Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Property/DIY

Join our Property forum for renovation, DIY, and house selling advice.

Original poster

Vendor’s tenants refusing to leave

435 replies

Plancina · 18/07/2020 15:54

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. Sad

OP posts:
lyralalala · 19/07/2020 23:49

The tenants had AGREED to move out in July though!

They agreed to move out (according to the LL) at the start of a global pandemic

Things change, the world changed for many people. They may have fully planned to move out

The LL still decided to sell the flat from under them in the midst of a global pandemic. In any other circumstance, on here, that would have made him and only him the demon party

As it is the person who is actually in the wrong the most in this story is the OP's solicitor because it should never have been a surprise that the tenants could make this choice

wildone84 · 19/07/2020 23:52

@wildone84

Yep, what the tenants did is indefensible and I find it worrying that some people on here are defending it. Shameless.
And I say that, as a tenant (not a landlord.)

This is about a tenant wanting to save themselves a bit of money & inconvenience by not having to move twice. The situation is about their new property not being ready. That's on them. That is their problem to fix. They don't fix it by breaking an agreement and screwing multiple people over.

Someone who thinks it's OK to do that, has very dubious ethics.

Butterer · 19/07/2020 23:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

wildone84 · 19/07/2020 23:56

I'm not saying do anything illegal.

I am saying I hope one day those tenants get to experience the results of someone else's selfishness and it makes them think on their own behaviour.

Butterer · 19/07/2020 23:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LizzieAnt · 20/07/2020 00:05

@Butterer
I'm more worried at the amount of advice being dished out suggesting it's justification to harass and illegally evict people, regardless of whether they have the moral high ground or not. Those saying to just cut off the utilities etc - it's not a good idea. Really.

I completely agree. I'm guessing the people making those suggestions aren't landlords though? I hope not.

lyralalala · 20/07/2020 00:05

[quote LizzieAnt]@Butterer
I'm more worried at the amount of advice being dished out suggesting it's justification to harass and illegally evict people, regardless of whether they have the moral high ground or not. Those saying to just cut off the utilities etc - it's not a good idea. Really.

I completely agree. I'm guessing the people making those suggestions aren't landlords though? I hope not.[/quote]
At least one is

safariboot · 20/07/2020 00:09

@Oliversmumsarmy

I wonder with this sort of thing if op had arrived with her stuff and moved in where would the tenants recourse be.

They don’t own the property, there isn’t any contract to say they should be there that op was involved in.

What if op had arrived and found a load of furniture in her new house and the “tenants” weren’t there and op and the removal men cleared the furniture.

What would happen then when the tenants came back and found the locks changed their furniture out on the street and op cooking tea in her kitchen.

Any competent police officer or lawyer will, once they have established the fact, inform the new owner that the tenants still have a valid tenancy and must be let back into the property!

If the new owner knew the property was tenanted then that's a clear-cut illegal eviction. Although prosecutions for this are somewhat rare.

If they can demonstrate they had no idea the property was tenanted, I'm not sure if that's a defence against the illegal eviction, but it's a recipe for a legal shitstorm between the buyer, seller, and the solicitors and agents involved.

As a previous poster mentioned, selling the property does not end the tenancy and does not let the new owner evict without going through the courts. Rightly so, firstly because a property could be sold with the tenant having no idea about it, and secondly because if selling a property did allow the new owner to bypass the normal eviction process then you can guarantee dodgy landlords would exploit this by transferring properties between companies or family members.

LangClegsInSpace · 20/07/2020 00:11

Alsohuman - They’re all in the same boat.

Yes! OP is a tenant with exactly the same rights as the vendor's tenants. Posters are advising her that these rights don't matter as long as it's happening to some other tenants and not her.

Fascinating thread!

LizzieAnt · 20/07/2020 00:12

@lyralalala
Well, that's a bit worrying.

lyralalala · 20/07/2020 00:17

[quote LizzieAnt]@lyralalala
Well, that's a bit worrying.[/quote]
It is.

It's why this thread is proof that the law needs to be the way it is. So many landlords cannot be trusted not to do the things that have been suggested here.

It's a pain in the arse, and may be morally wrong (although I won't judge the tenant yet because the LL being squeaky clean is unlikely to me given the original dubiety around the S21 and a LL who doesn't anticipate their tenants situation changing in a pandemic is possibly not a great one), but it has to be as it is because fuckwits will send round heavies and try to cut off utilities.

You take the tenants money - you accept that you may have to go to court for eviction is how I see it.

Pobblebonk · 20/07/2020 00:30

*@Pobblebonk @Alsohuman it’s a totally different scenario for the OP - she will have to pay thousands in extra rent if these tenants refuse to move whereas they’re not losing any money - they’ve been offered the cost of the move, and they’re paying rent anyway in the current house and will be until their house is ready.

No, it's the same scenario. The current tenants are having to pay thousands in extra rent when they presumably hoped to have moved back into their home by now. They're not staying on for fun or because they like paying rent whilst simultaneously paying out for renovations and, for all we known, the mortgage on their own property.

People bang on about how immoral the tenants have been. Think about the fact that the OP's tenancy is ending, which carries the implication that she agreed to move out. But she isn't going to, because the law allows her to stay on. Why is that absolutely fine for OP but not for the tenants of the house she wants to buy?

wildone84 · 20/07/2020 00:33

[quote Pobblebonk]*@Pobblebonk @Alsohuman it’s a totally different scenario for the OP - she will have to pay thousands in extra rent if these tenants refuse to move whereas they’re not losing any money - they’ve been offered the cost of the move, and they’re paying rent anyway in the current house and will be until their house is ready.

No, it's the same scenario. The current tenants are having to pay thousands in extra rent when they presumably hoped to have moved back into their home by now. They're not staying on for fun or because they like paying rent whilst simultaneously paying out for renovations and, for all we known, the mortgage on their own property.

People bang on about how immoral the tenants have been. Think about the fact that the OP's tenancy is ending, which carries the implication that she agreed to move out. But she isn't going to, because the law allows her to stay on. Why is that absolutely fine for OP but not for the tenants of the house she wants to buy?[/quote]
It isn't fine to break agreements and go back on your word. That much should be obvious. That's why the tenants are waiting to be evicted - because they refuse to leave like they should.

LizzieAnt · 20/07/2020 00:35

@lyralala
I do agree that the law has to be there to protect people, of course. I just think that people can take advantage too sometimes, as appears may be the case here.

LangClegsInSpace · 20/07/2020 00:45

OP says her lease is up in 2 months so her LL could serve her with a s21 tomorrow. What if she doesn't find a property to buy before her notice expires?

Alsohuman · 20/07/2020 00:55

So, everyone who’s a tenant, if your landlord served you with a S21 notice six days into lockdown because they wanted to sell your home, would you move to another property they found for you? Would you be happy with that? Particularly if it was for a couple of months and then you’d have to move again?

LizzieAnt · 20/07/2020 01:08

@Alsohuman
Ahem, you forgot to mention that the landlord selling/tenants moving (by July 5th) had been agreed between them since January. Also, the property was a temporary home only while their own home was being renovated and they'd been living there about 6 months.
The answer is yes, I'd move. Yes, it's a hassle, yes, it's the right thing to do.

lyralalala · 20/07/2020 01:10

@LangClegsInSpace

OP says her lease is up in 2 months so her LL could serve her with a s21 tomorrow. What if she doesn't find a property to buy before her notice expires?
Then she has the same choice as the tenant - stay until evicted or leave by choice
lyralalala · 20/07/2020 01:11

[quote LizzieAnt]@lyralala
I do agree that the law has to be there to protect people, of course. I just think that people can take advantage too sometimes, as appears may be the case here.[/quote]
People can take advantage. Some people would say the LL is taking advantage by selling whilst his tenant is in situ and gambling that all the dates would add up so he's not got a void. No-one is doing anything illegal

Alsohuman · 20/07/2020 01:11

[quote LizzieAnt]@Alsohuman
Ahem, you forgot to mention that the landlord selling/tenants moving (by July 5th) had been agreed between them since January. Also, the property was a temporary home only while their own home was being renovated and they'd been living there about 6 months.
The answer is yes, I'd move. Yes, it's a hassle, yes, it's the right thing to do.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter what was agreed in January. The world turned upside down in March.

wildone84 · 20/07/2020 01:13

@Alsohuman

So, everyone who’s a tenant, if your landlord served you with a S21 notice six days into lockdown because they wanted to sell your home, would you move to another property they found for you? Would you be happy with that? Particularly if it was for a couple of months and then you’d have to move again?
If I had already agreed to move, yes.

If I'd not ever agreed to it, no.

LizzieAnt · 20/07/2020 01:23

@Alsohuman
@Lyralalala
It turned upside down for everyone, landlord and tenant alike. Look, I know the legalities of the situation. I know it's legal that the tenants are still in the property. I wouldn't choose to do that myself though (as you've asked), I don't think it's admirable behaviour. I'm not saying the landlord behaved particularly well either by the way. Just, I think we can all do better than that.

wildone84 · 20/07/2020 01:26

The world turned upside down in March, yes. I could understand it if the tenants literally had nowhere to go and would have been homeless. But they were offered other places to stay and refused to take them, despite having agreed to leave on X date.

I just couldn't imagine shitting on someone else like that, for personal gain.

lyralalala · 20/07/2020 01:31

It's not something I'd do if I had other options either. The fact the tenants were offered to move doesn't mean that moving twice is financially doable for them.

I would, given that I had options, not do what either the landlord or tenant has done. Both have used the situation, the LL in January and the tenant now, to their own advantage.

ArriettyJones · 20/07/2020 01:34

@wildone84

The world turned upside down in March, yes. I could understand it if the tenants literally had nowhere to go and would have been homeless. But they were offered other places to stay and refused to take them, despite having agreed to leave on X date.

I just couldn't imagine shitting on someone else like that, for personal gain.

The government told everyone very clearly NOT to move house during lockdown. I don’t blame anyone for abiding by the lockdown rules. You’re being bizarre to characterise it the way you are.