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

pooch90

Just from a tenant in a similar situation:
We are 18 months into a 2 year lease, LL has to sell.
They served us with 8 weeks notice, which they are not entitled to do, we refused to leave within 8 weeks.
For us, it was because there are no comparable houses on the market and we have been looking for months for somewhere else.
We have now agreed to leave within 3 months but won't be paying rent for those months as they have to buy us out of our lease.

The thread states the tenants served with notice but that means diddly squat if they have a fixed term lease.(not that I know if they do or not)
The fault of this lies with the seller as they should have negotiated all of this with tenant prior to putting house on the market.

niallfitz

pooch90 wrote: »

Just from a tenant in a similar situation:
We are 18 months into a 2 year lease, LL has to sell.
They served us with 8 weeks notice, which they are not entitled to do, we refused to leave within 8 weeks.
For us, it was because there are no comparable houses on the market and we have been looking for months for somewhere else.
We have now agreed to leave within 3 months but won't be paying rent for those months as they have to buy us out of our lease.

The thread states the tenants served with notice but that means diddly squat if they have a fixed term lease.(not that I know if they do or not)
The fault of this lies with the seller as they should have negotiated all of this with tenant prior to putting house on the market.

The tenant is not on a fixed term lease. Agree on seller point - they will essentially be in breach of contract and open to be pursued for damages once the notice of completion runs out.

seamus

pooch90 wrote: »

The thread states the tenants served with notice but that means diddly squat if they have a fixed term lease.(not that I know if they do or not)
The fault of this lies with the seller as they should have negotiated all of this with tenant prior to putting house on the market.

The fact that they gave 112 days notice would seem to indicate that the tenant does not have a fixed term lease but has been in place for 4 or more years.

I disagree that the landlord should have to "negotiate" anything with the tenant. Provided that the landlord is terminating the tenancy legally and has provided the correct amount of notice, that's it. The specifics of the termination are none of the tenant's business and there's certainly no need to negotiate terms with them. All the tenant needs to know is that the landlord is selling and you have 112 days to vacate. Seeya later.

niallfitz

BoatMad wrote: »

personally as the buyer, if you really wanted to try and progress this , I would have a private talk ( not letters) with the tenant, you could at least form an opinion of how intractable this could be and hence the walk away decision

Sound advice. Surely there is still a human-to-human non-legalistic conversation that could help form the stay-or-go decision.

pooch90

seamus wrote: »

The fact that they gave 112 days notice would seem to indicate that the tenant does not have a fixed term lease but has been in place for 4 or more years.

I disagree that the landlord should have to "negotiate" anything with the tenant. Provided that the landlord is terminating the tenancy legally and has provided the correct amount of notice, that's it. The specifics of the termination are none of the tenant's business and there's certainly no need to negotiate terms with them. All the tenant needs to know is that the landlord is selling and you have 112 days to vacate. Seeya later.

Maybe negotiate is the wrong word but ensured all was in order with the tenant prior to pushing on with the sale.
I assume the tenant made it clear they would be awkward before the 112 days were up in the notice period so the seller has had about 4 months to do something to get them out.
We couldn't assume they had a Part 4 until OP confirmed that two posts ago, as I said, our LL served us notice that they were not entitled to serve.

yankinlk

niallfitz wrote: »

Sound advice. Surely there is still a human-to-human non-legalistic conversation that could help form the stay-or-go decision.

If these people are total strangers... and no one you know knows them - you have no idea what you are potentially getting into. A mans home is his castle, whether hes owning or renting... Some people hate to get a knock at the door. Be very very careful how you approach this IMO.

You would want to have serious skills in diplomacy to walk into a stranger and ask him ANYTHING.

Caliden

pooch90 wrote: »

Just from a tenant in a similar situation:
We are 18 months into a 2 year lease, LL has to sell.
They served us with 8 weeks notice, which they are not entitled to do, we refused to leave within 8 weeks.
For us, it was because there are no comparable houses on the market and we have been looking for months for somewhere else.
We have now agreed to leave within 3 months but won't be paying rent for those months as they have to buy us out of our lease.

The thread states the tenants served with notice but that means diddly squat if they have a fixed term lease.(not that I know if they do or not)
The fault of this lies with the seller as they should have negotiated all of this with tenant prior to putting house on the market.

Edit: Got it wrong.


At the same time are you not breaking the terms of contract by withholding rent thus giving the landlord a legitimate reason to end the tenancy early?

Eldarion

pooch90 wrote: »

Maybe negotiate is the wrong word but ensured all was in order with the tenant prior to pushing on with the sale.
I assume the tenant made it clear they would be awkward before the 112 days were up in the notice period so the seller has had about 4 months to do something to get them out.
We couldn't assume they had a Part 4 until OP confirmed that two posts ago, as I said, our LL served us notice that they were not entitled to serve.

I think you may be letting your own experience color your view on this one. You're absolutely right in that a fixed lease is golden and your experience is a prime example of how fixed leases can benefit the tenant.

However, in this instance there is no lease in effect. The tenant is completely in the wrong legally and is exploiting a glaring weakness in our legal system. Wishing to sell a property is a perfectly valid reason for terminating a tenancy, there should be no need for a landlord to "ensure" a tenant will act within the law, the fear of legal repercussions should ensure that in our society.

drumswan

Caliden wrote: »

You're wrong on so many counts.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html

Terminating a tenancy - "If the landlord intends to sell the property within 3 months"

The landlord is only required to give you 42 days notice. You're also not legally allowed to withhold rent.

How is it the landlord's problem that you can't find another property to rent?

People like you are the reason most tenants get a bad rap, cop on to yourself and behave like an adult.

The guy had a FIXED TERM LEASE

pooch90

Caliden wrote: »

You're wrong on so many counts.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html

Terminating a tenancy - "If the landlord intends to sell the property within 3 months"

The landlord is only required to give you 42 days notice. .

That is only applicable to P4 tenancies, if you actually read your link you would have learned that.

The Spider

niallfitz wrote: »

Sound advice. Surely there is still a human-to-human non-legalistic conversation that could help form the stay-or-go decision.

Nope, go the legal route, you should know that by looking at some of the replies and advice on this thread, from renters who will do their utmost to put their own interests first. You've seen people say they couldn't get the same house so they weren't going to move.

The rental shortage means that if you have a conversation it'll be seen as a sign of weakness from the tenant and they'll dig their heels in. They know the jig is up, one way or another they'll have to move and they know it, the question they have now is how long can they hang in there.

You being all nicey about it gives them the upper hand, nope threaten with the solicitor and charging them money etc, that usually tends to focus the mind.

Even if you decide to pull out of the purchase, make sure you send them a bill for costs from the solicitor etc.

Caliden

drumswan wrote: »

The guy had a FIXED TERM LEASE

And?

murphaph

Caliden wrote: »

You're wrong on so many counts.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html

Terminating a tenancy - "If the landlord intends to sell the property within 3 months"

The landlord is only required to give you 42 days notice. You're also not legally allowed to withhold rent.

How is it the landlord's problem that you can't find another property to rent?

People like you are the reason most tenants get a bad rap, cop on to yourself and behave like an adult.

They had a fixed term lease. The lease trumps the Part IV notice periods in this case. The LL seems to have allowed them to live there rent free for 3 months and in return they will vacate before the end of their fixed term lease. It's just a business transaction that has taken place there. Nobody screwing anybody.

The Spider

pooch90 wrote: »

Just from a tenant in a similar situation:
We are 18 months into a 2 year lease, LL has to sell.
They served us with 8 weeks notice, which they are not entitled to do, we refused to leave within 8 weeks.
For us, it was because there are no comparable houses on the market and we have been looking for months for somewhere else.
We have now agreed to leave within 3 months but won't be paying rent for those months as they have to buy us out of our lease.

The thread states the tenants served with notice but that means diddly squat if they have a fixed term lease.(not that I know if they do or not)
The fault of this lies with the seller as they should have negotiated all of this with tenant prior to putting house on the market.

18 months into a two year lease? there's 24 months in a year, so you've got to be out after 6 weeks anyway, but the landlord has given you 8 weeks?

You're in the wrong my friend and a prime example of why the OP should go the legal route.

pooch90

The Spider wrote: »

18 months into a two year lease? there's 24 months in a year, so you've got to be out after 6 weeks anyway, but the landlord has given you 8 weeks?

You're in the wrong my friend and a prime example of why the OP should go the legal route.

No, 'my friend' you're wrong, fixed term lease means we wouldn't have to go anywhere until the 24 months are up.

The Spider

pooch90 wrote: »

No, 'my friend' you're wrong, fixed term lease means we wouldn't have to go anywhere until the 24 months are up.

so...after the 8 weeks notice, that would be 24 months plus two weeks? right??

murphaph

The Spider wrote: »

Nope, go the legal route, you should know that by looking at some of the replies and advice on this thread, from renters who will do their utmost to put their own interests first. You've seen people say they couldn't get the same house so they weren't going to move.

The rental shortage means that if you have a conversation it'll be seen as a sign of weakness from the tenant and they'll dig their heels in. They know the jig is up, one way or another they'll have to move and they know it, the question they have now is how long can they hang in there.

You being all nicey about it gives them the upper hand, nope threaten with the solicitor and charging them money etc, that usually tends to focus the mind.

Even if you decide to pull out of the purchase, make sure you send them a bill for costs from the solicitor etc.

This is terrible advice. The tenant holds all the cards here. The OP doesn't even own the property, so how would they be in a position to threaten any sort of legal action against the tenant?!

The best advice has already been given several times and it's to walk away from this mess. If the OP has great people skills they MIGHT try to ASK the tenant to kindly vacate but this tenant sounds like they know how to game the system and I wouldn't be too optimistic and as others have said, you'd need to approach the tenant with caution as they are an unknown quantity.

Caliden

murphaph wrote: »

They had a fixed term lease. The lease trumps the Part IV notice periods in this case. The LL seems to have allowed them to live there rent free for 3 months and in return they will vacate before the end of their fixed term lease. It's just a business transaction that has taken place there. Nobody screwing anybody.

You're right, my apologies.

However, does he not break the agreement by withholding rent thus giving the landlord a reason to end the fixed term tenancy?

The Spider

murphaph wrote: »

This is terrible advice. The tenant holds all the cards here. The OP doesn't even own the property, so how would they be in a position to threaten any sort of legal action against the tenant?!

The best advice has already been given several times and it's to walk away from this mess. If the OP has great people skills they MIGHT try to ASK the tenant to kindly vacate but this tenant sounds like they know how to game the system and I wouldn't be too optimistic and as others have said, you'd need to approach the tenant with caution as they are an unknown quantity.

No, this is terrible advice, the tenant has caused the OP to possibly lose out on a home and has cost him time and money. Saying that I'd talk to the solicitor at the very least and see what he says, if he says walk away, then walk away, if he says you should sue, then sue.

drumswan

The Spider wrote: »

No, this is terrible advice, the tenant has caused the OP to possibly lose out on a home and has cost him time and money.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The OP has no relationship to the tenant.

Sala

The Spider wrote: »

18 months into a two year lease? there's 24 months in a year, so you've got to be out after 6 weeks anyway, but the landlord has given you 8 weeks?

You're in the wrong my friend and a prime example of why the OP should go the legal route.

He has 6 months left, not 6 weeks

pooch90

The Spider wrote: »

so...after the 8 weeks notice, that would be 24 months plus two weeks? right??

What are you even talking about? Our lease was a two year lease, we are 18 months (well actually 15) into it. They want us out 6 months prior to the end of the legally binding contract they signed so are buying us out of the lease.

The Spider

pooch90 wrote: »

What are you even talking about? Our lease was a two year lease, we are 18 months (well actually 15) into it. They want us out 6 months prior to the end of the legally binding contract they signed so are buying us out of the lease.

You're right, I'm an idiot, apologies!

Calina

The Spider wrote: »

so...after the 8 weeks notice, that would be 24 months plus two weeks? right??

18 months of a 24 month lease plus 8 weeks is still less than 24 months.

The_Morrigan

Folks stop with the fixed term versus part IV debate. You are all dragging the thread off topic.

Next person to continue this will be thread banned.

BoatMad

The Spider wrote: »

Nope, go the legal route, you should know that by looking at some of the replies and advice on this thread, from renters who will do their utmost to put their own interests first. You've seen people say they couldn't get the same house so they weren't going to move.

The rental shortage means that if you have a conversation it'll be seen as a sign of weakness from the tenant and they'll dig their heels in. They know the jig is up, one way or another they'll have to move and they know it, the question they have now is how long can they hang in there.

You being all nicey about it gives them the upper hand, nope threaten with the solicitor and charging them money etc, that usually tends to focus the mind.

Even if you decide to pull out of the purchase, make sure you send them a bill for costs from the solicitor etc.

That is really terrible advice, firstly the purchaser has no legal relationship with the tenant, therefore cannot take any action against that tenant, the purchaser can attempt to insist in specific completion and "could" take action against the seller , This assumes that the seller hasn't inserted any provisos into the sale agreement concerning the vacant possession etc. It would be up to the seller to see if there was redress against the tenant, which I doubt, if the tenant has any sort of valid dispute.

However going down the legal , typically forces all parties to dig there heels in, and the OP ( the purchaser) will take months , more likely years to recover any costs. Thats no good , the purchaser wants a house today.

Im amazed at people that suggest legal routes, obviously you have never been involved in civil cases. The time and money often make the whole thing ridiculous.

Talk first , legals later.

niallfitz

BoatMad wrote: »

That is really terrible advice, firstly the purchaser has no legal relationship with the tenant, therefore cannot take any action against that tenant, the purchaser can attempt to insist in specific completion and "could" take action against the seller , This assumes that the seller hasn't inserted any provisos into the sale agreement concerning the vacant possession etc. It would be up to the seller to see if there was redress against the tenant, which I doubt, if the tenant has any sort of valid dispute.

However going down the legal , typically forces all parties to dig there heels in, and the OP ( the purchaser) will take months , more likely years to recover any costs. Thats no good , the purchaser wants a house today.

Im amazed at people that suggest legal routes, obviously you have never been involved in civil cases. The time and money often make the whole thing ridiculous.

Talk first , legals later.

OP here. I definitely cannot sue the tenant. They are not my tenant. It is not my property.

The contact states vacant possession and the seller and the purchaser (me) have signed the contract of sale. The seller (also the LL) can now not deliver his end of the contractual obligation by giving the property to me in vacant possession as the tenant is there. The notice of completion has been served meaning that after 28 days of being served I can walk away and sue for breach of contract. Or I can hang on in there in the hope of vacant possession being forthcoming and sue for costs for breach of contact or maybe (not sure yet) seek reduction in purchase price (abatement) of my costs. The latter would be preferred as litigation is a nightmare - long, costly and no nailed on outcome. But with that said I have no idea of timeline and I need to ensure that mortgage approval stays in place throughout as if it lapses and I cannot pay the seller then I am in breach of contract and risk losing the deposit.

I think the seller needs to expedite the hearing with the PRTB at a minimum... while looking at other *legal* means of getting the tenant to vacate.

Even though the seller (and possibly the tenant ... but I do not know for sure in fairness) is in the wrong, it is by no means straight-forward for me to get costs out of him even if/when he breaches the contract.

Walking away is all well and good and probably the least amount of hassle but I signed a contract to buy the house in good faith... hassle will be short term pain but a distant memory if/when I get the house... if the seller cannot fulfil the contractual obligations then there should be consequences.

If a quick chat resolves things or creates some progress then nothing ventured, nothing gained I think. Going legal first-off will make heels be dug in anyway (seller and tenant) as poster above said.

have2flushtwice

The tenant has no contract with current landlord.
what was the intention of the 112 days notice - to give the tenant adequate notice.
have you keys? walk in and make yourself some tea.

what is the tennant going to do - they will go to the tenants board and complain, which will also take months to be dealt with. you have your 112 day letter to back you up.

boatmad summed it up; legal takes time and money.
act now and apologies later.

pooch90

Why would the OP have keys when the sale isn't completed?
Even if he did, that's awful advice

I've been in two minds whether to rent out my house later this year. This thread is putting me right off the idea.

The tenant sounds like a right d1ck. If all notice has been given correctly, I feel sorry for the seller too. He is the one who will end up the most out of pocket.

Hope it works out for both you, OP, and the seller.