Removed

nonames1234

Removed

sirmixalot

How could it be? It's not your house anymore.

Akrasia

First of all, you need to cut the family a bit of slack here, they're going through a pretty sh1tty time and apologising to you for your inconvenience is probably quite low on their list of priorities.

Secondly the contract would have been with the couple renting the house. You probably never formally evicted the Husband and presumed he didn't need the house anymore given that he was likely to be in prison but that's irrelevant to his rights as a tenant so you should have followed all of the proper procedures to evict him for non payment of rent or issued the appropriate notice to quit etc.

As the landlord at the time, you're most likely the one responsible for the consequences of evicting him, not the current owner of the property who bought it without any tenant in place but the courts might have a different view depending on the exact circumstances of the sale

Cuddlesworth

Your tenant is the bloke in Jail, not the family member. Either way, I'd suggest getting a solicitor as the payouts for evictions could be huge.

If it was 28 days after rent arrears and the property was vacated(not lived in) by the tenant, then everything was correct You could argue that the family member, who was given keys and contact details, voluntarily vacated the property for your tenant. But its messy either way.

According to section 37. of the Residential Tenancies Act :

A Part 4 tenancy shall be deemed to have been terminated by the tenant on his or her vacating the dwelling if

(a) before or on or about that vacating, he or she serves a notice of termination in respect of the tenancy that does not give the required period of notice, and

(b) before or on that vacating the rent has fallen into arrears.

A Part 4 tenancy shall also be deemed to have been terminated by the tenant upon any rent owed by him or her being in arrears for a period of 28 days or more if

(a) whether before or after the end of that period, the tenant has vacated the dwelling, and

(b) no notice of termination has been served by the tenant in respect of the tenancy.

Calahonda52

The thread title is very misleading and sensationalist.

Your issue has nothing to do with the killing.

Reversing the sale due to lack of full disclosure on closing wont happen, you will be on the line for whatever damages they are awarded

whomitconcerns

How long was the tenant in place for? Also if he was awaiting trial it would not be hard to argue that he had not vacated the place. Hard to see how his family have any standing to sure you though.

Did you actually serve notice on the tenant or tenants legal representative at all?

Either way, the killing, the new buyers etc, have nothing to do with this. No matter how you look at it, decision and repercussions if any are yours... Whether that's correct or not :(