Thinking of buying a cheap house but it has a "Tenant in situ" ... implications?

hearts

clutton wrote: »

""then the process could take up to a year."" - that is simply not true. the length of time after issuing a Section 21 to the day the tenants leave is dependent on how busy the courts are - it can be a few weeks, but at most 2/3 months - providing the paper work is completed accurately

It depends on the type of tenancy. You could be looking at a long long time if the agreement is not correct. Which seems likely in this case.
Reading between the lines it seems likely the present owner is not able to get them out quickly so is trying to shift it with them insitu.

clutton_2

hearts - you are making an awful lot of assumptions

hearts

clutton wrote: »

hearts - you are making an awful lot of assumptions

Yes I am, but better to think this way BEFORE you buy. ;-) Im assuming the OP will check out the situation fully before committing.

jpe20

FOR THE RECORD : I have already said that "to kick out" was a rather harsh choice of words. I have been a tenant while a student and was "kicked out" legally even though I wanted to stay another year. It is rather harsh but at the end of the day if you rent the house is not yours. I am currently in rented accommodation myself at the moment so I partly understand the situation of being a tenant.

I am simply just trying to find out what the situation buying a house with a tenant in situ only because so much money has been knocked off. I personally cannot see the problem with asking a tenant to leave at the end of the agreed period provided I serve all the correct legal notices. There is plenty of rented accommodation available in the area so it is not as if I am tossing people out on the street. I would even help them find alternative premises as I do have a fair bit of spare time at the moment. I am aware that some people can be difficult because they have falsely developed a sense of "ownership" and are bitter that they are being asked to leave and can hang around a few months once eviction proceedings have commenced.

Reading between the lines a few situations spring to mind....
(1) the landlord has a few buy-to-lets and needs to cut some of his/her losses and "cut and run"
(2) The tenant has been a problem for the landlord and the landlord has simply given up (could be threats or damages done to the property).

To me the tenant must have known about the possibility for being removed as the property has been on the market for at least three months anyway.

The property was overvalued initially anyway by 10K-15K so the real saving is only around 20K so in the end probably not worth the hassle. At the end of the day I am not a tw*t like that Nicholas Van Hooganstraten (on arrest in Zimbarbwe(sp?) ha ha). I could end up spending hundreds in legal fees along with putting right thousands of pounds of damage.

Currently I will probably not bother as I am not brilliant at dealing with hassle.

Enough said for now (probably in more trouble now!!)

Jools

neverdespairgirl

jpe20 wrote: »

FOR THE RECORD : I have already said that "to kick out" was a rather harsh choice of words. I have been a tenant while a student and was "kicked out" legally even though I wanted to stay another year. It is rather harsh but at the end of the day if you rent the house is not yours.

The thing to bear in mind is that while the tenant is within the terms of the AST, it is the tenant's home.

If you have a mortgage, the house isn't "yours" anyway (-:

Pobby

Really nice ain`t it.Sure the Op has apologised for using the term``kicked out`` but whatever term is used it all amounts up to the same.What a wonderful place it is for UKs private renters,AST agreements.Frankly I find it down right appalling that things have come to this.

We live in a country where for many there is NO security.Heck,I have been one of the foryunate ones that bought a long time ago.I had relatives,Aunts and Uncles who lived a lifetime in rented properties as did many at that time.Now we have a situation where some poor folk have nothing,not even security of tenure.Op think what you are doing,nah don`t bother because if you don`t do it someone else will!

HugoSP

macaque wrote: »

Some home owners get into financial difficulty and end up losing the house. These are mostly sad and regrettable outcomes. If this happens to you however, I hope you will let us know so that I can be there with my deck chair and flask of coffee to enjoy the proceedings.

My advice to the OP would be to remember that questions like his will bring out the worst in people whos only purpose in life is to look for posters to sling mud at to brighten up an otherwise pointless existance.

As in real life, forums are frequented by plonkers - and here is your proof.

HugoSP

Pobby wrote: »

Really nice ain`t it.Sure the Op has apologised for using the term``kicked out`` but whatever term is used it all amounts up to the same.What a wonderful place it is for UKs private renters,AST agreements.Frankly I find it down right appalling that things have come to this.

We live in a country where for many there is NO security.Heck,I have been one of the foryunate ones that bought a long time ago.I had relatives,Aunts and Uncles who lived a lifetime in rented properties as did many at that time.Now we have a situation where some poor folk have nothing,not even security of tenure.Op think what you are doing,nah don`t bother because if you don`t do it someone else will!

!!!!!!!:mad:

The house is on the market, the OP wants to do things by the book.

He should make no apologies for his proposed course of action. He has already apologies for using a phrase that some people find untoward.

As soon as our narrow minded friends understand that life throws problems at us from time to time, and it's how we deal with them that has the potential to make our lives easier, then they will start to sound intelligent!

Until that moment the rest of us are condemned to reading this load of crap that really says more about the posters in question than the OP.

Pobby

Hmm hugo,I have no idea what your situation is.I have had various problems in life thrown at me as have everyone.All I am stating is I would hate to have hanging over me the thought that I might have to move every 6 or 12 months .

To me some degree of security in life is important.Living in a private rental when you could be kicked out within the space of a year does not,in my mind,foster a decent way to live.

So if that is crap ,fair play.

jpe20

Its me again.....

I do feel some sympathy with the tenants situation though it is more to do with the system which favours the landlord. Also I personally have been dismayed by the ridiculous house prices that now exist. I am also annoyed by the inbalances caused by the buy-to-let market which forces the rich to get richer and the poor to stay poor (ie stay in rented acc.).

Personally I think I am the smallest of fish a fry maybe as I am a struggling FTB who is seeking a larger place than my flat as I am getting a guide dog next month. So are my needs greater than the tenants???? Germany has rental system which deserves some inspection as it offers the tenant more secure rights ie longer leases and more flexibility to what you can do in your home (ie have pets and do alterations). Personally I think they should scrap stamp duty and replace it with a landlord/2nd home type tax which tapers up to say 15% if you are the owner of a 100 or more properties as to not discourage landlord businesses with exemptions for councils and housing associations etc.

Basically the housing market is completely screwed because we have too many people and not enough homes. Until we resolve this problem ie change birth rate, let fewer people in or build more homes then this problem will remain.

At the end of the day it is not nice to take advantage of someone elses' misfortune (ie get a repossession) but I feel justified in that I am buying it as my first secure home rather than being a property magnate getting hold of another cheap property (this is probably what will happen).

At the end of the day this is a rich country with a housing problem so there will alway be people who cannot afford to buy and have to rent. There will be also a middle group who will sacrifice more to own rather than rent so for a certain income group the phrase "you get what you pay for" applies. Then there are the well off which will always keep their thumb on the poorer lot.

Other countries cannot understand the British obsession with wanting to "own" but this is perhaps understandable when we compare a tenant here to that of one abroad in Europe (ie Holland and Germany). Maybe a system which favoured the tenant more and some thoughtful tax changes would have stopped the silly house price bubble fueled by buy-to-let investors. (Bubble also caused by lack of housing and strict planning).

Whooa .... too complex of an issue for my small mind ... I will just now focus on another beer and think about some houses for myself.

Night night folks

Jools