Anyone property /legal people about please ? I am at the end of my tether

[zenasfuck]

I'll try and keep this short
We accepted an offer on a house we were selling, house had tenants in

We accepted an offer of 20k under asking price due to buyer being chain free, cash buyer

Buyer planned on keeping tenants in, great !
One week before Xmas buyer tells us he needs to move in himself and the tenants need to go, we give tenants appropriate notice, due to run out 19th this month

Buyer has been gassing our tenants , turning up at property telling them they need to leave

Tenants have moved out early, buyer advised of this and he asks can he come in and decorate - we say no not until sale is final/exchange

Our solicitor says exchange can go ahead Wednesday /Thursday this week

Except it turns out the buyer hasn't sold his property yet so can't complete

Now we have an empty property for which we have to pay a mortgage on and council tax for god knows how long

Is there anything I can do about this ? Do I have a legal claim to take any action ?

It doesn't work like that though - the acceptance of the offer was not conditional on anything it would seem as the OP thought he was taking it subject to the tenancy. When he changed his mind, that was the point for renegotiation (if that was the OP's intention). Dont want to derail the thread as it doesn't help the OP but obviously the buyer wanting vacant possession wouldnt exchange with a tenant in situ knowing how problematic that can be.

he isn't a cash buyer/chain free. He's buying from Proceeds of Sale, meaning his purchase of your place is dependant on the sale of his.

Has he not even got an offer in?

Have you exchanged with him OP? I’m not clear on that.

The exchange would be conditional on notice being given! I would never have allowed a client to give notice to a tenant prior to exchange and I handled this situation often. I don't think it's derailing I think it's the point - her solicitor was out of line.

Your solicitor acting for you as seller would not be privy to your buyers evidence of funding. Checking source of funds is their job and not your lawyers. The most your lawyers can ask is if their client needs a mortgage, if they have a related transaction and if the deposit is with them. The buyers solicitor would as part of their transaction chack where the funds ard coming from but often if the buyer does not up front advise this becomes apparent later during the course of the transaction. And your agents should have asked your buyer for evidence of funds to satisfy their AML checks when the buyer offered.You have not exchanged so have no contract with your buyer- you cannot make them buy and have no claim against them. You also presumably do not have a contract with your agent until you have exchanged depending on the terms of your contract. It is often a catch 22 for sellers with tenants- vacant possession requires notice served befor exchange and possibly an empty property with no safety of an agreed contract.

Mykingdomforbrie and what if notice was given by your seller in those circumstances and the tenant then refused to vacate? Completion date agreed no empty property and your seller at fault and liable for interest and possible recission beford the court is able to order possession?

My Mum is downsizing at the mo and sold hers to a cash buyer. Before they would even put SOLD STC on the Rightmove listing, the cash buyer had to come in to the Agents and prove she had the funds.
Also, despite my Mum buying & selling via same agent, she still had to provide proof to the Solicitor for the new house that the cash buyer's proof of funds had been received.

I think you have a decent case here for a legal battle...

would never have allowed a client to give notice to a tenant prior to exchange

That’s interesting, because most solicitors won’t agree to exchange until haven’t possession has been obtained...

Yes I don't understand why Brie is repeatedly stating that the tenants should only be given notice once you've exchanged. There's a serious risk the seller won't be able to complete if the place isn't vacant at exchange.

How many more people are going to repeat the same point about the definition of a cash buyer? It must have been said 20 times by now! I think the op gets it!

I agree with PP who said to put the price back up. Hopefully you can secure another sale at a higher price and cover your losses.
I’m sorry this must be horribly stressful

I guess I haven't done enough resi! Seems we have different experiences, trying to be helpful that's all. Didn't realise I was 'repeatedly saying' - thought I was having a conversation.

I think this thread proves why I would act as I have but there we go.

It makes little difference if/when you give tenants notice to quit, they do not have to leave on receipt of a S21. They are legally entitled to wait until the bailiffs arrive, after months of court procedures. Anyone buying a tenanted house would be wise to know this and how to deal with their tenants once they have purchased. Missing a step in the legalities can be very costly. Sellers need to decide how they will take a price hit, house price or rent, then proceed with the tenants accordingly.

OP You were bloody lucky that your tenants went quietly, they could have added to your current misery. Put your house back on the market for the full asking price and have a proper conversation with your solicitor. To me it sounds as thpugh you only half listened last time!

Put it back on the market now.

Can you AirBnB it for the short term?

Bollock your solicitor and agent for not doing the right checks.

Don’t aleays blame the solicitors. We deal with the legal purchase- we aren’t around to check buyer’s proceedability- that’s the job of the agents. And buyers do have a tendency to change their minds about funding during the transaction.

I would’ve advised you not to serve notice on tenants until exchange with a longstop completion to avoid this. The risk with this is that the tenants don’t leave of course so this is depenedent on you having reliable tenants.

Put the property back on the market. If the buyer really wants it he won’t want to risk losing it so will find a way.

Poor tenants stuck in the middle of it all.

Well yes @Loungewearfan but I'm more concerned about my extensive out of pocket costs now

Yes...that is obvious

@wowfudge "There's a serious risk the seller won't be able to complete if the place isn't vacant at exchange."

that was my understanding too.

Actually I meant completion - if you can't complete with vacant possession then the buyers unwittingly become landlords and can't move in. My understanding is that mortgage providers - who the buyer's solicitor will also be working for - won't allow exchange without vacant possession because that's the point at which you are committed to the purchase.

@wowfudge

that's kind of the same though isn't it - I mean there must be a big risk for exchange with tenants in situ, because is the landlord still responsible or is the new owner responsible?

OP I hope you can get this sorted but if you can't then I guess these are all questions to put to the next solicitor. I have a feeling this one has let you down I'm afraid.