1 question if rental was never part of the sale agreement prior to occupation and recently it get introduced am I obliged to pay

It is only now that the sent me occupational rent agreement as it was never mentioned in the sale agreement
 
Had quick look, it does not give explicit right to purchaser to move in before transfer but it also does specifies rental amount as NA which could be interpreted as 0 if access is allowed in written form.

So as I see it they can allow you access only after the transfer.
Did you move in? Is there separate rental agreement?
 
Indeed. And any existing tenant, were there one in this case (which there isn't as house was vacant) would have occupation as per the rental agreement. "Huur gaat voor Koop" is the legal phrase in SA.

If the seller (such as the deceased's executor in this case) agrees to let the buyer take occupation before transfer, then that's a matter of their Agreement.

It is well established in SA law that all agreements for the sale or hire of land must be in writing. No verbal agreements can be enforced at law.
There was no tenant in place for over 8 months.
 
It is only now that the sent me occupational rent agreement as it was never mentioned in the sale agreement

Yeah fair enough but I mean you can't just assume you can live there for free? You should open a conversation with them and possibly agree to meet somewhere in the middle stating that it would be in the interest of security over the property, it is in their interest that you don't move in frankly as occupation before registration is when you the buyer start finding issues which becomes a problem for them
 
Had quick look, it does not give explicit right to purchaser to move in before transfer but it also does specifies rental amount as NA which could be interpreted as 0 if access is allowed in written form.

So as I see it they can allow you access only after the transfer.
Did you move in? Is there separate rental agreement?
They only introducing it now after I have taken occupation since last year end sep 2018
 
Yeah fair enough but I mean you can't just assume you can live there for free? You should open a conversation with them and possibly agree to meet somewhere in the middle stating that it would be in the interest of security over the property, it is in their interest that you don't move in frankly as occupation before registration is when you the buyer start finding issues which becomes a problem for them
Again, if no occupational rent is provided for in the AoS then earlier occupation is a matter of separate agreement. If the seller verbally agreed to earlier occupation and the buyer took occupation before she was the registered owner then, absent a written rental agreement, neither party has recourse to the courts to enforce the verbal rental agreement. The legal owner can apply to evict the occupant, subject of course to other laws about squatting and occupation.

At best, the owner can invoke his own right to occupy and the tenant should move out until s/he is the owner. In no case can past "rent" be claimed - that's water under the bridge.
 
Last edited:
Yeah fair enough but I mean you can't just assume you can live there for free? You should open a conversation with them and possibly agree to meet somewhere in the middle stating that it would be in the interest of security over the property, it is in their interest that you don't move in frankly as occupation before registration is when you the buyer start finding issues which becomes a problem for them
I did speak to them and I told them that why introduce this now if initially it was not part of the sale agreement, I could have looked for something that is available as I did state that I pressed to move immediately and I am paying cash
 
If the contract allowed you to live there rent free, I would think it would have stated "R 0".
I read "R N/A" as you won't be renting.

However, since you got the keys from them, and have been living there since Sept, it could be argued that your interpretation of not having to pay rent is more likely correct.

Have you asked the lawyers / estate agent?

What's holding up the sale?

Edit: They can't unilaterally change the agreement. You will have to agree to pay occupational rent. They could possibly also then try to evict you.

Occupational rent is not unfair though, and it's usually less than the bond payment + rates & taxes etc. You will have room to negotiate since you are living there at the moment.
 
They only introducing it now after I have taken occupation since last year end sep 2018
Ok that is interesting, I would say that if you do not have written agreement that you can occupy worst case is that they can kick you out until transfer is done. One for sure is they can not claim previous rent if agreement was not in place.
Who paid for utilities? Were any delays from your side?
 
My first impression:

If the scanned page with clause 4.6 was the original offer to purchase and was signed by all parties and there is no additional addendum or subsequent agreement the N/A would mean not applicable monthly charge for early occupation. Introducing a separate agreement subsequent to this would only be enforceable if agreed to by all and they cannot force you to enter into an agreement for occupational rent unless you're amenable to it. The original offer to purchase cannot be amended unilaterally. You are obviously liable for utility consumption/taxes/levies etc as applicable for the period of occupation.
 
So they never specified an occupational rent amount, but from what I can see they also never specified an agreed upon occupation date prior to registration, is this specified elsewhere in the agreement?
It is in writing via email
 
Ok that is interesting, I would say that if you do not have written agreement that you can occupy worst case is that they can kick you out until transfer is done. One for sure is they can not claim previous rent if agreement was not in place.
Who paid for utilities? Were any delays from your side?
Delayed was from the seller as she was signing at the wrong place this happened for a month, before December 2019
 
Again, if no occupational rent is provided for in the AoS then earlier occupation is a matter of separate agreement. If the seller verbally agreed to earlier occupation and the buyer took occupation before she was the registered owner then, absent a written rental agreement, neither party has recourse to the courts to enforce the verbal rental agreement. The legal owner can apply to evict the occupant, subject of course to other laws about squatting and occupation.

At best, the owner can invoke his own right to occupy and the tenant should move out until s/he is the owner. In no case can past "rent" be claimed - that's water under the bridge.

We are on the same page so I am not sure why the attitude?
 
We are on the same page so I am not sure why the attitude?
? What attitude? The only small quibble I have with your response above is where you state "you can't just assume you can live there for free?" (why not?) and "You should open a conversation with them and possibly agree to meet somewhere in the middle" (should is too strong; could or can is more accurate). Perhaps a practical way forward, but in strict legal terms no occupational rent is due. Period.

Apols. There is no "attitude" in my answer, so I'm sorry if you detected one.
 
Who appointed the conveyancers and why the delay?
I am not sure who appointed the conveyance. From what I am told is that the bond needs to be serviced but my question was how come as it's a late estate? Then I was told that there's a marriage of in community property it's confusing to me
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X