Buying a home to live in that has a tenant in situ need advice

BikingBud

SneakySpectator said:

saajan_12 said:

SneakySpectator said:

RAS said:

SneakySpectator said:

RAS said:

Why can't you get a mortgage longer than 25 years? 30+ is pretty normal now.

Inflation will eat into the cost of your repayments within say 5 years. It'd be reasonable to expect to clear a 35 year deal in 25 years.

Because I'm 36... A 25 year mortgage is already making me work until 61, I really don't want to be working into my 70's. 

When your mortgage becomes a smaller portion of your living costs, you overpay. I actually started with a 15% mortgage, oh joy, but when the rate halved, I decided to pay a little more than half each month. That soon cut the amount of capital I owed, which began a virtuous cycle so I paid off 75% in the next 15 years.

This makes a lot of sense actually. I thought you get charged for making overpayments though?

lincroft1710 said:

SneakySpectator said:

RAS said:

Why can't you get a mortgage longer than 25 years? 30+ is pretty normal now.

Inflation will eat into the cost of your repayments within say 5 years. It'd be reasonable to expect to clear a 35 year deal in 25 years.

Because I'm 36... A 25 year mortgage is already making me work until 61, I really don't want to be working into my 70's. 

A 30 year mortgage would take you to 66 yrs old by which time state pensions may not start until the age of 70. My mortgage wasn't paid off until I was 68, but my work pension adequately covered the repayments.


Trying to buy a tenanted property is not a sensible idea, the vendor is seemingly offloading their property portfolio but for whatever reason is unable to get the tenant to leave.

Yeah I'm having second thoughts as well now, the estate agent straight up told me that once we are further down the line and close to sealing everything, the tenants will be issued their section 21 notice. 

So I'm looking at 2 months of conveyancing before the section 21 even gets issued, then 2 months notice for that, then if they refuse to leave another few months, then court orders, repossession order etc. I was "assured" by the EA that 

"I’ve spoken with the owner, and he has confirmed he will give notice to the tenants when we are further along the legal process, and we won’t exchange contracts until the tenants have moved out and you’ve viewed again to ensure that your happy. You solicitor will also advise to view the property prior to exchange anyway."

But I've not even done an initial survey yet and I don't want to start sinking solicitor fees into this only for it to drag out for half a year only to find out there's some major issue after the tenant left. 

In principle I'm not entirely against starting the conveyancing process in parallel with waiting for the S21 - its a risk, but can pay off if its a property you really want and most tenants do leave per a S21, even if they don't have to. 

However a chain free, freehold property sale has every chance of completing within 2 months, so it could all align if the S21 was already served. Still waiting and expecting the buyer to expend money while the LL won't even send a piece of paper is VERY cheeky. 

If you really liked this property, I would take back some control and say you'd like to place an offer but conditional on the LL serving S21 notice to the tenant FIRST and a letter from the tenant confirming they plan to leave upon expiry. Or better still, conditional on the LL speaking to the tenant, agreeing a termination date and formalising that via a notice from the tenant to the Landlord with expiry = 2 months from now. 
If not forthcoming, then walk away. 

I tried this but the EA came back saying the LL doesn't want to evict the tenant and then I back out of the deal down the line and now the LL has a property with no income, which is understandable. 

But once the initial things have been done and we've progressed a little, I'm going to demand the LL issue the S21 notice, I've shown commitment on my end, now he needs to show commitment on his end. 

Thing is I don't know what the norm is and to be honest if I was a seller I too would want to keep the tenant in there until the last minute if possible too. But at some point the seller is going to have to evict them because I ain't singing nothing until they've been evicted, furniture removed, keys handed back.

It's usually the fat lady that sings!

But it seems like a massive Mexican standoff at the moment. You have demands and the vendor wants to protect their income stream as long as possible. At the moment these "needs"are in conflict.

House buying is risky and is built on trust if you have no trust in the vendor and it is too risky you will never progress.

SneakySpectator

BikingBud said:

SneakySpectator said:

saajan_12 said:

SneakySpectator said:

RAS said:

SneakySpectator said:

RAS said:

Why can't you get a mortgage longer than 25 years? 30+ is pretty normal now.

Inflation will eat into the cost of your repayments within say 5 years. It'd be reasonable to expect to clear a 35 year deal in 25 years.

Because I'm 36... A 25 year mortgage is already making me work until 61, I really don't want to be working into my 70's. 

When your mortgage becomes a smaller portion of your living costs, you overpay. I actually started with a 15% mortgage, oh joy, but when the rate halved, I decided to pay a little more than half each month. That soon cut the amount of capital I owed, which began a virtuous cycle so I paid off 75% in the next 15 years.

This makes a lot of sense actually. I thought you get charged for making overpayments though?

lincroft1710 said:

SneakySpectator said:

RAS said:

Why can't you get a mortgage longer than 25 years? 30+ is pretty normal now.

Inflation will eat into the cost of your repayments within say 5 years. It'd be reasonable to expect to clear a 35 year deal in 25 years.

Because I'm 36... A 25 year mortgage is already making me work until 61, I really don't want to be working into my 70's. 

A 30 year mortgage would take you to 66 yrs old by which time state pensions may not start until the age of 70. My mortgage wasn't paid off until I was 68, but my work pension adequately covered the repayments.


Trying to buy a tenanted property is not a sensible idea, the vendor is seemingly offloading their property portfolio but for whatever reason is unable to get the tenant to leave.

Yeah I'm having second thoughts as well now, the estate agent straight up told me that once we are further down the line and close to sealing everything, the tenants will be issued their section 21 notice. 

So I'm looking at 2 months of conveyancing before the section 21 even gets issued, then 2 months notice for that, then if they refuse to leave another few months, then court orders, repossession order etc. I was "assured" by the EA that 

"I’ve spoken with the owner, and he has confirmed he will give notice to the tenants when we are further along the legal process, and we won’t exchange contracts until the tenants have moved out and you’ve viewed again to ensure that your happy. You solicitor will also advise to view the property prior to exchange anyway."

But I've not even done an initial survey yet and I don't want to start sinking solicitor fees into this only for it to drag out for half a year only to find out there's some major issue after the tenant left. 

In principle I'm not entirely against starting the conveyancing process in parallel with waiting for the S21 - its a risk, but can pay off if its a property you really want and most tenants do leave per a S21, even if they don't have to. 

However a chain free, freehold property sale has every chance of completing within 2 months, so it could all align if the S21 was already served. Still waiting and expecting the buyer to expend money while the LL won't even send a piece of paper is VERY cheeky. 

If you really liked this property, I would take back some control and say you'd like to place an offer but conditional on the LL serving S21 notice to the tenant FIRST and a letter from the tenant confirming they plan to leave upon expiry. Or better still, conditional on the LL speaking to the tenant, agreeing a termination date and formalising that via a notice from the tenant to the Landlord with expiry = 2 months from now. 
If not forthcoming, then walk away. 

I tried this but the EA came back saying the LL doesn't want to evict the tenant and then I back out of the deal down the line and now the LL has a property with no income, which is understandable. 

But once the initial things have been done and we've progressed a little, I'm going to demand the LL issue the S21 notice, I've shown commitment on my end, now he needs to show commitment on his end. 

Thing is I don't know what the norm is and to be honest if I was a seller I too would want to keep the tenant in there until the last minute if possible too. But at some point the seller is going to have to evict them because I ain't singing nothing until they've been evicted, furniture removed, keys handed back.

It's usually the fat lady that sings!

But it seems like a massive Mexican standoff at the moment. You have demands and the vendor wants to protect their income stream as long as possible. At the moment these "needs"are in conflict.

House buying is risky and is built on trust if you have no trust in the vendor and it is too risky you will never progress.

I was reassured by the sellers EA that the seller has sold properties with tenants in situ before and is an experienced landlord and has been through this many times without any issues. 

But the EA could be bullshitting me, who knows. Although I'm inclined to believe her because I don't think she's just blatantly make up a lie like that.

BikingBud

SneakySpectator said:

BikingBud said:

SneakySpectator said:

saajan_12 said:

SneakySpectator said:

RAS said:

SneakySpectator said:

RAS said:

Why can't you get a mortgage longer than 25 years? 30+ is pretty normal now.

Inflation will eat into the cost of your repayments within say 5 years. It'd be reasonable to expect to clear a 35 year deal in 25 years.

Because I'm 36... A 25 year mortgage is already making me work until 61, I really don't want to be working into my 70's. 

When your mortgage becomes a smaller portion of your living costs, you overpay. I actually started with a 15% mortgage, oh joy, but when the rate halved, I decided to pay a little more than half each month. That soon cut the amount of capital I owed, which began a virtuous cycle so I paid off 75% in the next 15 years.

This makes a lot of sense actually. I thought you get charged for making overpayments though?

lincroft1710 said:

SneakySpectator said:

RAS said:

Why can't you get a mortgage longer than 25 years? 30+ is pretty normal now.

Inflation will eat into the cost of your repayments within say 5 years. It'd be reasonable to expect to clear a 35 year deal in 25 years.

Because I'm 36... A 25 year mortgage is already making me work until 61, I really don't want to be working into my 70's. 

A 30 year mortgage would take you to 66 yrs old by which time state pensions may not start until the age of 70. My mortgage wasn't paid off until I was 68, but my work pension adequately covered the repayments.


Trying to buy a tenanted property is not a sensible idea, the vendor is seemingly offloading their property portfolio but for whatever reason is unable to get the tenant to leave.

Yeah I'm having second thoughts as well now, the estate agent straight up told me that once we are further down the line and close to sealing everything, the tenants will be issued their section 21 notice. 

So I'm looking at 2 months of conveyancing before the section 21 even gets issued, then 2 months notice for that, then if they refuse to leave another few months, then court orders, repossession order etc. I was "assured" by the EA that 

"I’ve spoken with the owner, and he has confirmed he will give notice to the tenants when we are further along the legal process, and we won’t exchange contracts until the tenants have moved out and you’ve viewed again to ensure that your happy. You solicitor will also advise to view the property prior to exchange anyway."

But I've not even done an initial survey yet and I don't want to start sinking solicitor fees into this only for it to drag out for half a year only to find out there's some major issue after the tenant left. 

In principle I'm not entirely against starting the conveyancing process in parallel with waiting for the S21 - its a risk, but can pay off if its a property you really want and most tenants do leave per a S21, even if they don't have to. 

However a chain free, freehold property sale has every chance of completing within 2 months, so it could all align if the S21 was already served. Still waiting and expecting the buyer to expend money while the LL won't even send a piece of paper is VERY cheeky. 

If you really liked this property, I would take back some control and say you'd like to place an offer but conditional on the LL serving S21 notice to the tenant FIRST and a letter from the tenant confirming they plan to leave upon expiry. Or better still, conditional on the LL speaking to the tenant, agreeing a termination date and formalising that via a notice from the tenant to the Landlord with expiry = 2 months from now. 
If not forthcoming, then walk away. 

I tried this but the EA came back saying the LL doesn't want to evict the tenant and then I back out of the deal down the line and now the LL has a property with no income, which is understandable. 

But once the initial things have been done and we've progressed a little, I'm going to demand the LL issue the S21 notice, I've shown commitment on my end, now he needs to show commitment on his end. 

Thing is I don't know what the norm is and to be honest if I was a seller I too would want to keep the tenant in there until the last minute if possible too. But at some point the seller is going to have to evict them because I ain't singing nothing until they've been evicted, furniture removed, keys handed back.

It's usually the fat lady that sings!

But it seems like a massive Mexican standoff at the moment. You have demands and the vendor wants to protect their income stream as long as possible. At the moment these "needs"are in conflict.

House buying is risky and is built on trust if you have no trust in the vendor and it is too risky you will never progress.

I was reassured by the sellers EA that the seller has sold properties with tenants in situ before and is an experienced landlord and has been through this many times without any issues. 

But the EA could be bullshitting me, who knows. Although I'm inclined to believe her because I don't think she's just blatantly make up a lie like that.

Unless I've misread it you don't want to buy with tenants in situ, you want vacant possession. The fact that the EA appears to be providing the wrong assurances, BS, lie or otherwise, would concern me. 

You need to be content with your own risk but if you do not show any commitment then it appears for this property nothing will change. Other vendors might be more amenable. 

SneakySpectator

BikingBud said:

SneakySpectator said:

BikingBud said:

SneakySpectator said:

saajan_12 said:

SneakySpectator said:

RAS said:

SneakySpectator said:

RAS said:

Why can't you get a mortgage longer than 25 years? 30+ is pretty normal now.

Inflation will eat into the cost of your repayments within say 5 years. It'd be reasonable to expect to clear a 35 year deal in 25 years.

Because I'm 36... A 25 year mortgage is already making me work until 61, I really don't want to be working into my 70's. 

When your mortgage becomes a smaller portion of your living costs, you overpay. I actually started with a 15% mortgage, oh joy, but when the rate halved, I decided to pay a little more than half each month. That soon cut the amount of capital I owed, which began a virtuous cycle so I paid off 75% in the next 15 years.

This makes a lot of sense actually. I thought you get charged for making overpayments though?

lincroft1710 said:

SneakySpectator said:

RAS said:

Why can't you get a mortgage longer than 25 years? 30+ is pretty normal now.

Inflation will eat into the cost of your repayments within say 5 years. It'd be reasonable to expect to clear a 35 year deal in 25 years.

Because I'm 36... A 25 year mortgage is already making me work until 61, I really don't want to be working into my 70's. 

A 30 year mortgage would take you to 66 yrs old by which time state pensions may not start until the age of 70. My mortgage wasn't paid off until I was 68, but my work pension adequately covered the repayments.


Trying to buy a tenanted property is not a sensible idea, the vendor is seemingly offloading their property portfolio but for whatever reason is unable to get the tenant to leave.

Yeah I'm having second thoughts as well now, the estate agent straight up told me that once we are further down the line and close to sealing everything, the tenants will be issued their section 21 notice. 

So I'm looking at 2 months of conveyancing before the section 21 even gets issued, then 2 months notice for that, then if they refuse to leave another few months, then court orders, repossession order etc. I was "assured" by the EA that 

"I’ve spoken with the owner, and he has confirmed he will give notice to the tenants when we are further along the legal process, and we won’t exchange contracts until the tenants have moved out and you’ve viewed again to ensure that your happy. You solicitor will also advise to view the property prior to exchange anyway."

But I've not even done an initial survey yet and I don't want to start sinking solicitor fees into this only for it to drag out for half a year only to find out there's some major issue after the tenant left. 

In principle I'm not entirely against starting the conveyancing process in parallel with waiting for the S21 - its a risk, but can pay off if its a property you really want and most tenants do leave per a S21, even if they don't have to. 

However a chain free, freehold property sale has every chance of completing within 2 months, so it could all align if the S21 was already served. Still waiting and expecting the buyer to expend money while the LL won't even send a piece of paper is VERY cheeky. 

If you really liked this property, I would take back some control and say you'd like to place an offer but conditional on the LL serving S21 notice to the tenant FIRST and a letter from the tenant confirming they plan to leave upon expiry. Or better still, conditional on the LL speaking to the tenant, agreeing a termination date and formalising that via a notice from the tenant to the Landlord with expiry = 2 months from now. 
If not forthcoming, then walk away. 

I tried this but the EA came back saying the LL doesn't want to evict the tenant and then I back out of the deal down the line and now the LL has a property with no income, which is understandable. 

But once the initial things have been done and we've progressed a little, I'm going to demand the LL issue the S21 notice, I've shown commitment on my end, now he needs to show commitment on his end. 

Thing is I don't know what the norm is and to be honest if I was a seller I too would want to keep the tenant in there until the last minute if possible too. But at some point the seller is going to have to evict them because I ain't singing nothing until they've been evicted, furniture removed, keys handed back.

It's usually the fat lady that sings!

But it seems like a massive Mexican standoff at the moment. You have demands and the vendor wants to protect their income stream as long as possible. At the moment these "needs"are in conflict.

House buying is risky and is built on trust if you have no trust in the vendor and it is too risky you will never progress.

I was reassured by the sellers EA that the seller has sold properties with tenants in situ before and is an experienced landlord and has been through this many times without any issues. 

But the EA could be bullshitting me, who knows. Although I'm inclined to believe her because I don't think she's just blatantly make up a lie like that.

Unless I've misread it you don't want to buy with tenants in situ, you want vacant possession. The fact that the EA appears to be providing the wrong assurances, BS, lie or otherwise, would concern me. 

You need to be content with your own risk but if you do not show any commitment then it appears for this property nothing will change. Other vendors might be more amenable. 

I've already committed, plus I really REALLY want this flat. It's basically the best I'm going to get. 

10 minute ebike to work.
Top floor.
Detached on all sides, just 1 neighbour below me.
Gas heating.
Balcony.
New boiler.

The only negative is the tenant in situ, but if it does take longer than expected to evict them it's not the end of the world. Ideally I want the deal to go through as soon as possible but if I have to wait 6 months, that's ok too, but obviously not ideal. 

Plus some people have posted here that they've bought tenant in situ properties before without an issue so I'll just roll the dice.  

Tiglet2

SneakySpectator said:

BikingBud said:

SneakySpectator said:

BikingBud said:

SneakySpectator said:

saajan_12 said:

SneakySpectator said:

RAS said:

SneakySpectator said:

RAS said:

Why can't you get a mortgage longer than 25 years? 30+ is pretty normal now.

Inflation will eat into the cost of your repayments within say 5 years. It'd be reasonable to expect to clear a 35 year deal in 25 years.

Because I'm 36... A 25 year mortgage is already making me work until 61, I really don't want to be working into my 70's. 

When your mortgage becomes a smaller portion of your living costs, you overpay. I actually started with a 15% mortgage, oh joy, but when the rate halved, I decided to pay a little more than half each month. That soon cut the amount of capital I owed, which began a virtuous cycle so I paid off 75% in the next 15 years.

This makes a lot of sense actually. I thought you get charged for making overpayments though?

lincroft1710 said:

SneakySpectator said:

RAS said:

Why can't you get a mortgage longer than 25 years? 30+ is pretty normal now.

Inflation will eat into the cost of your repayments within say 5 years. It'd be reasonable to expect to clear a 35 year deal in 25 years.

Because I'm 36... A 25 year mortgage is already making me work until 61, I really don't want to be working into my 70's. 

A 30 year mortgage would take you to 66 yrs old by which time state pensions may not start until the age of 70. My mortgage wasn't paid off until I was 68, but my work pension adequately covered the repayments.


Trying to buy a tenanted property is not a sensible idea, the vendor is seemingly offloading their property portfolio but for whatever reason is unable to get the tenant to leave.

Yeah I'm having second thoughts as well now, the estate agent straight up told me that once we are further down the line and close to sealing everything, the tenants will be issued their section 21 notice. 

So I'm looking at 2 months of conveyancing before the section 21 even gets issued, then 2 months notice for that, then if they refuse to leave another few months, then court orders, repossession order etc. I was "assured" by the EA that 

"I’ve spoken with the owner, and he has confirmed he will give notice to the tenants when we are further along the legal process, and we won’t exchange contracts until the tenants have moved out and you’ve viewed again to ensure that your happy. You solicitor will also advise to view the property prior to exchange anyway."

But I've not even done an initial survey yet and I don't want to start sinking solicitor fees into this only for it to drag out for half a year only to find out there's some major issue after the tenant left. 

In principle I'm not entirely against starting the conveyancing process in parallel with waiting for the S21 - its a risk, but can pay off if its a property you really want and most tenants do leave per a S21, even if they don't have to. 

However a chain free, freehold property sale has every chance of completing within 2 months, so it could all align if the S21 was already served. Still waiting and expecting the buyer to expend money while the LL won't even send a piece of paper is VERY cheeky. 

If you really liked this property, I would take back some control and say you'd like to place an offer but conditional on the LL serving S21 notice to the tenant FIRST and a letter from the tenant confirming they plan to leave upon expiry. Or better still, conditional on the LL speaking to the tenant, agreeing a termination date and formalising that via a notice from the tenant to the Landlord with expiry = 2 months from now. 
If not forthcoming, then walk away. 

I tried this but the EA came back saying the LL doesn't want to evict the tenant and then I back out of the deal down the line and now the LL has a property with no income, which is understandable. 

But once the initial things have been done and we've progressed a little, I'm going to demand the LL issue the S21 notice, I've shown commitment on my end, now he needs to show commitment on his end. 

Thing is I don't know what the norm is and to be honest if I was a seller I too would want to keep the tenant in there until the last minute if possible too. But at some point the seller is going to have to evict them because I ain't singing nothing until they've been evicted, furniture removed, keys handed back.

It's usually the fat lady that sings!

But it seems like a massive Mexican standoff at the moment. You have demands and the vendor wants to protect their income stream as long as possible. At the moment these "needs"are in conflict.

House buying is risky and is built on trust if you have no trust in the vendor and it is too risky you will never progress.

I was reassured by the sellers EA that the seller has sold properties with tenants in situ before and is an experienced landlord and has been through this many times without any issues. 

But the EA could be bullshitting me, who knows. Although I'm inclined to believe her because I don't think she's just blatantly make up a lie like that.

Unless I've misread it you don't want to buy with tenants in situ, you want vacant possession. The fact that the EA appears to be providing the wrong assurances, BS, lie or otherwise, would concern me. 

You need to be content with your own risk but if you do not show any commitment then it appears for this property nothing will change. Other vendors might be more amenable. 

I've already committed, plus I really REALLY want this flat. It's basically the best I'm going to get. 

10 minute ebike to work.
Top floor.
Detached on all sides, just 1 neighbour below me.
Gas heating.
Balcony.
New boiler.

The only negative is the tenant in situ, but if it does take longer than expected to evict them it's not the end of the world. Ideally I want the deal to go through as soon as possible but if I have to wait 6 months, that's ok too, but obviously not ideal. 

Plus some people have posted here that they've bought tenant in situ properties before without an issue so I'll just roll the dice.  

In theory you can wait as long as it takes as you're not in a chain with any other parties and you will, therefore, be able to purchase this flat at some point in the future. However:


1.  It could take longer than 6 months - 6 months is a normal length for an owner occupied leasehold property offered with vacant possession. 

2.  A leasehold property with a tenant-in-situ 'could' take far longer than that - it totally depends on how amenable the tenant is about vacating the property as per the Section 21 notice or dragging it out to the bitter end of a court enforced eviction. 

3.  As mortgage offers have a general expiry of six months, you might need to extend it or apply for another offer if this purchase is likely to be delayed by a further six months.

eddddy

SneakySpectator said:

 Ideally I want the deal to go through as soon as possible but if I have to wait 6 months, that's ok too, but obviously not ideal. 

Just for completeness - as with any property sale, there's also the possibility that you will wait 6 months or 12 months or whatever, and then the seller decides not to sell to you.


For example, after 12 months when the property becomes vacant, property prices have increased, so the seller decides to put it back on the market for a higher price.

But it also means that if property prices decrease over the 12 months, you could walk away and maybe pay less for another similar flat.


(Estate Agents have often mentioned to me that the longer a purchase takes, the greater the chance that something happens that makes the buyer or seller change their mind.)


But as mentioned previously, it could equally be that the tenants move out very quickly, and there are no problems.

ReadySteadyPop

SneakySpectator said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

SneakySpectator said:

HouseMartin567 said:

Perhaps you could agree to have the survey done, and once that comes back ‘clear’ then the vendor should serve notice. It does mean a financial commitment from you, but there are lots of threads about people reducing offers or withdrawing after a survey so I can kind of see why a landlord may want to wait until after that point before serving notice (not saying I agree with the approach - I think they shouldn’t have marketed it until empty).

The thing I have a problem with is I'm chain free but the seller is not. Well they are in the sense they're not waiting for a completion of their own to go through, but they have tenants actively living in the property and the seller is trying to treat his sale like he's "chain free" when he's not really. 

I am ready to go at the drop of a hat while the seller is not, yet the seller is the one trying to dictate all the terms. If he wants to sell the property, get rid of the current tenants, but he is trying to milk every penny from them by letting them live there and only giving them a section 21 notice at the final hurdle. 

This could create a massive delay for me, while I'm waiting for this whole thing to go through and potentially tenants resisting eviction or just straight up refusing to leave. I could be missing out on some other really nice vacant properties.

I want to move asap, not be waiting around for tenants that may or may not delay the process by 6+ months... And then at the very end the tenant could cause serious damage to the property and the entire thing falls through anyway. 

The fact that the landlord is clinging on to the tenant is a red flag, maybe they know demand for property in the area is not very strong, are you sure you are not overpaying?

I am over paying slightly, by about 5% but I think it's worth it for 2 reasons. The first being that it has just had a new boiler installed about a year ago and secondly, the flat is completely detached on all sides, just 1 point of contact, the floor. 

From what I can tell, there are only 6 top floor corner flats in the complex and only 1 of them is up for sale. There are slightly cheaper flats that are identical pretty much but they're not top floor, and the ones that are top floor have 2 points of contact instead of the 1. 

Noise is a really big issue for me so I put a lot of value on that. 

 You can get a lot of noise from one flat below depending on the neighbour, but I get your point, wouldn`t you be better with a detached house or cottage somewhere though? If the flat is worth overpaying for the seller must have had loads of offers besides yours?

SneakySpectator

ReadySteadyPop said:

SneakySpectator said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

SneakySpectator said:

HouseMartin567 said:

Perhaps you could agree to have the survey done, and once that comes back ‘clear’ then the vendor should serve notice. It does mean a financial commitment from you, but there are lots of threads about people reducing offers or withdrawing after a survey so I can kind of see why a landlord may want to wait until after that point before serving notice (not saying I agree with the approach - I think they shouldn’t have marketed it until empty).

The thing I have a problem with is I'm chain free but the seller is not. Well they are in the sense they're not waiting for a completion of their own to go through, but they have tenants actively living in the property and the seller is trying to treat his sale like he's "chain free" when he's not really. 

I am ready to go at the drop of a hat while the seller is not, yet the seller is the one trying to dictate all the terms. If he wants to sell the property, get rid of the current tenants, but he is trying to milk every penny from them by letting them live there and only giving them a section 21 notice at the final hurdle. 

This could create a massive delay for me, while I'm waiting for this whole thing to go through and potentially tenants resisting eviction or just straight up refusing to leave. I could be missing out on some other really nice vacant properties.

I want to move asap, not be waiting around for tenants that may or may not delay the process by 6+ months... And then at the very end the tenant could cause serious damage to the property and the entire thing falls through anyway. 

The fact that the landlord is clinging on to the tenant is a red flag, maybe they know demand for property in the area is not very strong, are you sure you are not overpaying?

I am over paying slightly, by about 5% but I think it's worth it for 2 reasons. The first being that it has just had a new boiler installed about a year ago and secondly, the flat is completely detached on all sides, just 1 point of contact, the floor. 

From what I can tell, there are only 6 top floor corner flats in the complex and only 1 of them is up for sale. There are slightly cheaper flats that are identical pretty much but they're not top floor, and the ones that are top floor have 2 points of contact instead of the 1. 

Noise is a really big issue for me so I put a lot of value on that. 

 You can get a lot of noise from one flat below depending on the neighbour, but I get your point, wouldn`t you be better with a detached house or cottage somewhere though? If the flat is worth overpaying for the seller must have had loads of offers besides yours?

Of for sure, anything detached would be the dream, but as a single person this simply isn't possible with the money and salary I currently have. 

Later down the line when I'm close to retiring I'll sell the flat and use my investment fund to buy a detached bungalow in a cheap part of the country.