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

antoinolachtnai

BoatMad wrote: »

At all costs avoid litigation, claiming the contract has been broken and demanding the return of your deposit may not be as simple as you think. Get good legal advice.

You obviously want to avoid litigation if at all possible, but you might not be left with any choice. If you don't look like you're going to litigate at the appropriate moment, then you are putting yourself in a very weak position.

If this has been dragging on a while, you really need to take the first steps towards litigation. If you aren't prepared to litigate, unfortunately your contract is worth nothing. You may find that you need to force this guy's hand.

It may well be time for your solicitor to seek advice from counsel on your behalf (i.e., a barrister) unfortunately.

niallfitz

Thanks all for your input and thoughts.

I think it is good to talk so I will look to speak to the tenant next and ASAP. I have nothing to lose TBH. I have spoken at length to the vendor/landlord. I may even try to get myself, the tenant and the vendor talking to see what is the issue but I will try with the tenant myself first. Maybe we can appeal to their good nature from a human-to-human POV. I will also try to expedite the PRTB hearing in parallel.

I cannot move in with tenant as mortgage and contract both stipulate vacant possession - not that I would anyway. I do have the right to walk away from the sale and/or top seek damages after the notice of completion runs out 28 days after the closing date was missed.

Will keep the thread updated as to how this pans out. We really want the house but without any kind of solid or semi-solid timeline it is really to see us hanging in there as it is so stressful... even the kids are picking up on it and are starting to get upset.

Wish us luck

antoinolachtnai

Good luck with it. Don't be surprised or upset if the tenant wants a cheque. If so, you will have to get the vendor to pay it.

niallfitz

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You obviously want to avoid litigation if at all possible, but you might not be left with any choice. If you don't look like you're going to litigate at the appropriate moment, then you are putting yourself in a very weak position.

If this has been dragging on a while, you really need to take the first steps towards litigation. If you aren't prepared to litigate, unfortunately your contract is worth nothing. You may find that you need to force this guy's hand.

It may well be time for your solicitor to seek advice from counsel on your behalf (i.e., a barrister) unfortunately.

The option of litigation is an avenue that the vendor's sol will be aware of given that they have been served with a notice of completion after missing the closing date. One could also hang in there and seek abatement on the purchase price possibly which avoids litigation (i.e. reduce it by your costs such as legal, rent etc) but I haven't dug that deeply yet.

niallfitz

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Good luck with it. Don't be surprised or upset if the tenant wants a cheque. If so, you will have to get the vendor to pay it.

Thanks. Yep... all the pragmatic advice I have heard is that this is usually the outcome of this kind of situation.

Cool calm ocean... cool calm ocean ...

antoinolachtnai

Just keep reminding yourself that your opponent is the one who is in really deep trouble here, not you.

yankinlk

niallfitz wrote: »

The option of litigation is an avenue that the vendor's sol will be aware of given that they have been served with a notice of completion after missing the closing date. One could also hang in there and seek abatement on the purchase price possibly which avoids litigation (i.e. reduce it by your costs such as legal, rent etc) but I haven't dug that deeply yet.

just a thought. if u really want this place, leaning on the seller by at least appearing to threaten legal action if completion fails, may be an incentive for the seller to offer the tenant real cash. i assume the tenant would settle for a lot less than your costs?

otherwise, there is always a chance the seller is using the tenant to hold on to the house. if u dont sue, and completion fails, he is out of pocket nothing. its not like he is in a chain.

BoatMad

yankinlk wrote: »

just a thought. if u really want this place, leaning on the seller by at least appearing to threaten legal action if completion fails, may be an incentive for the seller to offer the tenant real cash. i assume the tenant would settle for a lot less than your costs?

otherwise, there is always a chance the seller is using the tenant to hold on to the house. if u dont sue, and completion fails, he is out of pocket nothing. its not like he is in a chain.

if the seller has signed , then it would be difficult to pull out and I suspect none would dream up that madcap idea to thwart the sale.

ted1

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.

The property is being sold. He should be forced to move out. There should be no reason why he should stay.

ted1

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.

Who in turn should Sue the tenant for losses incurred

yankinlk

BoatMad wrote: »

if the seller has signed , then it would be difficult to pull out and I suspect none would dream up that madcap idea to thwart the sale.

not at the start no. but at the end, the seller will be hoping the buyer remains on his side, and does not sue. as i said, if the deal falls thru, the seller has lost nothing but time. the solicitor will not even charge.

BelleOfTheBall

Let us know how u get on????

Gatling

If the seller had any sense they would offer and a cheque and a few days in a hotel on the condition the over stayer goes immediately.

As soon as there out cancel the cheque

ABajaninCork

I'd let the solicitor deal with it now. The vendor has been issued with a notice to complete - Is that right? So they know good and well the digits have to be extracted if they don't wish to be sued.

Don't speak to the tenant in person. It could be construed as harassment, and TBH it's not your place to get the tenant out. It's down to your vendor to deal.

niallfitz

ABajaninCork wrote: »

I'd let the solicitor deal with it now. The vendor has been issued with a notice to complete - Is that right? So they know good and well the digits have to be extracted if they don't wish to be sued.

Don't speak to the tenant in person. It could be construed as harassment, and TBH it's not your place to get the tenant out. It's down to your vendor to deal.

Yes - they have been issued with a NOC. Really don't want to litigate if I don't have to... vendor should have been done / be doing more IMHO with regards a sense of urgency, ducks-in-a-row and all that.

Yes, it is technically not my place to be involved in the tenant leaving as this is the vendor's accountability but it is most certainly in my interest as I am looking at a large bill with high risk of not recouping my outlay if the thing goes exclusively legal and into full-on and very lengthy due process.

Ronin247

ABajaninCork wrote: »

I'd let the solicitor deal with it now. The vendor has been issued with a notice to complete - Is that right? So they know good and well the digits have to be extracted if they don't wish to be sued.

Don't speak to the tenant in person. It could be construed as harassment, and TBH it's not your place to get the tenant out. It's down to your vendor to deal.

ted1 wrote: »

Who in turn should Sue the tenant for losses incurred

For what it is worth my approach as the vendor would be to have a solicitors letter sent to tenant saying that they have been given correct notice and by overstaying they are going to be sued for any and all costs for solicitors, surveyors, banks, purchasers accomodation and any and all things that they can think of that the purchaser will be claiming off the vendor.If they realise that they could become liable for thousands of euros for causing the sale to fall through they may blink first.

Do not approach the tenant.

antoinolachtnai

Ronin247 wrote: »

For what it is worth my approach as the vendor would be to have a solicitors letter sent to tenant saying that they have been given correct notice and by overstaying they are going to be sued for any and all costs for solicitors, surveyors, banks, purchasers accomodation and any and all things that they can think of that the purchaser will be claiming off the vendor.If they realise that they could become liable for thousands of euros for causing the sale to fall through they may blink first.

Why do you think the above would work and the purchaser approaching the tenant and speaking to them nicely to find out what they want would not?

Why should the vendor not approach the tenant? It has to be done tactfully, sure, but explaining the situation and looking to see if there is any way to move forward the situation is not harassment.

flowerific

As someone mentioned in an earlier reply. If you buy the house and close the sale. The house would be yours and the previous tennents would be trespassing and you could call the guards. You're also be able to move in and turf there stuff out and change the locks

antoinolachtnai

flowerific wrote: »

As someone mentioned in an earlier reply. If you buy the house and close the sale. The house would be yours and the previous tennents would be trespassing and you could call the guards. You're also be able to move in and turf there stuff out and change the locks

I would be surprised if this were the case. I would only close the sale or take such steps on foot of written legal advice.

AngryHippie

flowerific wrote: »

As someone mentioned in an earlier reply. If you buy the house and close the sale. The house would be yours and the previous tennents would be trespassing and you could call the guards. You're also be able to move in and turf there stuff out and change the locks

subject to vacant possession. the vendor must provide a vacant property. If this isn't the case then it's outside the terms of sale and open to all sorts of dramas. Read the thread.

flowerific

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I would be surprised if this were the case. I would only close the sale or take such steps on foot of written legal advice.

That's what I would be asking my solicitor. If I really really really wanted the house I would find out if the sale can be closes and if the new owners can call the guards on the squatters
Plus I would move in regardless and have all mates and family over and start painting the place and have a big sleep over party. I think if you were the former tennent you would then leave.

Santa Claus

flowerific wrote: »

As someone mentioned in an earlier reply. If you buy the house and close the sale. The house would be yours and the previous tennents would be trespassing and you could call the guards. You're also be able to move in and turf there stuff out and change the locks

Small problem in that the bank would not release the cash to purchase the house with tenants in the house!

ted1

Gatling wrote: »

If the seller had any sense they would offer and a cheque and a few days in a hotel on the condition the over stayer goes immediately.

As soon as there out cancel the cheque

Or do them for extortion

ted1

Ronin247 wrote: »

For what it is worth my approach as the vendor would be to have a solicitors letter sent to tenant saying that they have been given correct notice and by overstaying they are going to be sued for any and all costs for solicitors, surveyors, banks, purchasers accomodation and any and all things that they can think of that the purchaser will be claiming off the vendor.If they realise that they could become liable for thousands of euros for causing the sale to fall through they may blink first.

Do not approach the tenant.

That would be the best course of action

BoatMad

flowerific wrote: »

As someone mentioned in an earlier reply. If you buy the house and close the sale. The house would be yours and the previous tennents would be trespassing and you could call the guards. You're also be able to move in and turf there stuff out and change the locks

that is not the law, merely because a property changes hands does not in any way invalidate the tenants rights

BoatMad

ted1 wrote: »

That would be the best course of action

maybe maybe not, if there is a justifiable grievance, then the vendor will no doubt get a tenants solicitors letter back in return. either way the buyer will be long gone. any attempt to be seen to string arm the tenant could go very badly for the landlord, you can only make such claims that are enforable by law.

if my view the purchasers has nothing to loose asking the tenant privately what the issue is, the tenant can choose whether to engage or not, at the very least you could proably detect a try on. There is no prohibition from talking to people.

This could be over any number of tenant landlord issues.

flowerific

BoatMad wrote: »

that is not the law, merely because a property changes hands does not in any way invalidate the tenants rights

The Tennant was given the required legal notice. There is another thread in this forum about a house with a sitting tennent being reposesed by the bank and that the bank had no obligation to keep the tennents. I'm not giving legal advise as I haven't looked into the legalities but I would take it that seen as the tennancy was with the original owners that you just can't pass a tenancy contract over to any new purchasers so the original contract is void,/ finished legally with notice of 112days to vacate. Maybe you're a solicitor or know otherwise? as you seem sure in your reply that you know that for fact?

Yawns

People are assuming that the tenant was in fact given notice. My place is up for sale and someone I know had been bidding on it. She was informed by the EA, that the tenants were given notice and would be out in time for signing contracts. This was not and is still not the case 2 months later.

Sala

The mortgage is only given on he basis of vacant possession. The OP couldn't possibly take the property and attempt to get rid of the tenant herself the bank won't allow it.

Even when a tenant has been served a valid notice you it can be a long drawn out process getting them (legally) out of the house in the first place. (I always wonder what the penalties for illegal eviction are- ie would loss of rent for in excess of a year, court and legal costs really exceed a fine for illegal eviction??)

Sorry for your trouble OP but it's up to the vendor to hand over vacant possession. Hope it works out

BoatMad

flowerific wrote: »

The Tennant was given the required legal notice. There is another thread in this forum about a house with a sitting tennent being reposesed by the bank and that the bank had no obligation to keep the tennents. I'm not giving legal advise as I haven't looked into the legalities but I would take it that seen as the tennancy was with the original owners that you just can't pass a tenancy contract over to any new purchasers so the original contract is void,/ finished legally with notice of 112days to vacate. Maybe you're a solicitor or know otherwise? as you seem sure in your reply that you know that for fact?

we don't know what the beef between the tenants and the landlord is is this thread, so lets give the tenant the benefit of the doubt.

merely because a house is repossessed does not extinguish the tenants rights, those rights are a function of irish law, not with anything in a contract between tenants and landlords. The new owner would have to abide by the tenancy laws, provide proper notice etc. any dispute would then be handled by the PTRB in the normal manner

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