Advice please re: tenants

[Itsallabout]

We live overseas and rent out our Uk home to tenants who have been there 2 years ( house has been rented a total of 2.6 yrs).

Our tenants have been excellent and caused us no problems. I feel we too have been good landlords by rectifying any issues immediately. ( we also re painted a room they didn't like the colour of and had another extractor fan put in the bathroom because they didn't think the one there was efficient enough).

When their 1 year tenancy was up for renewal they wanted to convert to a month to month contract because they were looking to buy and expressed an interest to buy our home if it came into the market.

We have decided we have to now sell the Uk house. It is really a forced sale due to ongoing medical bills we need to prepare financially for. We asked our Letting agent to ask the tenents if they were interested in buying.
I received an email this morning, it says the tenants are not in a position to buy. After discussion with our agents they think their best option is for us to offer them a £200p/m rent reduction to compensate for allowing house viewings and then they require a 2 /3 month eviction notice after the house has sold. They also said they are struggling to keep the grass mowed due to the lawn mower we provided not being up to the job. They want us to pay for some-one to mow the lawn and do the weeding.
The tenants asked us last year to replace the lawn mower as it wasn't working properly ( it was only 14 months old and the garden is tiny). We had the mower blades replaced and no more was mentioned about it.( we also bought a strimmer for them to use).

Surely if the mower wasn't working again they should have mentioned it before now? We would have replaced it. Is the rent reduction normal? We of course would compensate them but simply cannot afford £200p/m. We understand that they will lose their home and I really feel for them. But in all honesty I do feel a little like they are taking advantage of the situation.

Your thoughts please. Thank you.

There are some very short-sighted views on this thread.

Whatever you do don't follow TheFallenNinja's advice as this would be harrassment and if you do end up in court it'll be costly!

The tenants are not "taking advantage" they are trying to strike a deal which they are perfectly entitled to do.

Why shouldn't tenants ask for a rent reduction for the inconvenience of having people traipsing around their home?

You might find you are better off by agreeing to say £100 off the rent in return for the tenants agreeing to be flexible with regard to viewings. At the same time you have the security of knowing that you will have income whilst you are trying to sell (and lets face it, depending on where you are, this could take a while)

On the other hand, if you don't care about the income, just boot them out and deal with the house selling afterwards.

xabiuol I think the bit about eviction notice being served after the sale is ringing alarm bells rather than just the rent reduction. This would cost the OP dearly and means that the tenants are not going to go quietly.

I would give them notice now.

As a buyer I would be put off your house by the fact there are tenants still living there. I would only proceed with a sale once the tenants have moved out just in case they wish to be evicted in order to get social housing. I have rented in the past and doing that never crossed my mind but I have heard of it happening recently.

OP can serve section 21 whenever they like if tenant is on periodic AST. There is no need to wait until house is sold.

Section 21 does not require tenant to move out. (this is a common misconception)
So S21 could be served in preparation. Tenant, if helpful could be allowed to stay at slightly reduced (but better than nothing) rent. If tenant becomes difficult S21 has been served and possession proceedings can be started quickly.

www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2010/06/15/urban-myth-you-have-got-to-evict-a-tenant-once-the-s21-notice-expires/

The tenants have no legal obligation to allow viewings WHATEVER their contract says.

If you allow viewings and they have refused you risk criminal prosecution for harassment.

Just serve them an s21 on a rent day and market the property clean and tidy and well-presented. You'll get a faster sale at a higher price than with tenants in situ.

That website is as clear as mud. If you were "entitled" to stay then how can a court legally evict you? You're not "entitled", you are refusing to vacate which is why an eviction notice has to be served through court.

Tenants are legally entitled to stay in a property until a court grants possession.

A S21 notice in itself does not require a tenant to move out. The tenant is legally entitled to stay after the notice period expires.

The court process is just the next part of the eviction process.

So a LL can serve a S21 in preparation but not actually require the tenant to leave immediately. They can then later rely on the S21 if the tenant does not leave when required.

Yes, but you would be exceptionally idiotic to refuse to move out when your notice expires.

You'd never get a private rental again, that's for sure. What would you do with a landlord's reference? You'd also forfeit your deposit in the liability for legal costs.

The situation is slightly different if you have benefit-claimant tenants, though it doesn't sound like it. They have to wait for eviction in order to be re-housed, otherwise they're considered intentionally homeless. So unfair on both tenant and landlord

OP, is your tenant's deposit fully protected? You don't need to agree to anything else expect essential maintenance (which care of the garden is not - virtually impossible to make a legal claim for dead plants or unmown grass if you decided to pursue a claim for damages).

If I were you, I'd just say (in writing) that you're being forced to sell to fund legal bills and therefore you're serving the required legal notice. Comply with all requests for essential maintenance.

Then sell your house when it's empty.

"Yes, but you would be exceptionally idiotic to refuse to move out when your notice expires"

Since it is fairly common practice for LLs to issue S21 notices at the beginning of a 6 month tenancy, this leaves a lot of tenants as being "exceptionally idiotic". In fact if they all left at the end of the 6 months it would probably be rather undesirable for LLs and they might re think the practice.

Also I think you are rather over emphasizing the importance of the LL reference. My current LL only requested employment refs so she obviously wasn't that bothered about what the previous LL thought! In fact isn't it rather silly to be guided by a previous LL ref. A LL might be prepared to give a glowing ref to a hideous tenant who they are desperate to see the back of!

To give a slightly different perspective on this, maybe do some digging into how good your letting agents are.. Dh has (nearly sold now!) a house which he rented for years - then when he ended the contract with the letting agent he discovered significant damage which hadnt been picked up in any property inspections (units missing, holes in the wall, fixtures removed etc).

He recently sold the house whilst it was rented to family and the disruption through viewings was not welcomed but he was living there for a pittance so I had zero sympathy and agents can be bloody annoying, I know!

It could be that your tenants have reported issues before, but the agents have not contacted you... We had this in a rental where the owner lived abroad.

So are we essentially saying that tenancy agreements are worthless?

Tenancy agreements are not worthless, but nor can they supercede the laws of the country. Some Landlords need to clue themselves up a bit, especially those who are becoming accidental ll.

Hmm, the more I read in here the more I believe they are. Raise the rent, your off to court. Require access, off to court. Sell the damn place, your off to court.

All seems exceptionally one sided. Property owners take the risks, tenants take you to court and demand rent reductions.

Having been a tenant many times I always dread the agents, now it seems they are your best mate.

No wonder its sooo difficult to rent these days.

Not one sided at all. If private LLs do all the right things it is exceptionally easy to get rid of tenants.

Doing the right things include:

1. Putting deposit into scheme
2. Working out how to give a valid notice
3. Communicating well and allowing tenants to enjoy the property that they are paying ££££££ to live in without unnecessary interference.

Trouble comes when LLs don't do their homework and treat buy-to-lets as a cash cow. Unprofessional LLs learn this the hard way. Happily the law is still there to protect tenants against bad LL behaviour. If a LL is struggling to get rid of a tenant chances are they have badly managed their business in the first place!

Tenants most emphatically do not have to put up with regular inspections. A tenant has the right to peaceful enjoyment of their home and does not have to permit the ll any access at all, until the contract is ended.

Plenty contracts say they'll do regular inspections, but ll/agent has no right to cross the threshold at all.

Lots of people don't know that, though, that was my point earlier about how rental agreements cannot supercede the law of the land. Lls, accidental or not, should know this. Agents, in particular, should not be party to drawing up contracts that risk breaking the law.

I concede a breach of contract, and the ll's recourse is to serve notice to quit. If ll suffers no financial loss, I can't see what damages would be in order, but if proper lawyers are arguing about this I'll drop out now.

Well, fortunately I'm out if the rental game. Too many barrack room lawyers and no money in it anyway, like everything else it's sucked dry by litigious individuals.

What, you mean people asserting their rights? There would be no need for tenants to be "litigeous" if landlords complied with the law of the land in the first place.