observer Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 What's the legal position of a landlord who wishes to sell his property? Do the tenants have any rights in such matters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 It's OK folks, I've googled it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 I wont answer then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 I'd guess that the landlord has every right to sell the property. The buyer just has a sitting tenant on whom he can serve notice to quit or indeed the landlord can serve notice to quit.... Not had to face that one yet.... what's the answer??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 What nationality are your tenants Obs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 Baz, seems the existing landlord needs to secure vacant possession first. Kije, they happen to be Polish!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 What nationality are your tenants Obs? always there to light the touchpaper Kije?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 19, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Seems the Polish tenants were totally unaware that the property had been put up for sale! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 I'm guessing this is a house and not a business premises. Did they have a lease/tenancy agreement and what terms were they on? (there are differents sorts too). Maybe the lease/tenancy is passing over to the new owner and an agreement has been made between the seller and buyer that the tenants can stay there... but then again a landlord can take a property back if it's for their own personal use. Lots of info here by the way http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120919132719/http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/138289.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 19, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Sorry Diz. I'm not that close to this: one would have thought the landlord would have advised the tenants of his intentions, Poles or otherwise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Why would he? If the tenancy is on a month by month basis he can give them their notice once he's found a buyer and have the property vacant by the time the sale is completed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Agreed but the landlord would have had to tell the tenants 'if' any prospective buyers or their surveyors had wanted to have a look around though before buying. It's 24 hours notice I think (or it was anyway)... I guess the buyers mustn't have wanted to in this case unless of course they were let in when the tennants were out. I doubt any resepctable landlord would do that though. At the end of the day like I have said and also implied Inky (depending on tennancy agreement terms) the landord can pretty much do what they like with their own property. Plenty of other houses available for them to rent though Obs and if they have been good payers and not defaulted they shouldn't have a problem finding somewhere else to live. Maybe the housing authorities/council will help them out too considering their circumstances if they are being 'cut short' and will become homeless as a result Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 He has to give at least 24 hours notice that he wants access to his property, but he doesn't have to tell his tenants why. If it might be on the market for a significant period of time before he finds a buyer then he's not going to want his tenants to move on and leave the place empty any earlier than necessary. He might even find a buyer who's interested in it as a property to rent out - in which case having paying tenants already there would be a positive selling point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Very true and I'd guess that the new buyer would then have to set up a new tenancy agreement between themselves (in their name) and the existing tenant. As long as the terms don't change that shouldn't be a problem for the existing tenant. If it's on a mont by month or short term lease then it will carry on as normal until the new landlord decides otherwise (just as the old one could have done). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 There would have to be a new tenancy agreement signed, but since the buyer would have assumed the rights, responsibilities and liabilities of the property from the original landlord then the new agreement would be at the same rent and for the same remaining duration as the original one the tenants agreed to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Which was what I was saying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted February 21, 2013 Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 Don't rent properties out in the first place!, pal of mine had a 'windfall' a few years backand decided to to buy a couple of terraced houses as an investment, he refurbished and let both out to tennants and had nothing but trouble, they have absconded owing rent, trashed the properties and in some instances it's cost more for rent recovery and repairs than the money he is earning from them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 They're selling some houses in Liverpool for £1 each - if you can afford to renovate them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted February 21, 2013 Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 £1 each to the tenants who've allowed them, and the area they're in, to go to wrack and ruin in the first place. Just like Right-to-Buy the tenants will sell on to developers, student landlords and private buyers with the funds to renovate, claim that they've have spent the proceeds and are homeless, and then immediately get given Housing Benefit or another council house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 21, 2013 Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 From what I saw on the news yesterday they are all empty and borded up, one didn't even have a roof and looked like it might have caught fire at some time. The people who buy them for £1 have to do them up (a builder said it would cost about £25k to renovate one) and they have to get a mortgage to fund the renovation (I think) and live in them themselves for 5 years. .......something like that anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 Correct Diz! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted February 21, 2013 Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 The reason that they're being sold off for a song is that they were scheduled for demolition and replacement. Some of the residents moved out expecting to be able to move back into the new houses - their former properties are empty, boarded up, and vandalised and these are to be sold to private developers. But the reason that the redevelopment as a whole never went ahead was that other residents refused to move out (since they were council owned properties I'm not sure why they weren't simply evicted and re-housed). It's the residents who refused to move out who are now being offered the chance to buy the houses they live in at knock down prices, and being effectively given a huge windfall at the taxpayers expense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 Well, given the housing shortage, perhaps the Council (supported by Gov); could have renovated the properties (at taxpayers expense), to provide for the shortage of social housing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 That's EXACTLY what they wanted to do, given the state of the properties it was far cheaper to demolish and rebuild so that's what the plan was. But the residents who scuppered the regeneration plan are now being rewarded by being effectively given the houses for free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 You clearly now more about it that I do Inky as I only saw the snippet on the news the other day. In that road there were abour 15 boarded up houses that might be going for £1 and they had already had over 200 enquiries about them. Do the residents who you say scuppered the plans have more chance of being successful in the bid that others the?. Surely as the houses are all boarded up and seem to have been for some time then the people who used to live in them have been moved to new homes elsewhere now so there are no sitting 'tenants' etc. I thought anyone could buy them as long as they needed a home and couldn't get on the housing ladder but could raise the funds for renovation somehow . Must admit I do see what you are saying and I wonder why the council just don't auction them off and get more for them, Even with the £1 sales plan and the rule that the buyer has to pay for renovation and then live in them fo 5 years it would be easy for a budding property developer to get ownership and cough up the money to do it up with the help of a willing 'volunteer'... maybe a young family member or someone....as an inbetweener and with the promise of somewhere to live for 5 years for free Saying that it could be tricky if they ever tried to sell it once the streets regeneration has taken place and house proces increase slightly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.