Selling property before tenants have moved out

Catblue

moneysavinmonkey wrote: »

this doesn't really help the OP as I understand their problem- they aren't concerned about getting the tenant out quickly more concerned about not having a tenant whilst they are trying to sell.... I think the average time on the market at the moment accord to rightmove is about 90 odd days.. so that's 3 months of mortgage to pay with no rent.

But the OP has been told by the Letting Agency that they cannot put the house up for sale until AFTER the tenants have left.

In this scenario, the only way to sell the house quickly is to encourage the tenants to find another place ASAP.

clutton_2

"Clutton, What about access with reasonable notice for the normal purposes of property management ? Can the LL still be refused access under those circumstances ?

Have to say there are so many potential issues of conflict between LL's and tenants that I remain convinced that that it is worth investing time in getting a good relationship going. Having that makes it so much easier to deal with problems like this.

Legally a tenant does not have to let anyone into his home he is renting and has the right to "quiet enjoyment" - hundreds of books have been written about this. But, i have only once been refused entry to one of my properties, as i have a good relationship with all my tenants and discussion is the key.

look at the problem from their point of view - they dont want to pay rent on a property they are not living in - you could negotiate to allow them to leave early

""Any solicitor would say that exchanging is too dangerous while the tenants are still in place" - this is blatantly untrue. IF you are buying a property for BTL it is perfectly in order to buy a property with a tenant in situ and an AST in place

[EMAIL="abuse@moneysavingexpert.com?subject=Reporting post http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=8075181"][/EMAIL]

silvercar

Any solicitor would say that exchanging is too dangerous while the tenants are still in place" - this is blatantly untrue. IF you are buying a property for BTL it is perfectly in order to buy a property with a tenant in situ and an AST in place

I should have said if the buyer wants to live in the property.

We looked at a property once, it was an inheritance so was empty but carpeted with a lived-in feel. When we went back for a second viewing there were tenants in situ, friends of the owner who were having building work done on their own place so had rented it for a few weeks. No issue with access etc. The first time the place looked good, the second time the place looked shabby. The only reason was that the tenants, although keeping the place clean and tidy, obviously made no effect to create the right impression for potential buyers. No reason why they should, but I would say showing a house with tenants will not show it at its best.

clutton_2

purchasers buy with "vacant possession" - ie empty - or with tenants living in situ with a legal AST (in england)