AIBU to stick with current buyer rather than sell to tenants?

[Whotosellto]

I’m a landlord who currently selling a house. The tenants gave notice months ago and are due to move out soon. I received an offer on the house at asking price about 6 weeks ago which I’ve accepted. The tenants are now saying they would like to buy the house after the house they were buying fell through. They’re a family with 2 children and another baby on the way. They can’t match the offer already accepted, they’ve offered £10k less. They said they’re desperate. They’ve been ok tenants although they’ve missed rent a few times.

Would you stick with the existing buyer or accept the offer from the existing tenants? Would you feel more obligated to your tenants of a few years or to the buyer we have accepted an offer from already? Obviously the tenants could now refuse to move and cause issues which we need to bear in mind and they’ve offered less but we’ll save some costs by selling to the current tenants,
probably not £10k though.

Im thinking of sticking with the buyer we already have. AIBU?

You could be liable for fees from your rental agent (if you have one), and the estate who has found you a proceedable buyer. So this could cost you more than the 10K.

I'd be worried the tenants don't actually intend to buy the house but are just stalling your sale process so they can stay where they are until they get themselves sorted. £10k less and more risk. I would stick to your original plan.

I would proceed with the current buyer.

Head over heart, you offered, they gave notice.

OP I would also factor in the possibility that your tenants will not vacate the property.

Even if they find somewhere else to buy, it will take time for their purchase to go through. You won't be able to complete the sale with the other buyer until the property is vacant.

So it is a tricky one.

Your current buyer might also lower their offer after the survey.

I would consider your tenants' offer and check they have the funds to buy as they might be a safer bet and less hassle.

I’d sell to the family, they are already there and it saves you going down the eviction route if it comes to it. Buyer might loose interest now your tenants have nowhere to go too, unless they’re willing to take tenants in situ.

How badly do you need that £10k OP?

As a pp mentioned can you get tenants to increase their offer, even slightly?

Would you like them to get the house or have they been difficult tenants?

No, they had the option to buy the place when it came on the market and they chose somewhere else. If they like somewhere better before the sale completes they’ll dump you in a heartbeat.

This is a business decision, not a personal one and in effect you would be giving them £10k for no reason. It would be different if they were family but you don’t know them and there is no relationship between you. I think it’s quite cheeky of them to expect you to take £10k less and presumably an easy sale just for their comfort.

I'm a landlord, if I trusted the tenant would be proceedable and complete, in your situation I would sell to them.

They gave you notice, you don't have any "live" eviction process underway, so they could just stay put and this would comfortably swallow any gain you made on the £10K.

You will save something in fees, so you will only be a few grand down on the other deal, but potentially up against time and cost of a section 8 eviction.

And your other buyer is not looking at it as a home, just a business, so dropping them won't be causing a chain to fail or letting someone down who has invested emotionally in a new home.

Call me a softie, but I'll vote tenants.

Its also in my will, that when I die any property I own that is let passes to the sitting tenant at the time - but I have no family to pass it to and would want them to be unaffected by the circumstances.

I’d put money on your tenants having no intention of buying your property. They could have put an offer in but chose not to when it was on the market. I suspect they’re just stalling the process to give them time to find something they do want.

Easy to say when it’s not you who would be 10k out of pocket!

The OP should stick with the offer she has accepted. It is poor practice to withdraw after accepting an offer AND it is crazy to do so for an offer that is 10k lower. Plus the tenants have missed rent a few times, so their financial position sounds squeezed and therefore you couldn’t be confident they will complete the purchase or even get the mortgage they need. Maybe that’s why their other purchase fell through.

Six weeks in, you need to stick with your buyers.
If it was two days later or something, you’d have a dilemma, but too much time has passed.

Have they been advised to sit tight until they’ve found a house they can afford

Not a chance I'd pull out 6 weeks after accepting an offer of full asking. And for LESS money?! Madness.

Of course people on here are sour that it's a landlord buying. For some reason landlords are seen as the devil reincarnate on Mumsnet.

Unfortunately OP I think you can’t win in this situation for all the reasons PP have given. Is it possible to ask the buyer if they will take tenants in situ? I don’t know how this works so might be too late for this.

For all we know landlord might have babies/ disabled partner/ lots of health issues. So I would stick to original plan. I would tell tenants that unfortunately the other party ordered surveys etc so you wanted to stick to your promise.

This happened to my sister. The tenants strung her along for months, arranging the mortgage, yadda yadda. In the end they went somewhere else.

Honestly I don’t know. Because, as you say, it sounds like your tenants could mess you about with not vacating which will be a huge headache and cost.

Before doing anything, I’d want to see proof of deposit and that they have a mortgage in principle so it’s not just them messing you around.

It would be unfair on your current buyers but we’ve had people pull out before much further into the process and whilst it sucks, you have to be somewhat selfish because that’s the system we’re working with.

Tricky. Literally the only reason I’d say go with tenants is due to their potential to mess you around with not moving out. At least if there’s a delay in the sale, they’ll be paying you rent.

I would want the tenants to have it rather than a landlord.

If buyer was buying to live in the property I would feel obliged to stick with current buyer although tempted to switch to tenants for convenience.

Oh wow, that’s incredibly generous of you to pass houses to sitting tenants. Make sure they’re nice people you rent to when you’re old or unwell!

You don’t have as much flexibility as you might think.
The current tenants can just refuse to leave, which means you won’t have vacant possession & you won’t be able to exchange and ultimately complete the sale. It’s in your best interests that your tenants have onward accommodation (owned, rented or otherwise). I agree, I wouldn’t be looking to sell to them, but I also wouldn’t have listed it for sale without vacant possession. Without knowing the tenants, this has the potential to become costly and messy for you.

I think you should explain the position to your buyer - if they are happy to proceed with your tenants potentially in situ then I would stick with them. If not then sell to the tenants

Why? They're not even good tenants and they've already messed her around.

Stick with the current buyer, if that falls through go with the tenants.

Being a LL is a business.

What is the smart commercial decision here?

There is your answer.

This was my thought as well.