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

BoatMad

The tenant sounds like a right d1ck. If all notice has been given correctly,

since neither the tenant or the landlord are on this thread. we have only the word of the OP and thats in effect hearsay as he only heard it from the seller. For all we know there could be a valid dispute

listermint

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

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.

For every bad tenant there are dozens of good ones.

Vetting people properly and effectively will solve this. Complete with backup references and phonecalls.

Irishcrx

Wow OP, what a mess. I feel for you, not an easy situation to be in at all.

I think there may be more to this dispute than you are being told by the landlord or his legal team. If they were offered another property at less rent than there is something else going on here, either...

A - They are holding out for some sort of settlement to leave , knowing the landlord is in a pickle with needing them out.
B - They are planning on staying until they are forced out by the PTRB or Gardaí ,which can take a long long time. Maybe looking at messing around with rent owed here etc.
C - The property they were offered didn't suite them for whatever reason and they refused.

TBH , it could be a multiple of things. They could be decent people with a real reason for not leaving or they could be complete chancers who couldn't give a flip about notice served , the property , rights or anyone else.

If I was in your shoes despite what people say here I'd be looking after my own interests and that of my families only. I would go and chat to them, explain the situation and try see their side of it, after that I'd know myself where this is going or not and decide if it's worth waiting or walking away and starting over.

BoatMad

listermint wrote: »

For every bad tenant there are dozens of good ones.

Vetting people properly and effectively will solve this. Complete with backup references and phonecalls.

if one reviews the situation , you will quickly come to the conclusion, that there are many more bad landlords then bad tenants.

who_me

One thing you could try - have a friendly word with the vendor, tell him you'll initiate legal proceedings to recover your costs against him and he in turn should do the same to the tenant. If the tenant is being sued, and knows the landlord being forced to sue (i.e. he isn't bluffing) then he/she might wise up realising they might be exposed to thousands of euros of liability, in addition to losing the home.

If that doesn't work, you can always cancel the legal proceedings, there's no need to drag yourself and the landlord through months of stress and expense.

BoatMad

who_me wrote: »

One thing you could try - have a friendly word with the vendor, tell him you'll initiate legal proceedings to recover your costs against him and he in turn should do the same to the tenant. If the tenant is being sued, and knows the landlord being forced to sue (i.e. he isn't bluffing) then he/she might wise up realising they might be exposed to thousands of euros of liability, in addition to losing the home.

If that doesn't work, you can always cancel the legal proceedings, there's no need to drag yourself and the landlord through months of stress and expense.

I have to laugh

"friendly word" followed by "initiate legal proceedings" what you said could be construed as harassment of the tenant. The landlord may have little or No grounds for suing the tenant. There well may be some valid dispute there. Strong-arming the tenant in a dispute that merely is to benefit the landlord ( via a sale) plays directly into the tenants hands. The seller/landlord would have to ensure he is on strong legal ground to initiate that sort of response.

Not to mention the ridiculous concept of suing what probably is a " straw man" financially

People throw word like " sue" around with gay abandon

I and other posters, have mentioned the only practical option open to the OP, other then simply walking away, .. have a private conversation with the tenant to determine the nature of the dispute, based on that then decide if a timely solution is possible or then walk away.

Whether the OP can recover the lost costs of the sale will be entirely upto the legal advice and any subsequent court case. If the Seller is wise, he will perhaps seek to reach a compromise agreement on your costs, many ligitants however are not wise.

listermint

BoatMad wrote: »

if one reviews the situation , you will quickly come to the conclusion, that there are many more bad landlords then bad tenants.

I agree, I have been the victim of a bad landlord. But in her defense she was incredibly hot. But a money hungry hound none the less.

MayoAreMagic

While I understand the urge to meet the person and try to reason with them, the problem there is if they are the type that are looking for any excuse to stay on, then they can very quickly say you were calling to their home, harassing them, and it is your word against theirs as regards if it was a friendly chat or a terse exchange. Calling to someone's home can be very quickly twisted into threatening behaviour. Considering how long they have brazened it out, this cant be ruled out as a possibility.

If you want to go this route then I suggest sending them a registered letter explaining yourself and offering to arrange a friendly meeting somewhere to see if it can be resolved. That way you get your point across without having to call to their home. If they want to resolve it then they will meet you, if they ignore it, then the call would have been a waste of time anyway.

foggy_lad

who_me wrote: »

One thing you could try - have a friendly word with the vendor, tell him you'll initiate legal proceedings to recover your costs against him and he in turn should do the same to the tenant. If the tenant is being sued, and knows the landlord being forced to sue (i.e. he isn't bluffing) then he/she might wise up realising they might be exposed to thousands of euros of liability, in addition to losing the home.

If that doesn't work, you can always cancel the legal proceedings, there's no need to drag yourself and the landlord through months of stress and expense.

If the tenant has no tangible means then sueing them is wasting money! Them seller may as well gift thousands to his solicitor and barrister!

yankinlk

BoatMad wrote: »

I have to laugh

I and other posters, have mentioned the only practical option open to the OP, other then simply walking away, .. have a private conversation with the tenant to determine the nature of the dispute, based on that then decide if a timely solution is possible or then walk away.

.

I have to laugh. Are you going to accompany the OP when he gets his head kicked in by the annoyed sitting tenant?

Its all well and good to sit behind yer keyboard suggesting the OP potentially approach the tenant... no risk to you. Has he even thought about how that conversation is going to go down?

Whatever, it seems the OP recons its a wise idea, so good luck to him.

BoatMad

yankinlk wrote: »

I have to laugh. Are you going to accompany the OP when he gets his head kicked in by the annoyed sitting tenant?

Its all well and good to sit behind yer keyboard suggesting the OP potentially approach the tenant... no risk to you. Has he even thought about how that conversation is going to go down?

Whatever, it seems the OP recons its a wise idea, so good luck to him.

Sorry, on what grounds are you making that claim. The tenant has no adversarial relationship with the OP . IN fact the tenant may relish the opportunity to describes his issues to the OP ( maybe even in the hope that it gives him some leverage)

Id say its the ONLY thing open to the OP, other then walking away.

niallfitz

OP here. If I was a betting man (and I am not!) I would say the tenant is not a person of means and the seller, if they have a case, would get no redress from litigation other than getting them out if it came to that - expensive and lengthy for the seller.

If the tenant has a case then maximum they can stay is, worst case, is 112 days (i.e. say original 112 days notice is invalid for some reason) due to Part IV tenancy.

The seller cannot tell me why exactly (for whatever reason) the tenant is staying on other than they are contesting the 112 days and that they have nowhere to go etc - I agree that this is total hearsay. The PRTB will not tell me when a hearing may happen. The vendor does not seem to have a sense of urgency around (a) seeing if ex parte payment would work, how much etc or (b) expediting any PRTB due process, understanding and agreeing timelines with me and so on. It would appear to me that the relationship between vendor and tenant is completely non-existent.

My gut says to try and find out tenant's side of the story. For all I know they may think that the seller is tricking them into saying the house is sold! My gut and general advice from here and from sol, legal friends etc is that litigation is a last resort and the sums of money involved are probably not worth it... try and sort it out in any legal fashion first before getting into that.... someone mentioned that the most important thing to do is look after my family and not have it go on for ages - that sounds like sage advice! But I want to at least give reconciliation a shot before I go nuclear or walk away.

niallfitz

BoatMad wrote: »

Sorry, on what grounds are you making that claim. The tenant has no adversarial relationship with the OP . IN fact the tenant may relish the opportunity to describes his issues to the OP ( maybe even in the hope that it gives him some leverage)

Id say its the ONLY thing open to the OP, other then walking away.

Yep. Bang on. Could be 'seller pay the tenant X tomorrow on vacant possession (due to poor treatment or whatever), otherwise you get sued for 4X due to breach of contract'. The vendor would appear to be a person of means btw.

BoatMad

niallfitz wrote: »

OP here. If I was a betting man (and I am not!) I would say the tenant is not a person of means and the seller, if they have a case, would get no redress from litigation other than getting them out if it came to that - expensive and lengthy for the seller.

If the tenant has a case then maximum they can stay is, worst case, is 112 days (i.e. say original 112 days notice is invalid for some reason) due to Part IV tenancy.

The seller cannot tell me why exactly (for whatever reason) the tenant is staying on other than they are contesting the 112 days and that they have nowhere to go etc - I agree that this is total hearsay. The PRTB will not tell me when a hearing may happen. The vendor does not seem to have a sense of urgency around (a) seeing if ex parte payment would work, how much etc or (b) expediting any PRTB due process, understanding and agreeing timelines with me and so on. It would appear to me that the relationship between vendor and tenant is completely non-existent.

My gut says to try and find out tenant's side of the story. For all I know they may think that the seller is tricking them into saying the house is sold! My gut and general advice from here and from sol, legal friends etc is that litigation is a last resort and the sums of money involved are probably not worth it... try and sort it out in any legal fashion first before getting into that.... someone mentioned that the most important thing to do is look after my family and not have it go on for ages - that sounds like sage advice! But I want to at least give reconciliation a shot before I go nuclear or walk away.

sensible man.

Calina

OP, your issue is not with the tenant and if you are talking about straightening it out and avoiding litigation, it is not with the tenant you should be having that discussion.

One question I would be interested in hearing an answer for is this: has more than 112 days passed since you went sale agreed?

Lantus

if they have been given the correct legal notice then how on earth do they have a leg to stand on once it has expired? Once ownership does transfer technically you have no tenants so wouldn't be registered with the PRTB anyway?

What about refurbishing the house? Take out the kitchen and bathrooms (give them one months notice first as fair warning) and then think about colour schemes until such time there are no longer pests in the house. You don't have tenants as you never signed a contract and the existing lease has expired before the property was sold. The satellite is potentially unsafe (cracking around bolts) and needs to be taken down. Not to be put back up until a structural engineer has checked it out. String them along for weeks and months until they get bored and leave.

IF they have been offered alternative accommodation at a reduced costs I don't see what claim they could possibly make to the PRTB?

Makes me wonder why I bother paying a mortgage when I could get rent free living. Also, if they don't take the deposit from the original owner then presumably they lose it?

BoatMad

Calina wrote: »

OP, your issue is not with the tenant and if you are talking about straightening it out and avoiding litigation, it is not with the tenant you should be having that discussion.

One question I would be interested in hearing an answer for is this: has more than 112 days passed since you went sale agreed?

you miss the point, The OP need to understand the nature of the issue, he has obviously heard the seller point, he would do well to hear the tenants point.

All that does is inform the OP as to the nature of the dispute and whether a timely solution is possible,

If a timely solution is possible, then the OP can use his legal position to try and " persuade " the seller to engage and settle with the tenant

OR
He can just walk away knowing that the dispute is not going to be resolved in any timescale that suits him.

BoatMad

Lantus wrote: »

if they have been given the correct legal notice then how on earth do they have a leg to stand on once it has expired? Once ownership does transfer technically you have no tenants so wouldn't be registered with the PRTB anyway?

we don't know that they have, we really don't know the real first hand nature of the dispute.


You miss the point the buyer CANNOT complete with out vacant possession , unless he was to get agreement from the mortgage company, that will not be forthcoming. Even then the tenant does not loose any rights merely because the ownership changed.

What about refurbishing the house? Take out the kitchen and bathrooms (give them one months notice first as fair warning) and then think about colour schemes until such time there are no longer pests in the house. You don't have tenants as you never signed a contract and the existing lease has expired before the property was sold. The satellite is potentially unsafe (cracking around bolts) and needs to be taken down. Not to be put back up until a structural engineer has checked it out. String them along for weeks and months until they get bored and leave.

The tenant would sue and you'd loose. its called harassment, The tenant has a right to privacy etc

IF they have been offered alternative accommodation at a reduced costs I don't see what claim they could possibly make to the PRTB?

we have no idea as to the veracity of that claim or the circumstances of it.

Makes me wonder why I bother paying a mortgage when I could get rent free living. Also, if they don't take the deposit from the original owner then presumably they lose it?

Yes they would , but hey don't ever become a tenant OK. ( or a landlord )

drumswan

Lantus wrote: »

if they have been given the correct legal notice then how on earth do they have a leg to stand on once it has expired? Once ownership does transfer technically you have no tenants so wouldn't be registered with the PRTB anyway?

What about refurbishing the house? Take out the kitchen and bathrooms (give them one months notice first as fair warning) and then think about colour schemes until such time there are no longer pests in the house. You don't have tenants as you never signed a contract and the existing lease has expired before the property was sold. The satellite is potentially unsafe (cracking around bolts) and needs to be taken down. Not to be put back up until a structural engineer has checked it out. String them along for weeks and months until they get bored and leave.

IF they have been offered alternative accommodation at a reduced costs I don't see what claim they could possibly make to the PRTB?

Makes me wonder why I bother paying a mortgage when I could get rent free living. Also, if they don't take the deposit from the original owner then presumably they lose it?

There is a sitting tenant. The bank will not allow the sale to close when there is a sitting tenant. Its that simple.

Calina

BoatMad wrote: »

you miss the point, The OP need to understand the nature of the issue, he has obviously heard the seller point, he would do well to hear the tenants point.

All that does is inform the OP as to the nature of the dispute and whether a timely solution is possible,

If a timely solution is possible, then the OP can use his legal position to try and " persuade " the seller to engage and settle with the tenant

OR
He can just walk away knowing that the dispute is not going to be resolved in any timescale that suits him.

He doesn't really. The issue is the seller cannot provide the house vacant. The whys aren't really his problem; they are the seller's problem. He needs to lean on the seller.

BoatMad

drumswan wrote: »

There is a sitting tenant. The bank will not allow the sale to close when there is a sitting tenant. Its that simple.

for very good legal reasons, as the tenant has rights that conflict with the absolute ownership of the property which has been offered to the bank as collateral

Sala

Lantus wrote: »

if they have been given the correct legal notice then how on earth do they have a leg to stand on once it has expired? Once ownership does transfer technically you have no tenants so wouldn't be registered with the PRTB anyway?

Ownership can't pass from the vendor to the purchaser with a tenant in situ because the mortgage is only given by the bank on the condition of vacant possession.

BoatMad

Calina wrote: »

He doesn't really. The issue is the seller cannot provide the house vacant. The whys aren't really his problem; they are the seller's problem. He needs to lean on the seller.

Jeepers, I hope you guys never get into dispute resolution

The OP has a legal issue with the seller, in order to "lean" on the seller he will have to institute legal proceedings first to attempt to enforce contract completion and if that fails, seek legal readdress for costs etc.

Thats fine , but thats a process that could take years, cost the OP lots of money in the meantime and shorten his lifespan

Nor can he exhort the seller to exhort the tenant, very dangerous ground there

What he man do - outside the legal process, is understand the nature of the dispute and therefore decide if he then wants to proceed to legally pressurise the seller.

it would be foolish to merely jump to legal action without first trying to understand the nature of the event.

yankinlk

BoatMad wrote: »

Sorry, on what grounds are you making that claim. The tenant has no adversarial relationship with the OP . IN fact the tenant may relish the opportunity to describes his issues to the OP ( maybe even in the hope that it gives him some leverage)

Id say its the ONLY thing open to the OP, other then walking away.

My last post. The tenant has no adversarial relationship with the OP - on that we agree. The difference is I want to keep it that way - you do not.

Again - it seems you have convinced him against most other sensible posters here - best of luck to you both.

BoatMad

The law really needs to be changed so that people behaving like the tenant in this case can be landed out on their ear the day after their notice is up.

I can't believe people would defend this type of behavior. Tenants have far too many rights in these situations (I'm a tenant myself btw), its not their house, they have been given notice, get out. If they don't go then the LL should be allowed change the locks and remote their stuff.

BoatMad wrote: »

for very good legal reasons, as the tenant has rights that conflict with the absolute ownership of the property which has been offered to the bank as collateral

If the LL had correctly given notice but the tenants refused to leave and I bought the house for cash and threw them out what grounds would the tenant have.... none would be my guess.

happyoutscan

Dominik Refined Murderer wrote: »

The law really needs to be changed so that people behaving like the tenant in this case can be landed out on their ear the day after their notice is up.

I can't believe people would defend this type of behavior. Tenants have far too many rights in these situations (I'm a tenant myself btw), its not their house, they have been given notice, get out. If they don't go then the LL should be allowed change the locks and remote their stuff.



If the LL had correctly given notice but the tenants refused to leave and I bought the house for cash and threw them out what grounds would the tenant have.... none would be my guess.

Tenant sounds like a douche.

BoatMad

Dominik Refined Murderer wrote: »

The law really needs to be changed so that people behaving like the tenant in this case can be landed out on their ear the day after their notice is up.

I can't believe people would defend this type of behavior. Tenants have far too many rights in these situations (I'm a tenant myself btw), its not their house, they have been given notice, get out. If they don't go then the LL should be allowed change the locks and remote their stuff.



If the LL had correctly given notice but the tenants refused to leave and I bought the house for cash and threw them out what grounds would the tenant have.... none would be my guess.

(1) The tenant is entitled to be in dispute with the landlord, do you accept that .
(2) You do not know the details of the dispute , you have merely heard it from one side, who admits its hearsay.
(3) If there is a dispute, the law of the land says that dispute is resolved in a manner prescribed

When you let a house, you derogate part of your rights for the benefits of the income gained. if you want absolute control , don't rent it ( and oh by the way , don't have a mortgage )

by the way, if you fell behind in your mortgage , perhaps the bank could just come and F&*k you out and change the locks

If the LL had correctly given notice but the tenants refused to leave and I bought the house for cash and threw them out what grounds would the tenant have.... none would be my guess.

The tenant retains whatever rights they have irrespective of the owner ( or change of owner)

BoatMad

yankinlk wrote: »

My last post. The tenant has no adversarial relationship with the OP - on that we agree. The difference is I want to keep it that way - you do not.

Again - it seems you have convinced him against most other sensible posters here - best of luck to you both.

The potential buyer has no impact on the tenant, so there is no risk of any adversarial. Its the seller that wants him out.

The buyer ( if he's still interested ) has no choice but to ascertain the facts and make a personal decision.

The choice is simple, walk away or talk , running to legals will achieve nothing

drumswan

BoatMad wrote: »

The potential buyer has no impact on the tenant, so there is no risk of any adversarial.

Theres a risk of the OP getting an adverserial smack in the chops for himself. If you were in dispute with a landlord and some third party showed up at your door sticking his beak in you might be a little miffed.

Madness to go anywhere near the tenant, the dispute is none of his business, he needs to lean on the vendor if he wants to progress the sale.

BoatMad

drumswan wrote: »

Theres a risk of the OP getting an adverserial smack in the chops for himself. If you were in dispute with a landlord and some third party showed up at your door sticking his beak in you might be a little miffed.

Madness to go anywhere near the tenant, the dispute is none of his business, he needs to lean on the vendor if he wants to progress the sale.

I wont keep at this as the OP has decided he's in agreement with talking to the tenant.

"leaning" on the vendor, will involve a legal process, as the seller is already in breach of contract ( well assuming there are not provisos ) The timescsales involved mean the buyer , the Op will never resolve this in any meaningful timescale and will be forced to walk away.

the other alternative is " just to walk away"

The only other option is to try and see if the tenant has a valid dispute , and the nature of that dispute. If the tenant " smacks him on the chops" , there is the offences against the person act. After getting a response from the tenant , then the OP can evaluate whether to walk away or whether there is some hope that the seller can resolve the dispute and it might be worth his while leaning on the seller.

I can see absolutely no reason the tenant would act aggressively , he may want to talk or he may not. either way the OP will have an answer