Buying a house without vacant possession

blindside88

Hi guys,

Looking from some advise here. Myself and my wife have seen a house in an area we like at a very good price. I called the auctioneer today and he has advised that vacant possession isn't possible as the tenants are renewing their contract. My question is would it be too much hassle to buy it and give the tenants their notice and are we as well off looking elsewhere

The_Morrigan

Are you a cash buyer?

blindside88

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Are you a cash buyer?

Ideally was planning on taking a small mortgage but can borrow the money remaining money needed from my dad to buy for cash if needs be. I've heard you won't get a mortgage to buy a family home without vacant possession but could you get one to buy an investment property?

The_Morrigan

If this is an investment property why would you wish to get rid of a sitting tenant?

blindside88

The_Morrigan wrote: »

If this is an investment property why would you wish to get rid of a sitting tenant?

I'm looking to buy it as my main home but I know the bank wouldn't give a mortgage as a family home without vacant possession. That's why I'm asking a) is it possible to get a mortgage on it as an investment property (and eventually move tenants out and move in)?
b) is it worth the hassle of buying and trying to move out existing tenants

The_Morrigan

blindside88 wrote: »

I'm looking to buy it as my main home but I know the bank wouldn't give a mortgage as a family home without vacant possession. That's why I'm asking a) is it possible to get a mortgage on it as an investment property (and eventually move tenants out and move in)?
b) is it worth the hassle of buying and trying to move out existing tenants

a) that's heading towards fraud....it's obtaining credit by false/deceptive means.
Investment property lending is also completely different to personal lending, different qualifying criteria, LTV's, rates and you need a much larger deposit as the loans are around the 70% mark.
b) no.

daithi7

The_Morrigan wrote: »

b) no.

Really, I thought that if you bought a house to move into, you are entitled to ask the existing tenants to leave before acquiring the title.

I've just bought an investment property with a sitting tenant (who in my case I wished to hang on to) , but in the purchase contract I was asked if I wished to acquire it in vacant possession. In which case, the other side's solicitor would give notice to the sitting tenant before transfer of the property to me, and that tenant would be asked to leave after 30 days as per their tenancy agreement.

Is this not how most residential properties are transferred? i.e. Is the option of voiding a tenancy on sale, the common practice in contract law????

blindside88

The_Morrigan wrote: »

a) that's heading towards fraud....it's obtaining credit by false/deceptive means.
Investment property lending is also completely different to personal lending, different qualifying criteria, LTV's, rates and you need a much larger deposit as the loans are around the 70% mark.
b) no.

Thanks for that its exactly what I'm looking for. As I've said the mortgage would be for less than 50% so ltv wouldn't be an issue. In point b I was thinking it'd be more hassle than its worth

blindside88

daithi7 wrote: »

Really, I thought that if you bought a house to move into, you are entitled to ask the existing tenants to leave before acquiring the title.

I've just bought an investment property with a sitting tenant (who in my case I wished to hang on to) , but in the purchase contract I was asked if I wished to acquire it in vacant possession. In which case, the other side's solicitor would give notice to the sitting tenant before transfer of the property to me, and that tenant would be asked to leave after 30 days as per their tenancy agreement.

Is this not how most residential properties are transferred? i.e. Is the option of voiding a tenancy on sale, the common practice in contract law????

I assumed the same but when I queried vacant possession with the auctioneer he said it wasn't an option

The_Morrigan

daithi7 wrote: »

Really, I thought that if you bought a house to move into, you are entitled to ask the existing tenants to leave before acquiring the title.

I've just bought an investment property with a sitting tenant (who in my case I wished to hang on to) , but in the purchase contract I was asked if I wished to acquire it in vacant possession. In which case, the other side's solicitor would give notice to the sitting tenant before transfer of the property to me, and that tenant would be asked to leave after 30 days as per their tenancy agreement.

Is this not how most residential properties are transferred? i.e. Is the option of voiding a tenancy on sale, the common practice in contract law????

30 days may not be the required notice period - they could be entitled to 112 days notice, not to mention the fact that they could of course ignore that and make it extremely difficult to gain possession of the house while a new landlord has to go through the process of a legal eviction through the PRTB and the courts.
IMHO it's too much hassle.

blindside88

The_Morrigan wrote: »

30 days may not be the required notice period - they could be entitled to 112 days notice, not to mention the fact that they could of course ignore that and make it extremely difficult to gain possession of the house while a new landlord has to go through the process of a legal eviction through the PRTB and the courts.
IMHO it's too much hassle.

That's what I thought but said I'd ask for more experiences opinions. Thanks

the_syco

blindside88 wrote: »

as the tenants are renewing their contract

So? If the auctioneer wanted to sell, they could just say "no" the renewment, and let you buy the house. I'm thinking someone else has dibs on the house.

blindside88

the_syco wrote: »

So? If the auctioneer wanted to sell, they could just say "no" the renewment, and let you buy the house. I'm thinking someone else has dibs on the house.

Seemed very strange to me to be honest. Might just want a cash buyer for quick sale

Bigus

Not all sitting tenants are the same, in worst case they could have lifetime tenancy at favourable rates,

I know people who bought property super cheap over the years , only because they were more likely to outlive the tenant over say 20 or 30 years hence. In some case these properties would be discounted by up to 80% of market value .

blindside88

Bigus wrote: »

Not all sitting tenants are the same, in worst case they could have lifetime tenancy at favourable rates,

I know people who bought property super cheap over the years , only because they were more likely to outlive the tenant over say 20 or 30 years hence. In some case these properties would be discounted by up to 80% of market value .

I'd have no interest in that. I'd be happy to buy it and allow 6 months notice but I could get shafted and end up being a land lord while still renting myself

ABajaninCork

Bigus wrote: »

Not all sitting tenants are the same, in worst case they could have lifetime tenancy at favourable rates,

I know people who bought property super cheap over the years , only because they were more likely to outlive the tenant over say 20 or 30 years hence. In some case these properties would be discounted by up to 80% of market value .

Wow! Does that happen - is it usual here?

fasttalkerchat

ABajaninCork wrote: »

Wow! Does that happen - is it usual here?

I know of one that sold at 60% of market value. But no rent was being paid!

daithi7

blindside88 wrote: »

I'd have no interest in that. I'd be happy to buy it and allow 6 months notice but I could get shafted and end up being a land lord while still renting myself

if you'd be happy with that outcome, I'd go for that. Afaik, you can serve notice on the grounds that you are using the house for yourself which you are entitled to do. Through your sol you may even be able to insist they give you the property tenant free, so the other side take care of their own tenancy, which is the way it normally works.

At the very least you will get sight of the tenancy agreement that is in place & you will get a chance to assess the pros & cons of buying with this bind on the property.

It sounds to me like estate agent blarney tbh, porkies are their stock & trade. He may not want your bid for whatever reason(preferred bidder,etc), so make sure your bid is in writing so its on the record. Good luck with it.

the_syco

ABajaninCork wrote: »

Wow! Does that happen - is it usual here?

It can happen. Someone gets rent at £25 a week until they die back in the 70's and 80's. I think there was legislation over it a while back (last five years), though that got rid of it?

blindside88

daithi7 wrote: »

if you'd be happy with that outcome, I'd go for that. Afaik, you can serve notice on the grounds that you are using the house for yourself which you are entitled to do. Through your sol you may even be able to insist they give you the property tenant free, so the other side take care of their own tenancy, which is the way it normally works.

At the very least you will get sight of the tenancy agreement that is in place & you will get a chance to assess the pros & cons of buying with this bind on the property.

It sounds to me like estate agent blarney tbh, porkies are their stock & trade. He may not want your bid for whatever reason(preferred bidder,etc), so make sure your bid is in writing so its on the record. Good luck with it.

Thanks for the reply. It seems like the property is going to be too much hassle. Also someone suggested to me today that they may be having trouble getting the tenants out. He ce not selling vacant. Think I'll keep looking as I have no interest in being a landlord