Buying a house which is currently rented

GDB2222

lookstraightahead said:

GDB2222 said:

macman said:

GDB2222 said:

I can’t give a percentage, but most tenants leave when they get a S21 notice. 

Really? Despite a minimum notice requirement of 2 months notice?
I can't give a percentage either, but a high proportion of S21's are invalid. The reason many are not challenged is because the tenant is not aware of the statutory requirements.

Most people don’t want the stress of a court case. It may not be convenient to leave, but will it be any more convenient in six or nine months time? 

And, no, I’m obviously not saying that they move out the same day they get the notice, but towards the end of the two months, once they have found something else. 

With all respect on another thread you have said you won't rent and you won't move til you have bought somewhere. 

Maybe the tenants want to buy in 9 months time as they are still looking for their dream home, so why should they move any more than a vendor? 

Maybe they can't get a mortgage for another 6 months, or maybe they want to live in a specific area.

thats why my opinion is for the buyer to wait until the tenant leaves before spending any money.

Yes. That's what I said.

macman

PledgeX2 said:

Forgive my ignorance - I've never rented, or considered being a landlord - but what is the process for a tenant leaving a rented property then (assuming they don't want to go)?

It sounds like the landlord would need to serve a section 21 notice (minimum 2 months notice). When that notice period is up, the tenant either leaves the property, or the tenants refuse and the landlord has to wait for a court order to evict them, which could take further months. Is that right?

Even if the tenancy agreement is coming to the end, and the tenants have agree to leave the property, then I guess the risk is that they change their mind last minute so the landlord has to go down the section 21 route, adding 2 months minimum to the eviction process?

I also didn't consider the 'vacant possession' proviso that the mortgage provider would require, so thanks for highlighting that.

The 'lender' aspect is a bit of a red herring. The conveyancer won't let you exchange without vacant possession anyway.

eddddy

macman said:

The conveyancer won't let you exchange without vacant possession anyway.

It seems like you're mis-using the term 'vacant possession' - I think you mean 'vacant'.  And I think you're mistaken about the conveyancer.

 I think you mean:

"The buyer's conveyancer will explain to  the buyer all the risks of exchanging contracts before the property is vacant (i.e. before the tenants have moved out). It will then be up to the buyer whether they exchange contracts or not."



And for completeness:

"The seller's conveyancer will explain to  the seller all the risks of exchanging contracts before the property is vacant (i.e. before the tenants have moved out). It will then be up to the seller whether they exchange contracts or not."




Edit to add...

Just for info, this is what "vacant possession" means (it refers to what happens at completion)...

macman

Any reputable conveyancer would in these circumstances probably ask you to sign a document confirming that you understand the consequences of proceeding to exchange without vacant possession. Simply for their own protection. 
It's a recognised legal term, rather than just 'vacant', which indicates a physical absence of occupants. 'Vacant possession' indicates that, in this context, any tenancy has ended, regardless of whether the house is physically occupied.