Licence to Occupy - Rental agreement?

Missfamilysaver

Hi, does anyone have any experience living under a 'licence to occupy' when a house purchase is delayed? I'm buying a property and unfortunately the seller passed away between exchange and settlement, meaning the legal paperwork (probate) will have to be changed over before I can legally buy the house.  The lawyers are drawing up a licence to occupy contract, however it has fairly substantial rent fees payable to the seller (would be seller).  Is this normal? I can't find any information on it!
thank you!

user1977

No, it isn't normal for this to happen at all. Normally everyone would wait until you can complete the purchase. Had you already exchanged contracts? If so then if anything you're helping out the sellers' estate by moving in earlier (saving them from compensating you for their failure to complete on time) so I wouldn't expect you to be paying them rent on top of that.

Isn't your solicitor providing you with any advice?

Olinda99

if you have exclusive access and pay rent than you will be a tenant no matter what the agreement says.

unfortunately even after exchange the seller can refuse to complete and pull out with very little penalty compared with a buyer pulling out

theartfullodger

Indeed: Wait until probate: 

anselld

There isnt much information on people doing it because it is usually a bad idea.

Are you selling your current place?  Do you want to move into rented without a firm contractual agreement that you can eventually buy and when?  Would it not be better to find somewhere else that you can complete on normally?

propertyrental

You'd be a tenant with a tenancy, whatever the document you sign says.

As user1977 says it's the seller who if in breach for failing to Complete, for which you could claim significant costs, so why are you proposing to pay significant 'rent' instead?

Complete on your own sale. Move into a hotel and put your possessions into storage, and send the bills to your seller........

doodling

Hi,

As others have stated you will end up with a tenancy covered by all the laws that regulate tenancies.  That is a major downside for the vendor (but not the buyer, unless you want to pull out of the sale).

The only downside for the buyer appears to be size of the rent payments.  I would be pointing out that the size of the rent they are demanding is very conveniently quantifying your loss due to their failure to complete so perhaps they might want to think about how big (or small!) they make it?  (You being able to sue them for your losses once this is all over).

The rent should, at most, be equivalent to the interest you would have been paying on a mortgage had you been able to complete, as their failure is "saving" you this money.

RHemmings

Does it happen that contracts for house purchase may include a force majeure clause, and does the OP's contract have one? That could change things considerably, but I'm only familiar with force majeure clauses in other types of contract. 

user1977

RHemmings said:

Does it happen that contracts for house purchase may include a force majeure clause, and does the OP's contract have one? That could change things considerably, but I'm only familiar with force majeure clauses in other types of contract. 

Never seen it happen. The parties take the risk of dropping dead after exchange and leaving their estates to sort out their resulting breach of contract.

pjs493

My only experience of a 'licence to occupy' is my experience of living in military accommodation in which we all live under a 'licence to occupy' and are not tenants with a tenancy agreement. This is for several reasons that are not relevant in your case. I've never heard about it under the circumstances you mention.