I wonder if anyone can help me with a tricky legal issue surrounding the rights of occupiers during (and following) a house sale.
My friend was recently 'forced' to move home when her parents sold their property. She's over 18, and she lived there with her mum and dad. Although she did not have any formal tenancy or rent agreement, she'd occupied the house for all of her life (since she was born) and paid (ad hoc) towards the upkeep/maintenance of the house, as well as her share of the household bills (I think she paid a third of these).
The contract of sale (incorporating the Standard Conditions of Sale, Fifth Edition) was signed by both my friend's parents and completion then successfully took place.
Sometime after the sale, my friend discovered that the Contract included an additional clause - specifically, Special Condition 7: "Occupier's consent". Special Condition 7 provides for named occupiers of the property (that is, any adults in occupation of the property other than the seller/s) to sign the contract to confirm their agreement to the sale and to release any rights they might have in the property and any fixtures and contents included in the sale.
It states as follows:
"Each occupier identified below agrees with the seller and the buyer, in consideration of their entering into this contract, that the occupier concurs in the sale of the property on the terms of this contract, undertakes to vacate the property on or before the completion date and releases the property and any included fixtures and contents from any right or interest that the occupier may have.
Note: this condition does not apply to occupiers under leases of tenancies subject to which the property is sold."
Below this, my friend's name was printed and there was space for her to apply her signature to give consent.
At no time did she sign the contract or give her consent to the sale. In fact, she was never actually made aware that her signature was requested/required. She was never shown the contract, or asked to sign it, by either of her parents. Indeed, she believes that this was deliberate; she was not supportive of the sale and would very likely not have given her consent or applied her signature if she'd been asked to.
As a result, she believes that the fact this clause was withheld from her might have been intentional. She was explicitly told that her consent was not needed and that he did not have any "rights" as an occupier. In fact, she was told that, despite her own unwillingness to move home, it was simply "tough luck".
Sadly, from her perspective, this clause has only come to light after the fact. The house has now been sold, and both she and her parents have left the property; the buyers have since moved in.
Upon learning about this clause, she asked for some informal legal advice and was told that it was very likely the case that, by moving out, she has effectively made the clause redundant, despite never having signed it. It appears that, had she known about it at the time, staying put and refusing to sign the contract would have been her best option.
She feels - and I think not unreasonably - that she has been deceived and treated unfairly. She is currently thinking about exploring any legal action she might be able to take.
I am wondering if anyone has any advice on the following:
(a) Does anyone know exactly what the consequences would have been at the time had she known about the clause in the contract, refused to sign in and then declined to give her consent to the sale or leave the property? How far do occupier's rights actually extend? What rights, if any, would she have had to remain there and would this have had any impact on the sale of the property?
(b) Acknowledging the fact that she has now left the house and effectively made the clause redundant, what (if any) are the implications this clause being withheld from her? My friend is very clear that she did not know that she had the right to pro-actively withhold her consent. In never having the clause presented to her, she feels she has effectively been 'tricked' into vacating the property.
(c) What legal redress do people think she would have in this case? She also finds it strange that the solicitors who managed the sale of her parents house did not query or question why she had not signed her consent, given that they inserted the clause (with her name) into the contract.
(d) If there are any implications stemming from the above (and there may not be), what repercussions would (or could) there be for the people who bought the house and who now live there?