Notice to sell to substantial works

themoone

Hi all I am new here so hope you will forgive me if I mess up. As I see that a lot of you are very experienced I want to pick your brains.
Background: I have a property that has been rented out for the past number of years. There is a need for substantial refurbishment to it due to H&S issues (which the tenant is aware of) as it is an ongoing legal process. I am considering with the new laws to sell up but concerned that if I issue a notice based on that they will overhold (as it seems to be so common now).
So my question is: do I issue the notice for selling or better to go with H&S issue but then why did I not do it before or can I rely on the fact that properties are due to be inspected from July with heavy penalties. Or better still go with notice for H&S and sell but in that case might void the reason for inspections.
Thank you for any advice you provide and sorry if I have made a dogs dinner out of it.

LincolnHawk

Talk to a solicitor

The_Conductor

You've a bit of a gun to your head on this one.
The imperative is to end the tenancy- and have the tenant vacate the property- so you don't end up liable should they injure themselves because of the H&S issues.

You have, as you've correctly surmissed, two possible paths to go here.

1. Sell- 'as-is' and have the prospective purchaser factor any remedial work into the price they propose to pay for the dwelling. However- you may have the tenant overholding- and all the time, you have the H&S issues to contend with.

2. Notice to vacate the property because of the need for substantial refurbishment- which is entirely accurate. Once again- you may have the tenant overholding.

I'd suggest talking the tenant.
Make them aware that you *need* vacant possession of the property to conduct significant works.
Agree between you- a date that they agree to vacate the property be.
Document your agreement- and have both sides sign it.
Agree to return their deposit and final month's rent in full- on hand over of the unit- providing they keep to the day they agree on (i.e. I'd add a small inducement to the pot- to sweeten the deal for them).

Lesson here- is do not let property out which is not fit to be let out- and if/when significant issues are identified- you *need* to resolve them immediately- you cannot put them on the long finger.

themoone

First of all thank you for your responses. Of course I am talking to a solicitor, I am also aware that this does not constitute legal advice. However, I feel that there are a number of people that are very experienced here so wanted to pick their brains.

I also think I need to clarify some issues; The property is in a development and the issues arose from developer cutting corners not our lack of action. We have been involved in a legal dispute along with a large number of others. The tenant is aware of this as their have been constant surveys carried out and it has been communicated to them and how carrying out the remedial works would require vacant possession. The tenant communicated that this would cause them to be displaced and wished that we put in place measures that would reduce the impact of this issue but would permit them to stay. We have worked together to do so however, understandably has not completely resolved it. With all the new laws we feel that we could do without the headache and sell up. We have not decided yet if we will carry out the works prior to the sale or is it not worth it especially as it is not our liability and requires access to other areas of the building that are not in our possession and we can be easily refused access.

My point is if we go with selling, it seems that the tenant is likely to over-hold with the RTB dragging their heels in resolving this issue. While if we go with the fact that there are works needed with the property the RTB will be more likely to resolve issue more speedily.

The_Conductor

The tenant overholding- has very little bearing on whether or not they lodge a case with the RTB. Even if/when the RTB adjudicate in your favour- you could still need to go to court to enforce it- and then- if they still continued to do so- you might need to get the sheriff involved etc.

Its messy- however the RTB are only the first cog in the wheel. The system is setup to protect the tenant at all costs- including if/when they are living in unsafe conditions- the fact that the issue is because of the developer taking shortcuts- simply means someone else is liable ultimately- it doesn't get you off the hook- and as landlord- you are the person the tenant will pursue, not the developer.

This has the potential to get nasty- and you are already of the opinion that the tenant is going to overhold- I'd still suggest trying the amiable approach- that is a little reward (nothing significant) to the tenant to vacate the property when you and they agree is a mutually acceptable date for them to do so. I am suggesting their deposit and their last month's rent into their hands in cash- on vacating the apartment on the agreed date- its an inducement, you don't need to give it to them (obviously you have to give them the deposit back, less deductions for any damage over and above normal wear and tear)- but the knowledge that you're doing your best- and there is something in it for them to keep to their side of the bargain- might be sufficient?

davindub

themoone wrote: »

First of all thank you for your responses. Of course I am talking to a solicitor, I am also aware that this does not constitute legal advice. However, I feel that there are a number of people that are very experienced here so wanted to pick their brains.

I also think I need to clarify some issues; The property is in a development and the issues arose from developer cutting corners not our lack of action. We have been involved in a legal dispute along with a large number of others. The tenant is aware of this as their have been constant surveys carried out and it has been communicated to them and how carrying out the remedial works would require vacant possession. The tenant communicated that this would cause them to be displaced and wished that we put in place measures that would reduce the impact of this issue but would permit them to stay. We have worked together to do so however, understandably has not completely resolved it. With all the new laws we feel that we could do without the headache and sell up. We have not decided yet if we will carry out the works prior to the sale or is it not worth it especially as it is not our liability and requires access to other areas of the building that are not in our possession and we can be easily refused access.

My point is if we go with selling, it seems that the tenant is likely to over-hold with the RTB dragging their heels in resolving this issue. While if we go with the fact that there are works needed with the property the RTB will be more likely to resolve issue more speedily.

What are the nature of the works? How long would it take?

themoone

So as not to side track away from the issue. Let us say the nature of the works will make the apartment uninhabitable during the period of works. And it would take several months to resort it back to the condition it was in with a significant cost and without access to other parts of the building the works will only resolve the issue by 75%. However, I know that the tenant would be entitled to come back with the same below market rent if the works took less than 6 months. I also believe that if the tenant did not vacate he would be in breach of tenant obligations which would prevent him from being able to take advantage of this clause, is this correct?