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.

Appreciate that the tenants are not breaking the law but I do think it is ridiculous to risk an eviction notice rather than move - which is going to be paid for. Obviously moving is a pain but I would imagine being evicted is more so.

[quote Plancina]@crosseyedMary the reason it would stress me is that I would feel terrible disrupting other people’s lives, stopping two or more families getting the houses they want simply to avoid a move. I wouldn’t feel comfortable with that.[/quote]
And yet you want to disrupt their lives for your convenience. I don't understand why you are so determined to blame the tenants rather than the house owner who put the property on the market prematurely, or your solicitor for failing to warn you of the pitfalls.

[quote Plancina]@crosseyedMary how has the landlord not done things properly? He told
Them in January the house was up for sale and issued them with the correct and legal eviction notice with the correct notice period. They’ve refused to abide by it.[/quote]
By putting the house on the market before he had possession.

@PenelopePitstop49

They sound an utter nightmare OP.

Walk away, the implication is that you could spend £1000s in legal fees dealing with them.

No house is worth that. Leave them for someone else to deal with.

OP won't have to spend a penny in legal fees dealing with the tenants, unless she's insane enough to complete her purchase with the tenants still there - which is obviously not being contemplated by anyone.

breadcakesbiscuits it looks as though you misunderstand what a s21 notice actually states and is legally.

TimeWasting highly unlikely the OP would be able to buy with the tenants in situ as vacant possession will be a condition of her mortgage.

Your solicitor should have had an agreement in writing from the tenants before you went to all this expense committing to leave on a fixed date.When we bought a tenanted house this is what our solicitor did.

If the s21 has been served then they can crack on and issue proceedings ready for when the current stay is lifted in August.

If I were a tenant I wouldn't sign such an agreement unless I had a cast iron guarantee of a suitable roof over my head. This is a matter between the vendor and his tenants. The OP should only be dealing with the vendor.

What it comes down to, IMO, is that it should be against the law for landlords to put a property on the market before tenants have left. Quite apart from anything else, it smacks of greed and a lack of consideration, especially when they expect tenants to put up with viewers traipsing around their home.
I say this as a LL myself.

[quote Plancina]@Pobblebonk I’m aware they aren’t breaking the law but I think they’re being very selfish. I’ve rented for 15 years and never once outstayed a tenancy.[/quote]
You’ve never rented during lockdown before. You have noticed a pandemic?

@GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER yes, I completely agree, it would make things much more straightforward.
Ah well - lesson learned, lots of nice vacant properties in the vicinity so onwards and upwards!

I have been a LL and only put my place up for sale once the tenant had given notice. Exchange was only agreed once the tenant had left. When it comes down to it, having no rent coming in is a cash flow issue and once the place has sold you have the sale proceeds.

@CornishTiger

Legal matters aside.

I’d suggest the letting agent strongly advises them to move into one of the other properties. Otherwise when the case is heard in court they’d be looking for another rental quickly and the reference they give will say court eviction as reason. Not good.

They’ll be gone long before it gets to court. And they don’t need a landlord’s reference, they own a property.

@DomDoesWotHeWants

I do wish people would read up on tenants rights, rather than just saying they are selfish or they should move out.

I think most of us are aware of their rights.We just think they are very unfair, there really needs to be a change in the law.

Of course they are being selfish, no other word for it.

The government have recently been consulting on a change in the law. Unfortunately for landlords, it would make it more difficult to remove tenants.

What it comes down to, IMO, is that it should be against the law for landlords to put a property on the market before tenants have left

The fact it isn't speaks volumes about whose in charge here ...

stay where you are if you want to wait it out, you do not have to have a 6 mth lease again if you have already had oe - go on to a rolling mthly renewal; - if your landlord wants to give you notice he will be in the same situation as the vendor. It all depends ho wmuch you want that house - but 2 mths isn't long to find somewhere new and push a purchase through etc

Pobblebonk Lots of properties are sold with vacant possession. The difference is the owners have followed due diligence and got the tenant to sign an agreement that as a sitting tenant they'll vacate before exchange. It's totally the norm (I've been a landlord in this situation) and is usually hassle free. The fact the landlord has had to serve a Section 21 suggests he didn't get one signed in the first place.

Sorry, I mean lots of properties are sold without vacant possession.

Also, GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER, what happens if it's an accidental landlord, such as they've moved in with a partner and have rented out their property rather than sold it in case the relationship doesn't work out. You're saying they should get their tenant out and let the property sit empty for months while the sale goes through?

Short and simple answer: If you don't want to be a landlord, don't buy a property with a sitting tenant.

You could wait until the tenant has definitely left before exchanging contracts. But I would be worried about the scenario where the seller illegally evicts the tenant, you exchange contracts, and then the tenant is able to move back in (because their eviction was illegal).

Better, I think, to walk away. Don't let your heart rule your head. One of your most basic requirements, so basic you probably didn't even think about it, is that you're buying a property not with a sitting tenant.

The laws exist to protect tenants from bad landlords; arguably the tenant is at greater risk in the relationship. Unfortunately bad tenants take advantage of it to take the piss.

but why should they inconvenience themselves because their landlord hasnt done things properly, he's at fault, why should they suffer?

But he has, the tenant agreed to move out at the start of July after having received the S21. I think it’s very poor of them to refuse to go with no end in sight.

I think this comes down to a feeling that the comfort and convenience of property owners should come before that of tenants

I think if a landlord has given appropriate notice and served a S21 then it should have more teeth and tenants should have to follow it. There should also be clear procedure and consequences for those people who choose to refuse to leave (and I do think councils should step in before eviction stage).

Otherwise what's the point in serving the tenants notice if they can decide to occupy the property indefinitely and force a landlord to take them to court?

I'm in favour of better affordable and social housing and long term secure lets, but it takes the piss that anyone who has done things correctly should be unable to have something they own or sell it on because someone else wants to sit there until they're taken to court.

think if a landlord has given appropriate notice and served a S21 then it should have more teeth and tenants should have to follow it.

Serving a s21 does not end the tenancy- only a court can end it by granting an eviction notice.
Its not a procedure for tenants to follow. Its a procedure that LLs have to follow.

This law is to protect private tenants.

There are definitely good deals to be done on Airbnb right now. No credit check, no bills, No deposit, even cutlery provided. You can get something cheaper than a standard rental.

They do have a right to stay, sorry but they do. Just because their fixed term tenancy expires doesn't mean they need to leave. They go onto a rolling tenancy month to month. The LL needs to serve a section 21, they have 2 months after that to leave. Then court proceedings happen.

You could ask you LL to keep you on a rolling tenancy, but like these tenants you don't have to leave until he serves a section 21 and due to court backlog it will be months before it's heard unless there is an injunction and it's breached.

Also, in many local authorities they won't house people until the bailiffs come because if you leave any earlier you've made yourself intentionally homeless so they have no choice but to be removed by bailiffs so they can be housed into a hostel or emergency housing. It's not a choice!