Renters won't leave the house I'm buying, they 'can't find anywhere suitable'.

[wirldsgonemad]

But thanks to covid, a section 21 means people have 6 months instead of 2 months to vacate and this means I get charged £4,250 extra in stamp duty, plus mortgage application fees and survey of £1k plus my life being on hold for 6 months.

They are fully aware of my position, they know I'm a single mother of 2 small children and they don't give two hoots that they're actions are costing me £5-6k and months of waiting.

God give me strength to get through these next few months without attacking them on a regular basis.

What would you do in my situation???

It’s not really about housing or tenants or anything.

There is a contract. The vendor entered into a contract with the tenants. This is a legal agreement, in the same way as commercial contracts are legal agreements. If the vendor or OP want to end this contract, the other party (the tenants) need to agree and might reasonably expect compensation for their willingness to be flexible.

The rest: the moral judgements on tenants, the being a single mother etc is just flannel. A contract was signed and needs to be respected.

Tenancy law protects tenants. If landlords resent those protections and try to find ways around them they should not be landlording

I sure don’t feel protected, all these laws for my ‘protection’ just make things more difficult because landlords are becoming very picky and asking the moon to protect themselves.

@UsedUpUsername

Tenancy law protects tenants. If landlords resent those protections and try to find ways around them they should not be landlording

I sure don’t feel protected, all these laws for my ‘protection’ just make things more difficult because landlords are becoming very picky and asking the moon to protect themselves.

I have responded to you a few posts back. Your perspective is not the norm.

I have responded to you a few posts back. Your perspective is not the norm

My personal situation is unique (not a wealthy immigrant by any means but go ahead and assume that 🙄) but it’s absolutely true that moving-in costs are increased for the average renter because the landlord doesn’t want to be burned by a bad tenant. Hurts everyone but the bad tenant, really.

People rent for a variety of reasons that aren’t always about income level. This ‘poor them’ attitude is really patronizing.

@WombatChocolate

I can't see that this is actually what happened. Either this is a reverse, or parts of the story are missing. An estate agent, buyer and sellers soliciors, and a buyer would not all sit quietly for months without mentioning that notice needed to be given to the tenants. Everyone knows you cannot exchange with tenants still in the property and that Covid means the notice periods are longer and so this stuff is even more important now than usual. Already, it was an unusual situation that most estate agents and solicitors would advise against - a property being marketed and a sale agreed whilst tenanted. At the very least, notice would be given immediately, especially given they had only just moved in and would be unlikely to want to go early.

Op, what have the solicitors and estate agents said when you have approached them about the fact formal notice hadn't been given?

The standard paperwork for mortgages and to create a memorandum of also and to do the initial solicitor start-up all involves disclosing if there are tenants, and if notice has been given. It couldn't just be passed by without anyone expressing concern that there were tenants still there and no notice had been served. It just couldn't.

Did the Landlord actually market the property Op and did you see it via an estate agent or was it a property you loved and you simply approached him for a sale? You haven't mentioned estate agents.

You certainly won't be getting the stamp duty holiday and unless you can get an enpxtension on the mortgage offer, that money is gone. It isn't down to the ten ants who had just m odd in and not been served notice. You now say they have been served notice 2 weeks ago and are saying they can't find anywhere....well it's not bloody surprising is it, in the space of 2 weeks and they were under no obligation to even consider lookimg elsewhere before notice was given and before they got close to the end of the notice period. I cannot see any gripe against the tenants at all.

You seem determined to hold on. Well you can. You might have to pay another mortgage fee (or you might get an extension but as the property market is likely to decline after the end of stamp duty holiday, they might want another valuation done or not be prepared to extend becaue of all the uncertainty) and you won't get the stamp duty holiday and you might find you can't exchange in 6 months becaue eviction proceedings are needed.....or that actually this seller isn't really interested in selling at all but is just pissing about because he needs to appease a mortgage lender he is in arrears to and who is threatening repossession if he doesn't sell first.....but doesn't really want to.

You can hold in and keep spending more money and have an indefinite end if any end in sight. Will you stick with your solicitor given their lack of advice is what has got you in the mess, according to your story.

A S21 cannot be served until 4 months into the tenancy. If tenants moved in to the property in August, earliest for serving notice would be December. That's why no one was surprised.

Six month ASTs are illogical at the moment from the point of eviction because it's technically 10 months due to extended S21 notice period

You're simplifying and showing you don't understand the issues at all.

I am not sure your analysis of the housing market is as correct as you think it is.

My own impression, and note I am not claiming universal knowledge, is that successive governments are aiming for the German model. The end of small landlords and an increase in big corporate landlords, funded by pension funds and other institutional investors. It will mean more professionalisation of the sector, but will almost certainly be more expensive and, quite possibly, there will be less housing opportunities for those on society’s margin.

(There is a new ‘build to rent’ block down the road from a rental property I own. Rents are double, and tenants seem to be found via corporate employers. My flat is nicer and I hope I am a better more responsive landlord.)

Moving in costs AREN'T increased though, you're wrong. They're capped as to what they can ask for as a deposit and fees are banned now. So if anybody is asking you for more than they're legally allowed, then they're outside of the law and should probably be avoided as a landlord.

DH has been in the position of the landlord and its tricky. He got a job elsewhere, rented a flat in the new city and put his house on the market. But the market was very depressed and it didn't sell. He couldn't afford to drop the price any further as it was already in negative equity so he took it off the market and rented it out. Two years later the market had recovered so he spoke to the tenants, gave them the correct notice and put the house back on the market. It sold almost immediately but the buyer understood they had to wait until the end of the tenancy, and that no exchange was possible until then. The tenants moved out and dh exchanged nd completed the next day. It honestly hadn't occurred to us that the tenants might refuse to move out.

Maybe he was very naive but dh was trying to do his best to pay his mortgage plus pay his rent, and be a good landlord (having never anticipated being one), a good tenant himself, and sell his house which was a financial drain (the rent he got didn't cover the mortgage payments).

I wouldn't offer on a house that had tenants in situ but dh and I were very glad someone did when dh was in the position of landlord/vendor.

This thread has desended into anti tenants.

This doesn't help the OP - who should work out what the delay is costing her and reduce her offer by that amount, stating its due to the delay as you didn't view the property with sitting tenants.

The vendor took a risk by renting out an already empty property that they'd had an offer on. The risk has backed fired. They could refuse the reduced amount and put it back on the market, but I believe tenants don't have to give access for viewings - or can insist on set times with 24 hour notice. They could make it very hard to sell to anyone else. And the booming local market will slow down with the end of the stamp duty holiday.

@UsedUpUsername

I have responded to you a few posts back. Your perspective is not the norm

My personal situation is unique (not a wealthy immigrant by any means but go ahead and assume that 🙄) but it’s absolutely true that moving-in costs are increased for the average renter because the landlord doesn’t want to be burned by a bad tenant. Hurts everyone but the bad tenant, really.

People rent for a variety of reasons that aren’t always about income level. This ‘poor them’ attitude is really patronizing.

It is against the law to take more than 5 weeks rent as deposit or to charge fees to the tenant to process a tenancy. What extra costs are you referring to?

@Needmoresleep

You're simplifying and showing you don't understand the issues at all.

I am not sure your analysis of the housing market is as correct as you think it is.

My own impression, and note I am not claiming universal knowledge, is that successive governments are aiming for the German model. The end of small landlords and an increase in big corporate landlords, funded by pension funds and other institutional investors. It will mean more professionalisation of the sector, but will almost certainly be more expensive and, quite possibly, there will be less housing opportunities for those on society’s margin.

(There is a new ‘build to rent’ block down the road from a rental property I own. Rents are double, and tenants seem to be found via corporate employers. My flat is nicer and I hope I am a better more responsive landlord.)

Completely agree with that. Tax changes and new legislation introduced in the last five years have made it increasingly more challenging for small LLs to stay in the sector.

I don't think upping the professionalism of the PRS is a bad thing at all but it is misguided to believe that small LLs can't be professional. Accidental LLs who don't fully understand what they're getting into are not ideal.

Corporate LL giants will not be a force for good either.

When a tenant refuses to leave when the tenancy is ended it may be legal but it isn't fair. The law is an ass in this case. And I think they are squatting. They shouldn't be there.

Op, your situation is a shitty one to be in. Blame the seller though, not the tenants.

I think you made the mistake of thing a 6 month FTC means that is the maximum length of the tenancy. It's not, it's the minimum. At the end of a FTC the tenancy automatically converts to a rolling tenancy, unless a further ftc is signed. Theres no expectation or obligation (legally or morally) for a tenant to move out at the end of a FTC. They will only do this if they personally want the tenancy to end. It's much more usual for tenants to stay on, I'd say its extremely unusual for them to move out unless they need to change location, or they hate living there. They aren't doing anything wrong, or unexpected.

I'd be furious at the lack of S21 in December. You are now looking realistically for at least 12 months to force an eviction through the courts. At least. If the tenants are genuinely looking for somewhere else, maybe you'll get lucky. The seller should be compensating you for losses and inconvenience. It's a situation entirely of their making, but you should also have done better research on what happens at the end of a FTC at the moment.

It is against the law to take more than 5 weeks rent as deposit or to charge fees to the tenant to process a tenancy. What extra costs are you referring to?

I say two months deposit but an advance plus one month deposit. A lot to pay at once I’m sure you’ll agree.

Once I paid three months up front plus a deposit (in London) and this apparently isn’t unusual at all especially if you are new and not going to pass the usual checks.

This artificially makes moving more costly than it otherwise should be.

@Radio4Rocks

When a tenant refuses to leave when the tenancy is ended it may be legal but it isn't fair. The law is an ass in this case. And I think they are squatting. They shouldn't be there.

Why shouldn't they be there? They still have a valid tenancy.

@UsedUpUsername

It is against the law to take more than 5 weeks rent as deposit or to charge fees to the tenant to process a tenancy. What extra costs are you referring to?

I say two months deposit but an advance plus one month deposit. A lot to pay at once I’m sure you’ll agree.

Once I paid three months up front plus a deposit (in London) and this apparently isn’t unusual at all especially if you are new and not going to pass the usual checks.

This artificially makes moving more costly than it otherwise should be.

It's not an advance. It's your first month's rent.

@Radio4Rocks

When a tenant refuses to leave when the tenancy is ended it may be legal but it isn't fair. The law is an ass in this case. And I think they are squatting. They shouldn't be there.

You are wrong though. A tenancy doesn't end at the end of a fixed term. It ends when the tenant or the court ends it. That is both the letter and the spirit of the law.

@Radio4Rocks

When a tenant refuses to leave when the tenancy is ended it may be legal but it isn't fair. The law is an ass in this case. And I think they are squatting. They shouldn't be there.

The tenancy didn't end. A 6 month FTC just means that's the minimum length, it then becomes a rolling tenancy. This is perfectly normal and how the vast majority of tenancies start and then continue. Calling them squatters is ridiculous.

If the LL was keen to maintain cash flow he should have issued a short term let. These are way more restrictive than an AST and he may not have found any takers, but it's a safer option for the LL when selling a property.

@MargosKaftan

This thread has desended into anti tenants.

This doesn't help the OP - who should work out what the delay is costing her and reduce her offer by that amount, stating its due to the delay as you didn't view the property with sitting tenants.

The vendor took a risk by renting out an already empty property that they'd had an offer on. The risk has backed fired. They could refuse the reduced amount and put it back on the market, but I believe tenants don't have to give access for viewings - or can insist on set times with 24 hour notice. They could make it very hard to sell to anyone else. And the booming local market will slow down with the end of the stamp duty holiday.

Thank you, I agree this thread is a bit anti tenant which I really didn't want as I rented for about 10 years

If you can’t afford to buy your own you rent someone else’s. How dare they deny the owner the chance to sell?

People rent for all sorts of reasons, @CoffeeRunner, e.g. if they are working in the area for a few months.

They aren't denying any chance to sell. The vendor would have had no problem if he hadn't taken the mad decision to bring tenants in just after putting the property on the market. He can still sell with tenants in place, albeit not at the same price and not to people dependent on a mortgage. And he can still sell when the tenancy comes to an end.

What he can't do is break the law. It's hardly a terrible imposition, is it?

Tbf to the renters they would have signed a tenancy agreement for 6 months when signing up to the property, why should they vacate early? They are also being messed around. I work in housing and if they genuinely have nowhere to go then they would have had to seek advise from the local council who will always advise them to stay in the property until they are evicted by bailiffs. If they leave before then the council will see them as intentionally homeless and won't help them so they are in a very tricky situation. As a housing adviser working for my LA I would be advising them to do exactly what they are doing. It is a pain for you but ultimately this is the sellers fault not the tenants!

@Radio4Rocks

When a tenant refuses to leave when the tenancy is ended it may be legal but it isn't fair. The law is an ass in this case. And I think they are squatting. They shouldn't be there.

The tenancy doesn't end until the notice expires. In the same way a job doesn't end until the end of the notice period in the contract.

And that's key: the contract. It's a legal agreement which sets out the terms and that notice needs to be given to end the contract. If the landlord had really wanted them out, he should've given notice when he was first entitled to rather than waiting two months.

The requirement was six months notice when the tenancy started, so the landlord can't claim he's hard done to by now having to comply with this requirement. (And neither can the OP, frankly.)

@UsedUpUsername

It is against the law to take more than 5 weeks rent as deposit or to charge fees to the tenant to process a tenancy. What extra costs are you referring to?

I say two months deposit but an advance plus one month deposit. A lot to pay at once I’m sure you’ll agree.

Once I paid three months up front plus a deposit (in London) and this apparently isn’t unusual at all especially if you are new and not going to pass the usual checks.

This artificially makes moving more costly than it otherwise should be.

One month deposit plus your first month rent is a totally normal expense and is LESS than tenants used to be charged until a few years ago. Of course it's challenging to find several months up front but that is rare and it's not an additional expense over the period of the tenancy.

Thank you, I agree this thread is a bit anti tenant which I really didn't want as I rented for about 10 years

God give me strength to get through these next few months without attacking them on a regular basis

You set the tone