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???

@Puzzledandpissedoff

I know it's a bit beside the point, but can we please stop talking about offering tenants cash to leave?

This isn't these particular tenants' fault either, but surely people can see where this would lead, with the minority of horrible types with their hands out demanding "what you gonna give me then??"

I'd have thought there were enough overall problems in the housing market already, without creating another

I don't see how giving cash to the tenants helps in any way at all anyway?
If we were paid to leave it wouldn't help us to find a suitable home at all! It would help us move quicker IF we already found somewhere and we couldn't move because we didn't have moving costs...that's the only way I can see it being of benefit really. It doesn't help in any other way because if you take on a house with too high rent because of the money been given then the renter will just be in a mess very quickly living somewhere they can't actually afford to live in (but that's unlikely anyway to even get a property that can't afford because they work all that out when you go to rent a property and they will see they can't actually afford it and they would fail the checks they do anyway!)
So giving money to the tenants as an indent I've to move would only work if they actually do have somewhere to live but are being PITA's and just causing trouble....which isn't the case here. In a normal situation the money wouldn't help them find a house any quicker at all

I haven't read the full thread, but has anyone pointed out yet that the end of the Section 21 is just the first date the landlord can apply to court for possession?

Many times!

I'm sure there comes a point when the LL can evict them

Yes, but most people will have left by then. The % of tenants who don't leave until the bailiffs arrive will be small!

A LL has 4 months from the end of the S21 notice period to apply through the courts for possession. If they dont, the S21 process starts again. The S21, as someone else said, is only a notice of intention to seek possession. A tenant can leave before that, either because they find somewhere or don't want it to get to court but they don't legally have to.

There will be occasions when people take the piss - there will be piss taking tenants just as there are piss taking LLs. But most people will have found somewhere by the end of the notice period or have a tenancy start date within weeks of the end of the notice period. When, so long as they continue to pay rent for the period they will be there, they can stay.

The LL in this particular scenario is one of the piss taking LLs both because he put tenants into a property that the OP put an offer in on after viewing it vacant, suggesting he just wanted to make a few quid in the time it took to complete the selling process, and because he didn't serve the S21 notice after 4 months when he should have done and left it until the 6 months had passed. Again because he hoped to circumvent the law. Thus delaying everyone.

Thee are posters arguing on here in favour of a LL who has completed disregarded the law against the tenants who are complying with it. And that's just ridiculous.

I think that if a LL and tenant agree on a 6 month tenancy and the LL wants the house back at the end of 6 months then he should be able to have it. Not whenever the LL says, which would be unfair, but at the end of the contract. I don't see why so many people are getting enervated about it.

Because you're missing the bit that it's an initial 6 months contract that converts automatically to a rolling contract and the tenants' protections are put in place precisely because what you are suggesting is unfair and offers zero security.

Put it this way, into out a 2 year contract with my energy supplier. When my fixed term gas/electricity fixed term contract ended I just rolled onto the standard plan. It's not immoral to just automatically go onto the standard pricing plan. Because that is how the contracts work and everyone understands that. On both sides.

If someone doesnt understand that, they have no place being a LL. No one forced them to do it.

Jeez, there are some awful attitudes to renting and tenants here.

Would you like a return to this:

You agree to rent a house for 6 months then you move out if the LL wants it back. The law that allows you to stay beyond the original contract is what I think is unfair. The LL shouldn't have to go to court to get back what he owns. That's what I think is crazy.

But you don’t understand the contract Radio.

It’s NOT a six-month-only contract. An AST (Assured Shorthold Tenancy) means that the rental contract is assured for a minimum of 6 months. Both LL and tenant have an assurance to each other for 6 months - the LL to provide the property in return for guaranteed rent for 6 months. Then, after 6 months, the terms of the tenancy change - the tenancy does not end unless the LL has served the correct notice.

You think you sign for 6 months and then that’s it. It’s not. You’re working on a false assumption.

The law isn’t an ass in this case.

I haven't read the full thread, but has anyone pointed out yet that the end of the Section 21 is just the first date the landlord can apply to court for possession?

How could you possibly think in a thread this long that they haven't?

Radio, the Landlord can give notice....it isn’t that a tenant can stay indefinitely.

Normally (non Covid) if a tenant has a 6 month agreement, the Landlord can give notice at the 4 month point and the tenant is due to move out 2 months later. Most will. If they don’t, eviction proceedings can start.

But think about what you’re suggesting with the 6 month let. What about if the tenant wants to stay on, what if the Landlord wants them to stay on (often the case) - at what point does that become clear, without notice periods? At what point does it become clear without notice periods that the Landlord needs the property back or the tenant isn’t renewing? It cannot be on the day the 6 month period is up...that doesn’t work for anyone. Notice periods are vital.

At the moment, the 6 month notice period is long and tricky ....but we are in uncial circumstances where moving to a new rental is difficult because of Covid. This won’t last forever.

A tenant is entitled to be in the property until the end of the notice period. What do you suggest is the alternative to starting eviction proceedings after that point passes? They can’t be started before, because clearly the tenant hasn’t done anything wrong by being there ar is legally allowed to be there. Only after that point can those proceedings begin. What is your issue with this? Clearly they will take some time. What is the alternative.

I think perhaps you just need to think through the timescales in terms of giving notice and people knowing what the intentions of each other (landlord and tenant ) are rather than saying that a 6 month tenancy means the tenant must be gone by the 6 month point. Can you get your head round the idea that the tenant is supposed to go by the end of the notice period...in some ways it’s a similar idea to the one you’re thinking of. Usually that notice period is 2 months (which lets face it is only 8 weeks to uproot yourself and find alternative accommodation...not easy for a family) after at least 4 months of a 6 month tenancy have passed, but currently 6 months. The key is the Landlord gives notice as soon as they can and realise they need the property back. Landlord delays in giving formal notice are often what drags it all out. This has been the case here for Op. Despite wanting to sell, despite knowing exchange cannot happen with a tenant, the seller only gave notice in February, despite accepting an offer in September. Legally the tenant can be there until August. If the section 21 had been issued in September, they would have still had the right to be there until March. The timescales never worked really for benefitting from the stamp duty holiday and wee always far too risky for the Op. she should have known that and done her due diligence and checked these things out.

The fact Op seems unbothered about the roles of the solicitor and estate agent in all this, for not highlighting to her the problems the seller was creating and in, strikes me as astonishing. It’s why I think the post is a reverse or far from complete in describing events.

but at the end of the contract

The contract doesnt end at that point. Its doesnt end until the tenant ends it or the court orders it on the LL's behalf. As has been stated before.

I'm speaking more generally than about OP's situation. I know of several people who rent out their parents' homes to help pay for nursing home care but may have to sell the house outright if the fees get much steeper. To say a tenant can just stay in those circumstances is unfair. It may be the law but the law is an ass in this case

As long as the LLs give the correct notice period under law, they will in the main be able to get possession of the house on the date the contract ends/the notice period ends. Some tenants may not move out as easily, but most will. Then the LL can sell.

It was very naive to think that letting a property in August would mean tenants out in six months. Not just for the reasons already mentioned, but that would mean if the LL did serve the s21 it would have been in December - that would be a shitty thing to do anyway, but Dec/Jan are extremely quiet periods in the rental market normally. Its entirely feasible that they couldn't find anywhere suitable to rent. That's before you add in a pandemic, during which the cost of renting has increased and properties are in short supply. If people are wfh then they may not be able to move if they can't do their job at their new house (would your boss let you have 4 weeks off while waiting for openreach for example?) Add in the EA being more cautious about lettings, because of many people's financial circumstances being in a weaker position so less likely to pass credit checks, it is an extremely difficult time to find a new home.

From the LLs actions id be wary of the property, if they've been having their cake and eating it when it comes to the lettings, I'd be wondering what other corners they've cut over the years.

@wombat1a

I think people are being a bit harsh, it sounds to me OP is not asking the tenants to leave early. Their rental is up this month and their contract is over so they should be leaving in the next few days so OP can complete and move in. However they don't want to vacate so a S.21 has had to be issued because they are now overstaying their tenancy.

OP knew everything when she started on this journey last year but had the expectation that after thir 6mnts was up the tenants would leave .. but they are not....

OP sounds like you have done nothing wrong, I would try to keep all goodwill with the tenants cos the last thing you need now is badwill leading to them trashing the place.

Good luck

The tenants haven't done anything wrong either. Just because people don't understand the actual law of renting isn't an excuse to blame the wrong person. The tenants were basically ASKED to leave (the date on section 21- only just given 2wks ago so they have 6mnths to look) it's not a legal requirement it's a request. Then if they don't leave for whatever reason..usually because they haven't found anywhere to move to...the LL needs to go to the courts to get a LEGAL date they have to leave by. Unfortunately it's a long process because the courts are often backed up and are especially so atm. What people need to remember is that the end of a fixed term tenancy isn't the sign of a tenancy coming to its end, it's just the end of the fixed term. Most will then go into a monthly rolling contract unless notice is then given (it wasn't in this case) or some might negotiate another fixed term but LL doesn't have to do this and most don't bother and just stick with the rolling tenancy. So basically these tenants have only two weeks ago been ASKED to leave. They have done nothing wrong as long as they are paying the rent. Even if they stay at the end of the 6mnths they aren't legally doing anything wrong because they have only been ASKED to leave and until the court tells them they HAVE to now leave they can stay put LEGALLY.
It doesn't come down to opinion of what's right or anything, just like other legal matters it doesn't always make sense to everyone (although I don't see why it's so conductor some) but it's just the way it legally is.

I’m just super curious how this length of delay isn’t affecting OP’s chain. Assuming she is already a home owner, not a renter herself. No chain could survive a potential delay of at least 6 months on top of time already taken, surely?

@PearlescentIridescent

This is so horrible, those poor tenants. I hope they stay put as long as possible. How dare people rent out a house knowing full well they will sell it shortly. Do people not realise especially during a pandemic how precarious renting can feel?

Speaking as a tenant that this is happening to right now I can say that yes it is horrible! Believe me if we could move out next week we would! It's horrible living in a house you are no longer wanted in and that you now know will not be long term. We moved in being told that we would be allowed to live here for years....we go notice exactly at the 6mnth fixed term point. Out of the blue, we've had no problems, no rent arrears, no complaints, no problems at all and our hearts just sank. It was so horrible, we spent so much moving and don't even know how we will afford to do it again when the time comes. I now can't wait to move because it just feel like you are in a kind of limbo, you know you will be moving but don't know where or when or anything it's really not nice. But it is what it is and we will cope as we always have but unfortunately for the LL for the time being they just have to wait like we have to until we get somewhere and then we will be out ASAP. All we can do right now to help the LL is make sure we keep up with the rent payments and look after the house.

I think the vendor is trying it on.
If he had rented the house then either you shouldn’t have been shown it till near the end of the lease or if you had offered on the house then the tenants shouldn’t have been able to move in.

If the timeline was you viewed the house then the tenants moved in and then you offered. Your offer should never have been accepted as the house has been rented.

The fault lies squarely with the vendor and them trying to get every last bit of money from the property.

I would offer £10,000 less and be prepared to walk away.
I know it is hard especially if you love the place but you have to be a bit hard nosed when it comes to negotiations otherwise as you are finding, you get walked all over and it ends up costing you more.

Giving money to the tenants as an incentive to move would only work if they actually do have somewhere to live but are being PITA's and just causing trouble

As you rightly said, these particular tenants aren't causing problems - at least not yet - but you're correct that it wouldn't help

As said it's the precedent that worries me, and the possible abuse among the minority of pisstaking tenants doesn't bear thinking about

@NoSquirrels

You agree to rent a house for 6 months then you move out if the LL wants it back. The law that allows you to stay beyond the original contract is what I think is unfair. The LL shouldn't have to go to court to get back what he owns. That's what I think is crazy.

But you don’t understand the contract Radio.

It’s NOT a six-month-only contract. An AST (Assured Shorthold Tenancy) means that the rental contract is assured for a minimum of 6 months. Both LL and tenant have an assurance to each other for 6 months - the LL to provide the property in return for guaranteed rent for 6 months. Then, after 6 months, the terms of the tenancy change - the tenancy does not end unless the LL has served the correct notice.

You think you sign for 6 months and then that’s it. It’s not. You’re working on a false assumption.

The law isn’t an ass in this case.

But what I'm saying is that it shouldn't be a minimum. It should be 6 months full stop. It can be extended on a 6 monthly basis if both sides agree but six months should bring the contract to an end. Tenants can move out f they want and LL can tell them to if he wants. That's what I think the law should be changed to. In the current situation the law is an ass.

Presumably the vendor, once they'd accepted new tenants, would have had the option of selling with sitting tenants - and didn't want to do so as that would reduce the price he could sell for.
If the vendor was genuinely keen to sell they would have either kept the property empty or sold it as tenanted. Its rubbish for the OP that they haven't, but the ire should be directed at the vendor, and it's the vendor who should either incur the cost by reducing the price, or the inconvenience of losing the sale.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

Giving money to the tenants as an incentive to move would only work if they actually do have somewhere to live but are being PITA's and just causing trouble

As you rightly said, these particular tenants aren't causing problems - at least not yet - but you're correct that it wouldn't help

As said it's the precedent that worries me, and the possible abuse among the minority of pisstaking tenants doesn't bear thinking about

This is a quite common practice in my home country to incentivize problem tenants to leave since courts will drag it out. Often it’s worth it to both parties to avoid a lengthy eviction process.

The courts need to be more efficient if you want this practice to stop catching on.

@Crazycatlady83

Offer them £3k to leave? They get £3k, you save £3k? Not ideal but a problematic approach?

Seriously The world has actually gone insane! I love the threads on here. I've been back every so often for the last 11 years and it just proves how much the world has gone mad that its laughable.

You give them money to leave and they are still not under any contractual obligation to do so. That would be totally foolish. Sorry but your vendor is a dick and you'd be an utter fool to keep playing games with him. He's fucked over the tenants and is already fucking over you.

To PP saying tenants shouldn’t move. Surely they were aware of the situation when they signed the lease?

I can’t think of any other commercial agreement where you can effectively refuse to adhere to your contractual obligations, whilst withholding payment without it having a detrimental impact on your credit file. Now I’m not suggesting that this is happening here. A tenant has rights and responsibilities. A property owner, LL has rights and responsibilities too.

Whilst a tenant may be legally allowed to remain in a property until eviction. It’s morally a shitty thing to do. This happened to a friend of mine, she moved back to her home country urgently to look after her elderly parents. Her mother passed relatively soon after she got home, whilst her father had early onset dementia. Her house in London meanwhile was turned into a house share/ Airbnb without her consent. The tenant was literally pocketing hundreds of pounds every week, whilst not paying rent. Upon eviction she ended up about around 18k in debt, not including having to now do work to a house which had been completely wrecked. Oh and the tenant just disappeared, never to be heard from again.

The system is shit. Whilst tenants should have secure tenancies and have the right to have a habitable well maintained home. It cannot be right for a tenant to refuse to vacate a property and get away with not paying rent for months without repercussions.

@Radio4Rocks do you realise that rented properties are people's homes? Do you think people should be required to up sticks and move every six months?
Fwiw landlords like minimum term tenancies because they don't want vacant properties normally, the fixed term to rolling contract means the tenants remain liable for rent which the landlord is usually happy with! It protects both sides.
The UK is unusual in having 6 months as the standard, most European countries think we're bonkers for having such short term, impractical contracts.

They've been told to leave. The landlord doesn't want them there. For them to stay is squatting where they are unwelcome. It may be legal but it's daft. And the law needs to be changed
You're the exact person that gives landlords a bad name. I agree to an extend but when the tenants are being given notice just 4 months after moving in, it's just immoral -unless of course they were fully aware of the situation and it suited them-.

Yes those poor landlords having their multiple mortgages paid off by the people living in a house they couldn’t give a shit about and only see as an asset
And that leads to this mindset, which is just as wrong and insulting.

It sounds like the tenants signed an AST which is for a year with a minimum of 6 months then either side can give notice.

What seems to have happened is that the vendor told the tenants verbally to leave after the 6 months which means nothing and so the tenants haven’t left. They are sticking to the lease agreement. If the vendor really wanted them to leave they would have put it down in writing and served notice on the tenants
This is all the vendors fault.
I would be running away because I wonder what else the vendor is not doing correctly if they can get something fundamental so very wrong.

@SpaceRaiders what is the tenants alternative if they have nowhere to live? As a PP mentioned noone enjoys being in a property that they are being forced out of, it stops feeling safe, it stops feeling like a home.
Id be very surprised if the LL was honest about imminent plans to sell. If a LL is maximising their income as this one has done, it's unlikely they'll have told tenants something that might put them off or give the tenant scope for negotiating a reduced rent.