Vendor’s tenants refusing to leave

[Plancina]

Just posting for a rant/wild hope of any advice. We have been in process of buying a really lovely house that we totally fell in love with and have laid over £1000 for survey fees, solicitor fees and a survey. It was marketed as no chain but has a private tenant in it who was supposed to move out on the 5th July. The tenant is now refusing to leave - they own their own home but it is having work done on it and they aren’t willing to move into alternative rental accommodation until their home is finished. They are ignoring all requests from their landlord to leave and insisting they will stay there until their house is ready, they won’t give a timeline for this.
Our lease is up in two months and we’d have to commit to a 6 month lease at least to stay here. We are so upset and annoyed - can’t believe how selfish these people are being. The vendor is also annoyed as they don’t want to lose the sale and they had promised their son a portion of the proceeds to buy his first home and now he is going to lose that house also.
Our solicitor says it could take a year to evict them.

You could offer to pay them something or take it over with sitting tenants and reduce your offer to reflect this. Alternatively walk away and find another house.

Oh, I'd missed where OP said the s21 was issued in March. In an earlier post OP had said one hadn't been issued. In that case I'm less sympathetic to the tenants.

They are not squatters. They are tenants until a court says otherwise

And the law is an ass.

How people can defend these awful people is beyond me. They said they'd be out by a certain date and then refused to move. Utterly selfish. They were offered somewhere else but they were too damn entitled to consider anyone but themselves.

There are some bad LLs about but tenants like these, who take the piss, cause just as much grief. Dreadful people.

I'm not necessarily defending the sitting tenants however I've found myself in a similar situation. We had to move abroad for DH's work and we are renting with a 2 year lease. 6 months in the LL put the house on the market and we have to view his property to prospective purchasers, potentially for 18 months! It's been a nightmare and completely legal.

Given we were selling our home in the UK (because I didn't want to get into the minefield of being a LL) I'd already been through months of buyers traipsing through my home. I'm sick of it.

I feel for you OP and I don't think you are being selfish but it's possible that the sitting tenants were not told the truth by the vendor and they are digging their heels in, you may not have been told the truth either.

Wrong for the LL to try and sell with a sitting tenant unless it's to another LL i believe.

@S0upertrooper it's not quite the same. The tenancy was for a year ending pm July 5th and the op later said the s21 notice was served in March so plenty of time.

People saying that they're not breaking the law until the court enforces it are wrong. They are breaking the law and living there past their tenancy thats why a court can enforce it. You wouldn't say someone stealing something isnt wrong until a court says so. They're stealing their ll sale and the ops time and money. It is theft.

Furthermore they wouldn't be such asses if they'd give a time frame for the works. I am sure their builder can give them ballpark even if they add a few weeks onto it before telling their ll.

Clearly people don't rtft - the OP can't go ahead and buy the house with the tenants living there: she has a residential mortgage offer and needs to have vacant possession of the house.

@GeorgiaGirl52

Can you at least file a suit against the selfish tenants to get back the !000 you spent on lawyers, property inspections, etc.? They deserve to suffer a bit.

Well, she could, if she wants to end up paying out another fortune in terms of her own costs and those of the tenants when she inevitably loses.

Why are people so determined to bash the tenants who are doing nothing wrong, but not the vendors or OP's solicitors?

@Pobblebonk because they agreed for a short term tenancy whilst their house was being repaired. This was never meant to be long term tenancy. They have overstayed their end of tenancy even with the notice being issues in very good time and are refusing to even give any sort of timelines. Knowing full well it will cost the sale.

Their lease ran out on the house on 5th July so they are squatting in a property.

No, they're not squatting, they are tenants paying rent with full legal rights.

How people can defend these awful people is beyond me. They said they'd be out by a certain date and then refused to move. Utterly selfish. They were offered somewhere else but they were too damn entitled to consider anyone but themselves.

Or maybe they are people who fully intended to move out by the date agreed who didn't anticipate that a global pandemic would throw all their plans into chaos. And who didn't anticipate that their landlord would be stupid enough to put the property on the market before getting vacant possession. Or that the potential buyers would either have solicitors who didn't warn them of the pitfalls, or wouldn't listen to warnings from their solicitors.

@Pobblebonk
I suppose because I think the tenants are doing something wrong, morally if not legally. And yes, I think the vendors and the OP's solicitors should have warned her of the risks involved. I have rented for many years, but have a relative who's a landlord (on a small scale). After 35 years in business her advice is 'don't judge people by your own standards'. Most experienced landlords no longer trust tenants fully - they've learned the hard way owing to the duplicitous behaviour of a small minority. And yes, of course, a minority of landlords also behave badly, and in that situation people are vulnerable, which is why we have laws to protect tenants and rightly so. But in the particular situation the OP describes here it's the tenants who are behaving badly imo.

@Bells3032, as the tenants didn't institute the sale or force their landlord to put the property on the market when he must have known that the situations was particularly uncertain, they aren't responsible for costing the sale.

Why are people so determined to bash the tenants who are doing nothing wrong, but not the vendors or OP's solicitors?

A fascinating question. And a possible insight into a wider question as to how shit governments get away with it.

As far as I can see the whole shitstorm starts with the vendor. They should have had an empty house to sell, because that's what a purely residential sale is.

For reasons known only unto themselves but no doubt associated with the abysmal grasp that 70% (based on the comments on this thread) of people have of tenancy law, they decided to wing it, and sell in parallel with the S21 process.

So far so clear, if a tad grabby.

Enter the OP. At this point, the OPs solicitor (if indeed a solicitor ever handled this ) should have immediately spotted that the exchange date was before the S21 and there was a very real danger of the OP becoming responsible for the vendors duty of care to their tenants. I'm not saying this should have set of an office wide klaxon, but it isn't the normal course of events for a residential sale. However, the OP has acknowledged their solicitor was aware and did possibly suggest caution ? And it's this last which makes it hard to think the solicitors actually completely messed up. It's highly possible (and certainly what I would argue if my back were to the wall) that they assumed the OP was aware of the implications of the situation or that indeed the OP was intending to complete the purchase with sitting tenants.

It's only when you've run through all the permutations and combinations of "wrong" in the previous you can start to think maybe the tenants are at fault.

Too many people with a second house think "being a landlord" is an old Norse expression that translates as "money for old rope" - certainly in England. It's not. It's a business. And if this thread is a fair demonstration of the average business acumen in England at the moment, then we are well fucked as a nation because it's clear we haven't got a clue. No wonder we were able to sign a ferry contract with a company with no boats. It was overseen by people from this thread blaming the passengers, or the sea or the land.

@ProfessorSlocombe
Was the exchange date before the S21?

No it wasn't. The op corrected this. The s21 was given in March to give notice they wouldn't be extending the tenancy when it ends on July 5th with the exchange meant to be taking place this week on an empty property. The tenants have overstayed their tenancy and are technically now living in a property with no agreement in place and are effectively squatting. Unfortunately despite being there illegally the landlord can't do anything without a court ruling (just as you wouldn't be allowed to jail a thief without a courts permission) and the courts in this country are stupidly slow at the best of times and even worse now.

Give the s21 was issued in March I am. Assuming he put the property on the market prior to the lockdown and had no idea this would all take so long.

Lots of people sell with tenants in situ with the aim of removing them before exchange. Selling and exchange can take months or even years and people don't necessarily want to be funding an empty property for all that time or their situations change and they need to sell. Whether you agree with that morally or not is your call but there's nothing illegal about it.

The landlord has taken every considerate and legal step he should be taking. It's a risk to buy a property with tenants but it's One people take all the time with no negative out outcomes.

Whether you agree with that morally or not is your call but there's nothing illegal about it.

Which is exactly the same as the tenants not leaving until the court orders them too...

People saying that they're not breaking the law until the court enforces it are wrong. They are breaking the law and living there past their tenancy thats why a court can enforce it. You wouldn't say someone stealing something isnt wrong until a court says so. They're stealing their ll sale and the ops time and money. It is theft.

a whole paragraph of horseshit. The tenancy does not end when the section 21 expires. Landlords cannot end tenancies. Only tenants and bailiffs can. The tenancy does not end until the bailiff arrives. If the tenants are paying rent, it is not theft. And even if they aren't, it isn't classed as theft.

talk out of the correct orifice, eh?

which also means they aren't squatting. Tenants cannot be squatters.

[quote LizzieAnt]@ProfessorSlocombe
Was the exchange date before the S21?[/quote]
No, thanks to Bells3032 for the correction

@Bells3032

You're talking absolute tosh. Even Shelter disagree with you....

"What is a section 21?

A section 21 notice is the form your landlord must give you to start the process to end your assured shorthold tenancy.

It gives you notice to leave your home, but it’s legal for you to stay in your home after the date it expires."

The tenancy has expired. They are living there with no tenancy agreement in place. So yes it is not legal to live in someone else's property with no tenancy in place. I cannot move into someone else's home without their consent and leave money on their counter and say that I am living there and paying them and therefore I am living their legitimately.

Not only was the s21 notice issued but the tenancy agreement has ended. They agreed to move out at the date on the tenancy agreement and have not done so. It may be more a civil issue rather than a legal one but it is still the tenants in the wrong here. If they were not in the wrong then the court wouldn't enforce it full stop. The court will enforce it - just it will take forever and cost a fortune.

The ll probably only rented to them cos they said they'd be max a year and would be moving back to their own home.

The tenants are 100% in the wrong

No @Bells3032, you are 100% in the wrong. Or are you saying Shelter are wrong too?

A section 21 notice is the form your landlord must give you to start the process to end your assured shorthold tenancy. It gives you notice to leave your home, but it’s legal for you to stay in your home after the date it expires.
Yes, it is legal to stay on while the landlord is forced to seek the assistance of the courts to get you to leave their property, but that doesn't make it right to stay, certainly not in the circumstances the OP has described here.

Shelter are discussing the s21 notice. It is not discussing when a tenancy agreement ends.

The tenancy agreement doesn’t end until the tenant leaves either by giving notice themselves or being evicted by a bailiff.