Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
SheepandCow · 19/07/2020 00:11

Why are the tenants selfish? For all you know one of them is vulnerable to Covid and wants to limit unnecessary risks. Moving is stressful at the best of times without adding a pandemic into the mix.

The greedy vendor is at fault here. Trying to have his cake and eat it.

The tenants moved in to live somewhere temporarily whilst their own home was renovated. It's not their fault we had a pandemic. They didn't know a lockdown would halt the renovation work.

We had a similar experience to you OP as renters. Paid deposit, notice given on old place, then the agent told us the current tenant wanted to stay an extra couple of weeks. It was awful. We had to find somewhere else in a rush. We blamed the agent and landlord.

Both rented and for sale homes should only be marketed once empty.

Smallgoon · 19/07/2020 00:11

@Alsohuman

Look OP, you’re not coming across well here. You’re trying to buy a house in a pandemic. In normal times, your vendor would have served a S21 on their tenants, they’d have had the work completed on their house and moved out by now.

However, your vendor served the S21 after we went into lockdown and the tenants’ renovation project has been at a standstill. You’re perfectly happy for them to move twice to facilitate you but completely averse to doing the same yourself - or even to stay where you are a bit longer. And then you call them selfish?

I wouldn’t move twice to make life easy for you and your vendor either. Why would I? I owe neither of you anything, it’s not my fuck up.

Agreed with this 100%
EireneNW · 19/07/2020 00:28

I'm a tenant in a similar situation to this. I will leave when the times comes, as my situation allows me to and my landlord is a bit of a bully so I wouldn't want the fight, but this is definitely the landlord's fault and not the tenant's. I think landlords do this because they want to have their cake and eat it - i.e. keeping the property tenanted to the final hour to make as much money as they can rather than serving notice in good time. It's a risky approach for them to keep tenants in to the end but some seem to be willing to risk it. They should have issued s21 ages ago if they knew the sale was going through. Landlords can't just casually tell tenants they need to leave or that they don't want to extend (this is also my landlord's approach!). S21 exists for a reason, and it's the landlord's responsibility to do things properly.

LizzieAnt · 19/07/2020 00:45

It may well be legal for the tenants to stay on in the property, but as they had agreed, months earlier, to move out on July 5th it wasn't honourable or decent of them to later back out simply because they decided that it would inconvenience them somewhat. They seem wealthy and had the choice of multiple places to stay. They are taking advantage of laws set up to protect tenants in more vulnerable situations. Yes, the landlord made a mistake of taking them at their word - I'm sure he will think twice before trusting any future tenants he may have. It's unscrupulous people like these tenants that sour landlord/tenant relationships.

LizzieAnt · 19/07/2020 00:54

@EireneNW
The agreement to leave in July had been made in January. The S21 was issued in March.

Oliversmumsarmy · 19/07/2020 01:00

The tenants moved in to live somewhere temporarily whilst their own home was renovated. It's not their fault we had a pandemic

What has a pandemic got to do with anything.

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

lyralalala · 19/07/2020 01:06

[quote LizzieAnt]@EireneNW
The agreement to leave in July had been made in January. The S21 was issued in March.[/quote]
It might have been wise for the landlord to realise that an agreement made in January may no longer be tenable after a pandemic...

Also, a general agreement doesn’t hold any water. A decent landlord would still be aware that the tenants do not have to move

lyralalala · 19/07/2020 01:07

@Oliversmumsarmy

The tenants moved in to live somewhere temporarily whilst their own home was renovated. It's not their fault we had a pandemic

What has a pandemic got to do with anything.

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

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

This lack of knowledge as to how it works gets so many landlords in bother

LizzieAnt · 19/07/2020 01:25

@EireneNW
Yes, I agree that legally they don't have to move until the courts order their removal. However, I do think they went back on their word. Two house sales fell through because of their actions, but that doesn't seem to bother them - it's selfish imo. I think a person's word should still be worth something, even if that's naive. I simply think they've behaved badly.

LinemanForTheCounty · 19/07/2020 01:38

Well a lot has changed between January and July. For everyone. Best laid plans and all that.

OP why aren't you talking to your solicitor about this? Presumably they've agreed costs, liabilities etc with the vendor in the event that the property isn't vacant at the point where you wish to exchange. Just find out the detail of that agreement and make a decision from there. This is a fairly common occurrence when properties are occupied so there should have been discussion and contingencies made.

Alsohuman · 19/07/2020 01:41

Two house sales fell through because of their actions

Did they? When did a second house appear?

LizzieAnt · 19/07/2020 01:49

@Alsohuman
The OP said
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.

ArriettyJones · 19/07/2020 01:50

@catbellz

God that's hard! What arsehole does that!? I don't know, it's despicable though! Is there no legal backing for you? There bloody should be. Have you no grant Mitchell sized mates to go and "encourage" them to move faster?
What the duck is wrong with you? Hmm
ArriettyJones · 19/07/2020 01:57

@Arthersleep

Would the tenants continue to pay rent to you, once you take ownership? Or are they planning on squatting? If so, could you force them to sign up to a 6mth + contract? Would the thought of being tied in financially then make them reconsider their options? Could you or the current owner threaten civil action for financial compensation?

If not, then I would be tempted to make their life as uncomfortable as possible. Can you cut off utilities etc? Tell them that they will all be switched off? I would be telling them this in no uncertain terms what will happen once you take possession.

Wow. MN is absolutely heaving with plastic gangsters and uneducated numpties.
lukasiak · 19/07/2020 01:59

This is why I keep my several investment properties empty. Tenets can't be trusted to uphold their end of the deal.

LinemanForTheCounty · 19/07/2020 02:00

Ok.🤔

ArriettyJones · 19/07/2020 02:07

[quote Plancina]@SpartacusAutisticus I disagree - the tenant had a one year lease due to end on 5 July, they have no right to be in the house whatsoever, and the landlord told them in January that the house was for sale and that they would not be renewing the lease.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter how many times you say that the tenants have no right to be there, the fact is that - LEGALLY - they have every right to be there, and the landlord must know that. Hell, YOUR solicitor must know it too. Why are you not being better advised?

The deal with tenanted properties has always
been that they’re cheaper but more hassle, but anyone who knows their onions knows that getting rid of tenants is not a smooth process with guaranteed dates.

The landlord is totally at fault for not gaining vacant possession before attempting to sell. He obviously doesn’t want a moment’s void period.

LizzieAnt · 19/07/2020 02:34

The landlord is totally at fault for not gaining vacant possession before attempting to sell. He obviously doesn’t want a moment’s void period.

Or maybe the landlord urgently needed to sell to help his son buy a house? Or maybe he was naive and trusted that people would leave on the date they had agreed to leave, all relevant paperwork having been submitted in the meantime. Hard to know. I don't think he will make the same mistake again though.

Antipodeancousin · 19/07/2020 03:16

I’m shocked people think it’s unreasonable for a landlord to start marketing a house that is tenanted. Of course they still need to legally issue the tenant with the correct notice to leave the property at the end of a lease but the property is still available to rent up to a certain point. The reason it’s such a gamble for buyers like the OP is because the crappy court system takes months to actually get rid of tenants who do the wrong thing and ignore the notice.
British people seem to want private landlords to absorb all the costs of operating like a social housing system?

locked2020 · 19/07/2020 03:20

Some people are very selfish. The tenants are playing the system. Good luck with the househunt OP. It's awful how long it takes to regain possession of your own property in this country.

MiniMum97 · 19/07/2020 03:33

You do not have to start a new fixed tenancy on your current property. If your current fixed term is ending the tenancy just becomes periodic (month to month). The landlord can NOT insist you take out a new fixed term if that does not suit you.

He can however issue a s21 to give you notice to leave but it doesn't make much sense for him to do this if you are good tenants paying rent.

GeorgiaGirl52 · 19/07/2020 03:43

I am sorry if I offended you. It was intended as a respectful question. The laws are different here. If the tenants' refusal to vacate at the agreed upon time caused monetary damage to another party (in this case the buyers), then they could be asked to reimburse damages.

lyralalala · 19/07/2020 03:52

@Antipodeancousin

I’m shocked people think it’s unreasonable for a landlord to start marketing a house that is tenanted. Of course they still need to legally issue the tenant with the correct notice to leave the property at the end of a lease but the property is still available to rent up to a certain point. The reason it’s such a gamble for buyers like the OP is because the crappy court system takes months to actually get rid of tenants who do the wrong thing and ignore the notice. British people seem to want private landlords to absorb all the costs of operating like a social housing system?
Landlords know the process for tenants leaving before they market it.

Taking the gamble that the tenants will leave before they legally must is one that they happily pass on to buyers like the OP because they're not the one spending money on surveys.

It's part of being a landlord and is why very few are greedy enough to play the game of avoiding a void whilst selling. It's just too risky.

lyralalala · 19/07/2020 03:54

@GeorgiaGirl52

I am sorry if I offended you. It was intended as a respectful question. The laws are different here. If the tenants' refusal to vacate at the agreed upon time caused monetary damage to another party (in this case the buyers), then they could be asked to reimburse damages.
The OP is nothing to do with the tenants. She only had an agreement with the LL.

The tenants are doing nothing legally wrong (morally is a whole other debate). The only person who cannot fulfil the agreement with the OP is the seller because they have not ensured vacant possession

Cbatothinkofausername · 19/07/2020 04:11

@TheIckabog

Once the lease has expired then they are in the property illegally. I assume they won’t be paying rent to the landlord then?

Can’t he just get a locksmith to change the locks when they are out? Surely the tenants wouldn’t have any legal recourse to counter that considering there is no lease and they shouldn’t be there?

You really are clueless aren’t you.