Buying a house - tenant will not move out, contracts signed, closing date passed

niallfitz

Hi there,

Am totally stressed with a house purchase! We sold our family home about 12 months ago and went house hunting. We are currently renting. After a long search and many bids being beaten, we found a second hand property to buy as our family home and drew down a mortgage, agreed a price and a closing date and both we and the vendor have signed contracts.

On the day the house was due to close (get the keys etc.) about 5 weeks ago, the vendor's sol contacted my sol to inform him that a tenant was refusing to leave. The vendor's sol had assured my sol that the correct termination notice had been served (112 days) in writing and that the tenant was simply saying that they "had nowhere to go" and was "digging their heels in".

We are currently in limbo and the tenant is still there. I have given the mortgage back to the bank and can re-draw it down within 2 months without penalty... then I have to re-apply. My sol has served a notice of completion that is due to run out in about 2 weeks time. The vendor wants to go to the PRTB but I have heard that that could take 9-12 months to resolve itself!!

I heard that we can sue the vendor but have no idea if that is worth it... and it is complicated by the not-leaving- tenant. We really want the house and we are so so frustrated that nobody between the PRTB, the sols, the vendor can come up with a timeline or what is happening next... we just want to buy a house for our family!

Has anyone been through this before or could offer some practical advice?

Thanks!

shruikan2553

It won't be done in 2 months unless the tenant leaves themselves.

My advice would be to look elsewhere. Evicting a tenant is a long slow process. If you really want that house you are going to have to wait awhile.

Mrs OBumble

The only way this could possibly end well is if you can help the tenant find somewhere else to go, and that is a place they are happy to go to. Which may or may not be possible, depending on whether "nowhere to go" is the real reason they won't leave.

Do you know anyone who knows the tenant, who might be able to find out what's really going on? Unlikely in a large city, I know, but it's worth thinking about.

Personally I'd be looking for another house, and not considering any with sitting tenants.

112 days notice suggests they have been there four years or more - I don't think this will resolve itself quickly.

handlemaster

seller may have to offer money for tenant to leave. the tenant knowing this may e holding on for same

TheDriver

only your solicitor can advise as I assume you have contracts legally binding on both sides.....

allibastor

WOW, poor you, that is a bad situation to be found in.

Will the deeds of the house not pass to you if the tenant is still sitting.

The only thing I would have thought is that if you buy the house and have the deeds in your name, but no agreement with the tenant can you not just turf them out.

seamus

The only practical advice that can really be given is to move on and find somewhere else, **** as that may be.

The PRTB process may take 9-12 months, but even after the PRTB process has gone through, the tenants do not have to leave. The PRTB has no powers to enforce its own judgements.

If the tenants refuse to leave after the PRTB judgement, you have to go to court to have the PRTB judgement enforced, which could take another 12 months. Only a court order can have the tenants forcibly removed, at which point there's the risk that the property will end up being badly damaged.

So, it's an "how long is a piece of string" question, really. The tenants may leave next week, or they may not be gone until January 2017. Unless the seller can give you any firm assurances, talk to your solicitor about ending the contract and reclaiming your losses from the seller.

niallfitz

handlemaster wrote: »

seller may have to offer money for tenant to leave. the tenant knowing this may e holding on for same

Yep. I heard that this often the practical solution as the due process takes so long

niallfitz

TheDriver wrote: »

only your solicitor can advise as I assume you have contracts legally binding on both sides.....

- he is bound to sell as vacant and it not contractually holding up his end currently.

niallfitz

TheDriver wrote: »

only your solicitor can advise as I assume you have contracts legally binding on both sides.....

Yep - he is contractually bound to sell as vacant and is not contractually holding up his end currently.

niallfitz

allibastor wrote: »

WOW, poor you, that is a bad situation to be found in.

Will the deeds of the house not pass to you if the tenant is still sitting.

The only thing I would have thought is that if you buy the house and have the deeds in your name, but no agreement with the tenant can you not just turf them out.

Nope. Turfing someone out takes a very long time. My mortgage won't allow me to take on a tennant anyway. Not that I want one!

niallfitz

seamus wrote: »

The only practical advice that can really be given is to move on and find somewhere else, **** as that may be.

The PRTB process may take 9-12 months, but even after the PRTB process has gone through, the tenants do not have to leave. The PRTB has no powers to enforce its own judgements.

If the tenants refuse to leave after the PRTB judgement, you have to go to court to have the PRTB judgement enforced, which could take another 12 months. Only a court order can have the tenants forcibly removed, at which point there's the risk that the property will end up being badly damaged.

So, it's an "how long is a piece of string" question, really. The tenants may leave next week, or they may not be gone until January 2017. Unless the seller can give you any firm assurances, talk to your solicitor about ending the contract and reclaiming your losses from the seller.

Thanks for your reply. Yep... I think it is looking like that outcome will come to pass ... so frustrated! You can end the contract after a notice of completion has been served and seek costs (my rent, mortgage interest, additional legal cost etc).

There is absolutely no cover or aide for the purchaser here. It is all in favour of the the tennant (whether they are righ tor wrong) in terms of timeline but the landlord has equal fault on his doorstep here by not ensuring vacancy before selling >:[

niallfitz

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The only way this could possibly end well is if you can help the tenant find somewhere else to go, and that is a place they are happy to go to. Which may or may not be possible, depending on whether "nowhere to go" is the real reason they won't leave.

Do you know anyone who knows the tenant, who might be able to find out what's really going on? Unlikely in a large city, I know, but it's worth thinking about.

Tennant was apparently already offered an equivalent place with less rent.

Personally I'd be looking for another house, and not considering any with sitting tenants.

Yep!

cpoh1

Why not call into the existing tennants? It might be worth a shot trying to appeal to their human nature if they see the person they are impacting on face to face.

whippet

chalk it up to experience and walk away; don't spend another moment worrying about this.

A tenant who says they will not move is either looking to eek out a rent free existence for as long as possible or is looking to blackmail someone in to getting them to move.

Were you aware of a sitting tenant when you agreed the sale? if so this is something that your solicitor should have warned you may be a problem as you would have had an extra party to the transaction. The vendor can't physically control the tenant .. and unfortunately due process in ireland is biased towards the tenant as they can drag it out for months.

whippet

cpoh1 wrote: »

Why not call into the existing tennants? It might be worth a shot trying to appeal to their human nature if they see the person they are impacting on face to face.

be cautious of approaching the tenants; even just enquiring may be construed as harassment by some people.

seamus

niallfitz wrote: »

Thanks for your reply. Yep... I think it is looking like that outcome will come to pass ... so frustrated! You can end the contract after a notice of completion has been served and seek costs (my rent, mortgage interest, additional legal cost etc).

There is absolutely no cover or aide for the purchaser here. It is all in favour of the the tennant (whether they are righ tor wrong) in terms of timeline but the landlord has equal fault on his doorstep here by not ensuring vacancy before selling >:[

There's theoretically a working system here, the problem is backlogs and timelines. There should be a dedicated track for this whereby the PRTB process takes a maximum of 3 months, and if the tenant isn't out within a month, the landlord can call in Garda assistance to have them forcibly removed on day 29.
This means that tenants could overhold for a maximum of four months, rather than the farcical situation we have at present where the PRTB is advising tenants to overhold because it'll give them an extra year in the property.

The landlord to be fair can only work with what he has. One issue you potentially risk in cases like this is if the landlord illegally evicts the sitting tenants and then claims the property is vacant and completes the sale, the tenants could legally have you removed from the property even after you've moved in :eek:

Enigma IE

There's a legally binding contract, so walking away is certainly not as easy option. You've been let down by your solicitor by him allowing you to sign anything, until the tenant situation was resolved.

Your solicitor needs to buck up his ideas and come up with a solution for you.

Kelly06

seamus wrote: »

One issue you potentially risk in cases like this is if the landlord illegally evicts the sitting tenants and then claims the property is vacant and completes the sale, the tenants could legally have you removed from the property even after you've moved in :eek:

Surely this is not the case ! Would the tenant not bring an action for illegal eviction against their landlord (vendor) through the prtb in this event? They would be compensated but they would not be given back their tenancy.

In any event it is not possible to complete the purchase untill the tenant vacates as the op is using a mortgage to purchase the property. The purchaser must get vacant possession when the mortgage is drawn down as a condition of the mortgage.

niallfitz

seamus wrote: »

There's theoretically a working system here, the problem is backlogs and timelines. There should be a dedicated track for this whereby the PRTB process takes a maximum of 3 months, and if the tenant isn't out within a month, the landlord can call in Garda assistance to have them forcibly removed on day 29.
This means that tenants could overhold for a maximum of four months, rather than the farcical situation we have at present where the PRTB is advising tenants to overhold because it'll give them an extra year in the property.

The landlord to be fair can only work with what he has. One issue you potentially risk in cases like this is if the landlord illegally evicts the sitting tenants and then claims the property is vacant and completes the sale, the tenants could legally have you removed from the property even after you've moved in :eek:

I consider timeline as a key component of the system. In this scenario the timeline makes the system break down. The lengthy timeline gives the tenant significant leverage to seek 'move on' money. Encouraging tenants to over hold in this situation is a disgrace.

Agree - this should be a separate expedited track. I don't want to be involved in anything illegal so will be wise to any miraculous 'vacating'.

niallfitz

Enigma IE wrote: »

There's a legally binding contract, so walking away is certainly not as easy option. You've been let down by your solicitor by him allowing you to sign anything, until the tenant situation was resolved.

Your solicitor needs to buck up his ideas and come up with a solution for you.

Walking away is fairly easy as vendor reneged on his side of contract - giving me vacant possession weeks ago. Means I just issue a 28 day notice of completion and can walk away and/or seek damages if that has elapsed and no vacant possession. In fairness to my sol, he was given assurances by the other side that vacant possession was forthcoming. It was only on the closing day that the vendor told his own sol that the tenant was still there.

niallfitz

whippet wrote: »

chalk it up to experience and walk away; don't spend another moment worrying about this.

A tenant who says they will not move is either looking to eek out a rent free existence for as long as possible or is looking to blackmail someone in to getting them to move.

Were you aware of a sitting tenant when you agreed the sale? if so this is something that your solicitor should have warned you may be a problem as you would have had an extra party to the transaction. The vendor can't physically control the tenant .. and unfortunately due process in ireland is biased towards the tenant as they can drag it out for months.

Beginning to feel like that... it is again as it is a the right property in right location, waited so long etc etc.

Yep, it was noted at start but nobody really knows anything until closing day as vendor sol is open to malpractice if money transfers on close day and property is not really vacant.

niallfitz

whippet wrote: »

be cautious of approaching the tenants; even just enquiring may be construed as harassment by some people.

I might call in ... one last shot, nothing to lose etc.

Enigma IE

niallfitz wrote: »

Walking away is fairly easy as vendor reneged on his side of contract - giving me vacant possession weeks ago. Means I just issue a 28 day notice of completion and can walk away and/or seek damages if that has elapsed and no vacant possession. In fairness to my sol, he was given assurances by the other side that vacant possession was forthcoming. It was only on the closing day that the vendor told his own sol that the tenant was still there.

Hi Niall, in that case, your best option is probably to do just that and walk away. If it was meant to be, it would. If not, then you never know, something even better may come along. Also bear in mind, since the central bank changes re 20% deposit required, prices have started to come down so you might just get a better deal elsewhere.

athtrasna

niallfitz wrote: »

I might call in ... one last shot, nothing to lose etc.

Better to ask your solicitor to do that. You're too emotionally involved in the property at this stage

BoatMad

I would have thought the seller would grease the hands of the tenant in order to secure the deal. That should be suggested first, thats all that may be required

eviltimeban

niallfitz wrote: »

I might call in ... one last shot, nothing to lose etc.

Stay away... and walk away.

Gatling

Stupid behaviour by the tenant I wish the Gardai could intervene in situations in like this .

blacklilly

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The only way this could possibly end well is if you can help the tenant find somewhere else to go, and that is a place they are happy to go to. Which may or may not be possible, depending on whether "nowhere to go" is the real reason they won't leave.

Do you know anyone who knows the tenant, who might be able to find out what's really going on? Unlikely in a large city, I know, but it's worth thinking about..

I would consider this bad advice

BoatMad

Gatling wrote: »

Stupid behaviour by the tenant I wish the Gardai could intervene in situations in like this .

absolutely not. tenants have few rights in ireland, you have no knowledge of why the tenant is not leaving, due process must be applied.

blacklilly

cpoh1 wrote: »

Why not call into the existing tennants? It might be worth a shot trying to appeal to their human nature if they see the person they are impacting on face to face.

If the current tenants are not willing to play ball with the current lanldord, they're hardly going to change their attuitude for the OP.

BoatMad

blacklilly wrote: »

If the current tenants are not willing to play ball with the current lanldord, they're hardly going to change their attuitude for the OP.

is worth a try, the alternative is a long processes of looking for a house, possibly experiencing a further property price rise, and then the possibly useless attempt to recover costs from the seller.

seamus

Kelly06 wrote: »

Surely this is not the case ! Would the tenant not bring an action for illegal eviction against their landlord (vendor) through the prtb in this event? They would be compensated but they would not be given back their tenancy.

OK, so it's maybe a little inflammatory, but maybe not. Where someone is illegally evicted by their landlord, they can apply for an injunction to force access back into the property.

This is obviously complicated by the fact that the new occupier has no contract with the tenant. For example, if the landlord had evicted them illegally and moved in new tenants, who vacates?

I suspect in most cases the court would direct that the tenant applies for compensation rather than allow them back into someone else's property. However if the judge believed that the buyer was somehow complicit or negligent about the situation (i.e. knowing it was an illegal eviction and turning a blind eye), I wouldn't be surprised if the judge directed the tenant to be allowed back into the property.

I could be talking complete crap though.

BoatMad wrote: »

is worth a try, the alternative is a long processes of looking for a house, possibly experiencing a further property price rise, and then the possibly useless attempt to recover costs from the seller.

I kind of agree. There's not really anything to lose for the OP.

Obviously you need to be wary about what information you reveal. But say directly to the tenant that you're the potential purchaser of this house, and you understand it's being held up by their refusal to leave. Let them know in no uncertain terms that you are going to withdraw from the sale, so if they were hoping to get someone to pay them to leave, they're mistaken.
And leave it at that. Don't get into a debate, don't get discussing where they could move to, just walk away. If the tenant is hoping to get a payout, but realises that you're about to pull out of the sale, they may just cut their losses.
You kind of have to do it face to face. Any other method could be construed as the landlord trying to harrass them out.

Gatling

BoatMad wrote: »

absolutely not. tenants have few rights in ireland, you have no knowledge of why the tenant is not leaving, due process must be applied.

They had enough notice and there is plenty of help out there now to help people and families who are essentially homeless .

This isn't about tenants rights at all its that argument that's allowing people to essentially squat making a hard working family homeless themselfs

niallfitz

BoatMad wrote: »

absolutely not. tenants have few rights in ireland, you have no knowledge of why the tenant is not leaving, due process must be applied.

I am a tenant myself right now and agree to a certain degree... security of tenure, stuff not working, redecoration etc. It is simple. The landlord is selling the house and the tenant should morally and legally leave. If the tenant really cared they would look to contact me and explain...

Any system (i.e. due process) that enables someone to over stay by 6-12 months is a system that is not working correctly albeit for a slight edge case. There are problems for both sides here. Lots of people have been paid here... architects, quantity surveyors, solicitors, the council, the bank... if I walk away I am the one lumped with a load of costs.. and it is a tough and expensive road to try and recoup the costs. The PRTB could have a hearing tomorrow if they really wanted to.

drumswan

Gatling wrote: »

They had enough notice and there is plenty of help out there now to help people and families who are essentially homeless .

This isn't about tenants rights at all its that argument that's allowing people to essentially squat making a hard working family homeless themselfs

OP only has the vendors word that tenant is overholding illegally. It would not be uncommon for the previous landlord to have made a balls of the eviction process as this forum has shown many, many times over. We've had a good few threads with landlords serving notice where there is a fixed term lease in place for example.

If the tenant is actually in the right here the OP calling to the house could be a serious annoyance. Perhaps wear a crash helmet OP. Or dont go.

BoatMad

Gatling wrote: »

They had enough notice and there is plenty of help out there now to help people and families who are essentially homeless .

This isn't about tenants rights at all its that argument that's allowing people to essentially squat making a hard working family homeless themselfs

since we don't have the tenant here to relate why they are not moving, we have to give them the benefit of the doubt,

You are voluntary moving from a rented house , they are not. its particularly rich to suggest they are made homeless just to facilitate your purchase.

niallfitz

BoatMad wrote: »

since we don't have the tenant here to relate why they are not moving, we have to give them the benefit of the doubt,

You are voluntary moving from a rented house , they are not. its particularly rich to suggest they are made homeless just to facilitate your purchase.

Ha. I was wondering when the first dig would come in. They are not being made homeless, they have been served a notice, they know the property is being sold, they have allegedly asked for money, they have been offered an alternative property of equal quality on less rent by the estate agent. They are not an innocent party here with capitalism or a bunch of right-wingers huffing and puffing and blowing their door in. The landlord is not lily white either and that is certainly part of the issue... PRTB due process is simply too long for this scenario (they cannot even tell me when the hearing will be) and it does not take the purchaser into account as a stakeholder.

blacklilly

BoatMad wrote: »

since we don't have the tenant here to relate why they are not moving, we have to give them the benefit of the doubt,

You are voluntary moving from a rented house , they are not. its particularly rich to suggest they are made homeless just to facilitate your purchase.

No one is suggesting that they be made homeless. They can seek alternative accomdation.

Tenants have many rights in Ireland and rightly so, however one of the biggest downside of being a tenant is that a landlord can terminate your lease (obviously the relevant lenght of notice must be given) if he/she/they wish to sell the property.
It may be the case that the tenants are overholding, it may be the case that the landlord didn't give the correct notice or it may be some other dispute.
To my mind, it all sounds like a lot of hassel and something I wouldn't want to invlove myself in. For all we know the tenants may ask the OP for money in order for them to leave.
OP, imo the best thing you can do is give notice to withdraw your offer in x days/weeks. The vendor obviously advertised the property as vacant possession so right now he/she is in no position of strength.

drumswan

blacklilly wrote: »

Tenants have many rights in Ireland and rightly so, however one of the biggest downside of being a tenant is that a landlord can terminate your lease (obviously the relevant lenght of notice must be given) if he/she/they wish to sell the property.

A landlord cannot terminate a fixed term lease if he wants to sell the property. This seems to come up almost weekly on here and seems to be a surprise to people every time.

niallfitz

cpoh1 wrote: »

Why not call into the existing tennants? It might be worth a shot trying to appeal to their human nature if they see the person they are impacting on face to face.

That is what I am thinking of doing TBH. And just be nice about it. If they are in a real bind or unreasonable then walk away and try get costs from seller. Needs to come to end either way as the stress is not healthy

BoatMad

blacklilly wrote: »

No one is suggesting that they be made homeless. They can seek alternative accomdation.

Tenants have many rights in Ireland and rightly so, however one of the biggest downside of being a tenant is that a landlord can terminate your lease (obviously the relevant lenght of notice must be given) if he/she/they wish to sell the property.
It may be the case that the tenants are overholding, it may be the case that the landlord didn't give the correct notice or it may be some other dispute.
To my mind, it all sounds like a lot of hassel and something I wouldn't want to invlove myself in. For all we know the tenants may ask the OP for money in order for them to leave.
OP, imo the best thing you can do is give notice to withdraw your offer in x days/weeks. The vendor obviously advertised the property as vacant possession so right now he/she is in no position of strength.

I wanted suggesting the OP grease the tenants hands, I was suggesting that he suggest the vendor does so, in order to compete the deal and protect himself from being sued.

The vendor seems to be getting out of this way to easy

blacklilly

drumswan wrote: »

A landlord cannot terminate a fixed term lease if he wants to sell the property. This seems to come up almost weekly on here and seems to be a surprise to people every time.

I'm aware of that, however I did not think it was a fixed term lease that was in place in this situation, I must have missed that detail

niallfitz

blacklilly wrote: »

I'm aware of that, however I did not think it was a fixed term lease that was in place in this situation, I must have missed that detail

It is not fixed term. The 112 days notice period has run out apparently.

drumswan

blacklilly wrote: »

I'm aware of that, however I did not think it was a fixed term lease that was in place in this situation, I must have missed that detail

Well we dont know, it hasnt been made clear. The OP doesnt know either I assume.

Contracts should never have been signed while there was still a sitting tenant. I would imagine OP has grounds to sue the vendor here. Which doesnt really help him get the house he wants.

Santa Claus

BoatMad wrote: »

You are voluntary moving from a rented house , they are not. its particularly rich to suggest they are made homeless just to facilitate your purchase.

The house is NOT the tenants, they merely have a contract to RENT the house from the owner. If the owner decides to sell and serves the proper notice to them of this then they have no more contract and have to move...simple as that really (I am a tenant who has experienced this and as **** as it is I respected the owners right to sell and found another place)!

Also I think the OP has also said that they were offered another house that had been sourced for them at a lower rent so talking about homelessness is exaggerating the facts!

blacklilly

drumswan wrote: »

A landlord cannot terminate a fixed term lease if he wants to sell the property. This seems to come up almost weekly on here and seems to be a surprise to people every time.

drumswan wrote: »

Well we dont know, it hasnt been made clear. The OP doesnt know either I assume.

Contracts should never have been signed while there was still a sitting tenant. I would imagine OP has grounds to sue the vendor here. Which doesnt really help him get the house he wants.

I would also suggest that if the OP's solicitor was aware of the fact that there was a tenant in place, they maybe should have looked for copies of the lease etc to ensure the selling of vacant possession was accurate.

BoatMad

Santa Claus wrote: »

The house is NOT the tenants, they merely have a contract to RENT the house from the owner. If the owner decides to sell and serves the proper notice to them of this then they have no more contract and have to move...simple as that really (I am a tenant who has experienced this and as **** as it is I respected the owners right to sell and found another place)!

Also I think the OP has also said that they were offered another house that had been sourced for them at a lower rent so talking about homelessness is exaggerating the facts!

we do not know why the tenant is refusing to go, in that absence of facts I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The OPs solicitor should have ensured vacant possession , the seller should have ensured he wanted the law, or even offered an inducement. however the solution is not to trample over due process merely bed because the OP wants the house.

Larbre34

Lesson learned Id say, take it off like a coat and walk away.

These are the things to be sorted out in the middle stage of negotiations, i.e. unless vacant possession is certified at that stage, it should go no further.

Its a good thing generally speaking that tenants rights are getting stronger, as we move into a new era of long term renting like our continental cousins. The fine line is determining the difference between exerting ones legitimate rights and taking the p1ss.

Not to worry OP, get an extension on the mortgage approval now, then be in pole position when the higher ratios come in for the people yet to apply

antoinolachtnai

If you walk away at this stage, you are going to face legal bills. You really need to take your solicitor's advice.

If this happened to me, I would expect to be compensated for the problems that have arisen.

This is all assuming contracts are signed.

I think what is going to have to happen here is that the seller is going to have to pay the tenant to move out, or you are going to have to pay them to move out and the seller is going to have to reduce the price correspondingly.

I'm sure you've been at this for months now, and I would not want to let it go if contracts are signed.