental

deannagone said:

When my one and only private LL was selling the property we lived in, I had to sit in the garden, with the LL whilst buyers were shown round.  .....

and you agreed to this....? Why on earth?

deannagone

propertyrental said:

deannagone said:

When my one and only private LL was selling the property we lived in, I had to sit in the garden, with the LL whilst buyers were shown round.  .....

and you agreed to this....? Why on earth?

After four years of fun and games with this LL, and knowing private rental rates were just going to increase, (I was already putting in £150 on top of HLA a month to pay the rent, knew this was only going to get worse, couldn't move areas as my kids with special needs had services and hard won school places I needed to keep going) i am afraid I did it out of self interest.  I knew (as I am a carer on benefits with 2 autistic sons) this was my best chance to get affordable housing, and with a LL that did repairs The LL's were quite unpleasant. Commonly threatening me with eviction if I tried to insist on a repair. Obviously I was being evicted so he could sell (extremely stressful).  But he wanted a high price people weren't willing to pay for what it was so it didn't sell in the end.

Why I say it seems whether your opinion on the law favouring tenants or LL's can depend which one you are.  Personally I think the law is so woolly and so lacking in power, it favours no one.  It just lets people down, both sides.  

So I know there are tenants and LL who are taken advantage of, and not supported by the 'system' or the law.  There are also good LL's and good tenants, regardless of background etc.  Grab them and keep hold of them!

(Deleted the dross in my original post, didn't add anything to the thread at all lol).

lindos90

My son looked at a few flats where there was a tennant in situ but marketed for first time buyer (with 'potential of vacant possesion on completion' ) he was advised to view, even make an offer if he likes one, but not to proceed until the tenant had left. If you decide to proceed anyway, and incur some costs (survey etc) absolutely do not exchange contracts until you know for definite that the tenant has gone, possibly checking by asking for another viewing 'to take some measurements'

pinkshoes

ahfat41 said:

The EA has booked a lot of viewings on a Saturday I do not think the tenants will be present.

That's irrelevant.

When buying a property that currently has tenants, you should NEVER exchange contracts until the tenants have left and the buyer has been to see for themselves that the property is empty.

This is all well and good but sometimes tenants don't want to leave, and sometimes tenants can't leave due to no other available rental properties, so it can take MONTHS to evict them.

If your son is wanting to purchase quickly then tread carefully as this might not be the right property. If your son is happy to wait then fair enough.

ArbitraryRandom

pinkshoes said:

ahfat41 said:

The EA has booked a lot of viewings on a Saturday I do not think the tenants will be present.

When buying a property that currently has tenants, you should NEVER exchange contracts until the tenants have left and the buyer has been to see for themselves that the property is empty.

I've never experienced this situation, so those who have might be able to advise.

As a buyer, if we exchange contracts with a date for completion and the contract specifying vacant possession, would that not be a problem for the seller, not me? 

If I were to complete on a residential property with owner occupiers and arrived on completion to find they had not moved out then I would be well within my rights to sue the seller for completion/specific performance plus any costs caused by the delay.

That's not a desirable situation, but not sure how this is different

Having heard some stories about the new owner becoming the landlord and being responsible for the eviction process, I would have thought it would remain the responsibility of the seller as the person who signed the contract (especially given the recent case confirming the landlord is not the property owner)? 

user1977

ArbitraryRandom said:

pinkshoes said:

ahfat41 said:

The EA has booked a lot of viewings on a Saturday I do not think the tenants will be present.

When buying a property that currently has tenants, you should NEVER exchange contracts until the tenants have left and the buyer has been to see for themselves that the property is empty.

I've never experienced this situation, so those who have might be able to advise.

As a buyer, if we exchange contracts with a date for completion and the contract specifying vacant possession, would that not be a problem for the seller, not me? 

Yes, it would be more of a problem for the seller. From a buyer's point of view the risk is more getting that far down the line (or maybe not as far as exchange) and then having their time/costs wasted when it turns out the occupiers aren't leaving quietly. If you haven't exchanged then you can't recover any of your costs, and will wish you had just pursued a more straightforward property instead.