Tenant buying my house, completion failed

Ksw3

No idea what the legalities are, I expect you are liable for costs (including her rental costs). I wouldnt pay rent either or rather I would then claim those costs back. The fact that it's out of your control is neither here nor there in my view. 

FtbDreaming

I don’t know the legalities of your situation but I also don’t understand your side of morals? 

If you were expecting to complete on 22nd Sep you would have been paid rent up to then + house price. Now completion is delayed you want the tennant to pay an extra x amount of months rent whilst you wait then still get the same price house sale. 

That means it will be the tennant that is out of pocket because of your solicitors mistake? I think you should just leave it tbh and hope the situation resolved soon and you can complete. 

It’s not great for you I agree but you will still get the same house sale price in the end. Obviously if the sale doesn’t go through then they will owe you the rent for the meantime. 

Grumpy_chap

Upset_Nanny said:

Yes I agree, I am still the owner and I intend to write to the tenant, but I am presently letting her stew over my morality question. As I say we have enjoyed a very good relationship over the past 10 years, so I will hold off bombarding her yet.

Upset_Nanny said:

Yes, once I have let her stew over my question of whether she thinks it is morally right not to pay I will put some legal arguments to her and suggest she takes advice from other avenues.

I may not necessarily agree with the comments from others that "obviously" the tenant still needs to pay rent.

I also suggest that, while it may make the OP feel better in the short term, any direct contact with the tenant, letting them stew, considering bombarding them would all be best avoided.
This is a rather unfortunate legal situation and any contact should be via the Solicitors.  Any parallel communictaion is only likely to cause added confusion, delay and cost.

It seems very odd in this situation that the Solicitor's proceeded with Exchange of Contracts.  There may be a case for a claim against one of the parties Solicitors, but that is for another day - the priority focus has to be resolving the matter at hand.

The comments about "no-one" owning the property are clearly incorrect, but possibly the result of the parallel communication routes creating a "Chinese Whispers" effect.

Now, why I think there might not be any rent due.

A contract was formed whereby on 22nd September, the tenant would pay the OP £xxxk and in return the OP would transfer the title of the property. 
After that is completed, the tenant owns the property and has no further rent to pay (but does incur costs of running the property).
The OP no longer owns the property, but does have £xxxk in cash.

The completion did not occur so one party or the other (possibly both) are in breach of contract. 
The remedy for the breach would be to return the wronged party to the state they would have been had there been no breach.  The costs for this are down to the party that committed the breach to meet.

If the OP was in breach, the remedy is to allow the tenant to live in the property without the costs of rent.

If the tenant was in breach, the remedy is to make good the loss of the time-value of the £xxxk money, i.e. pay interest.

Obviously, these simple remedies have complexity in the detail. 
The OP still owns the house so needs to keep it insured.
The LL / tenant relationship still exists so the OP still carries liabilities as LL, whether receiving rent or not.
Etc.

All the more reason to do everything through the Solicitor (who needs to be kept on side).  Any consideration of a possible claim against the Solicitor needs to wait until the case is fully closed.  I suspect the Solicitor will cover themselves against a future claim by refusing to act unless the OP waives the right to claim.

GDB2222

Hi OP (Upset Nanny). You are in breach of contract, and the person to blame is your own solicitor, not the tenant. You should not have been allowed to exchange unless you were in a position to give good title to the property.

Given that you are in breach of contract, I'm not sure you are in a strong moral position, really. 

As you say, concentrate on getting the problem with the title sorted out, then look to your solicitor to compensate you. 

saajan_12

What is the exact timeline? 
* the restriction was found and requested to be removed - months ago?
* exchange happened on 20 Sep - why was this done if the title issue wasn't resolved? 
* completion should have happened on 22 Sep but didn't - what changed since 20 Sep, when the parties thought things were ready? 

The key question is was completion possible without the restriction being requested to be removed 
-> If yes, then it should go ahead asap, and whoever's solicitor is blocking it should explain why.
-> If no, then your solicitor needs to explain why they allowed exchange 2 days earlier. 

That will then determine who is really in breach of the agreement to complete. The rent is secondary, as while rent should perhaps be paid, they may be able to claim that amount back from you as extra rent they suffered due to your late completion. 

_Penny_Dreadful

Upset_Nanny said:

The buyers solicitor (remember she is already living in the house as my tenant) has told the buyer that she no longer has to pay any rent as exchange has taken place and the house no longer belongs to anyone! 

The fact the house belongs to no one is obviously pish, it still belongs to you. The tenant should have been insuring the property since exchange though. Whilst the tenancy is still in place the tenant still owes the rent. However, you are in breach of contract so the tenant could sue you for alternative accommodation costs. The two most likely cancel each other out so I wouldn't push the tenant too hard in this situation.

Am I really in breach for something I could not control or forsee, and which was in essence caused by an unecessary query being raised by the solicitors, and am I really now not entitled to be paid rent until it is resoleved. As far as I know no deposit has been paid by the buyer. 

As above, it's quid pro quo, with the rent in my opinion. Your solicitor effed up and has caused this delay. If I were to make a complaint or try to extract money from anyone in this situation it would be the solicitor not the tenant.

anselld

Upset_Nanny said:

sammyjammy said:

Maybe recommend she checks with an independent third party such as Shelter re: paying rent and/or provide her with evidence that rent is still due.

I bet her solicitor didn't put it in writing!

Yes, once I have let her stew over my question of whether she thinks it is morally right not to pay I will put some legal arguments to her and suggest she takes advice from other avenues.

I think it should be you stewing over the morality question since it is you (your solicitors) who have failed to complete.  You have not lost rent; it was due to stop on completion anyway.  And you were not being generous in accepting apportionment of the final rent as that is perfectly normal in the event of a sale.  You should just be hoping this can be resolved by you Solicitors without further damages incurred by the Buyer.

housebuyer143

Thin of it this way, your tenant was expecting to own the house now, they have paid to insure it, probably incurred costs because of the failed completion and now they have committed to buy a house but they don't know when that's going to happen? 
One of them could lose their jobs, mortgage offer in this time so it's very stressful I imagine and then you are demanding that they pay you rent that has only become due because of your solicitors error... If this were in a chain your tenants would now be in a hotel and charging you for every cost incurred. Any anger should be aimed at your solicitor.

Leave it be, and should any rent be agreed to be owing when you have a new completion date then you can work it out then. If I were them I did agree to pay you at some future date, you can be sure I would not be paying you more than what the mortgage payment would be.