Offer to purchase question

Turns out the tenants aren't out yet, because they were expecting the transfer to go through next week. Even though the original estimation was mid-October.

What do we do now? Our OTP didn't have a clause for occupational rent, it stated that the owners guarantee vacant occupation on transfer.
 
LlamaParty said:
Turns out the tenants aren't out yet, because they were expecting the transfer to go through next week. Even though the original estimation was mid-October.

What do we do now? Our OTP didn't have a clause for occupational rent, it stated that the owners guarantee vacant occupation on transfer.
Click to expand...
Legally they will need to get a move on and vacate the premises. You could probably make an arrangement for them to stay for a few days but it would have to probably be drafted up to cover yourself legally. Technically the property is yours now so any damages to it will now be for your account.

Can't you speak to the agent and have them sort it out?
 
LlamaParty said:
Turns out the tenants aren't out yet, because they were expecting the transfer to go through next week. Even though the original estimation was mid-October.

What do we do now? Our OTP didn't have a clause for occupational rent, it stated that the owners guarantee vacant occupation on transfer.
Click to expand...

Speak to the Convenyencer?
They need to move, it's the end of the month
 
I'd be preeeeeetty angry if I can move in and the people aren't out.
 
LlamaParty said:
Turns out the tenants aren't out yet, because they were expecting the transfer to go through next week. Even though the original estimation was mid-October.

What do we do now? Our OTP didn't have a clause for occupational rent, it stated that the owners guarantee vacant occupation on transfer.
Click to expand...
Hmmm the seller is being dodgy here. The right thing to do is get your agent and transfer attorney to sort it out. You should either be getting some rental money until they out or be able to move in from tomorrow.
 
Yeah, I'm a bit annoyed. Its not like they didn't know this was happening.

We're busy talking to the estate agent, but I'm worried he's going to ask us to just be nice and let them have the weekend to move.

I don't want to be a Karen, but we also really want to move!
 
I would think giving them the weekend is reasonable? Anyway, speak to your conveyancer to sort it out. Tell them you want at least 2% of the full purchase price per month occupational rent (calculated pro rata for the days).
 
Been 10 days now since lodging my application (zero feedback yet), I hope it max 3 more days (crossing fingers for before next week Wednesday)
 
LlamaParty said:
Yeah, I'm a bit annoyed. Its not like they didn't know this was happening.

We're busy talking to the estate agent, but I'm worried he's going to ask us to just be nice and let them have the weekend to move.

I don't want to be a Karen, but we also really want to move!
Click to expand...

They knew this was coming, and legally you have right to a vacant property, I would say be nice to the point of giving them until Sunday evening, other than that nope
 
Toxxyc said:
The executor of the estate, as I have it.

Also, I called the agent. The people living there had their lease expire already, and they've been given notice to move. So if they stick around, it'll be illegal occupation and I'll get a sheriff to remove them. Luckily I actually know a guy doing just that.
Click to expand...
It is the seller's obligation to give you vacant occupation, no need for you to get involved with evictions.
 
bokka1 said:
It is the seller's obligation to give you vacant occupation, no need for you to get involved with evictions.
Click to expand...
Always? As in: is this the law? Or standard practice?

If yes, why, then, would some OTPs specify "vacant occupation", at all, if it is the norm and always the seller's obligation?

It is usual to specify a penalty or rate of compensation, or is there a standard or usual amount, which the seller would have to pay to the purchaser, if the seller's tenants haven't left? How would this be charged?
 
Gozado said:
Always? As in: is this the law? Or standard practice?

If yes, why, then, would some OTPs specify "vacant occupation", at all, if it is the norm and always the seller's obligation?

It is usual to specify a penalty or rate of compensation, or is there a standard or usual amount, which the seller would have to pay to the purchaser, if the seller's tenants haven't left? How would this be charged?
Click to expand...
That clause is to differentiate from if for example you're buying a rental property and the tenants are staying, you're just becoming their landlord instead of the previous owner. Happened at the place my brother was staying a while ago. In this case you'd remove the clause from the sale agreement.

I think the point in this case though was that since the buyer is buying the house to live in, the seller has to ensure that it's vacant. If evictions are needed then the buyer doesn't have any obligation to get involved. If the seller can't manage to evict the tenant then the sale agreement falls through.

If I understand correctly.
 
The sales agreement does not fall through but the new owner can sue the previous owner for damages.

The rule of thumb is not to let transfer go through if there is a problematic tenant.
 
bokka1 said:
The sales agreement does not fall through but the new owner can sue the previous owner for damages.

The rule of thumb is not to let transfer go through if there is a problematic tenant.
Click to expand...

Yea you can sue for damages. But if the buyer knew there was a tenant. It will be hard to sue. The buyer will need to prove that the seller knew the tenants were in financial difficulties or had no intention of leaving and prove for non disclosure. Sounds to me there wasn’t a clause stating the place has to be vacant at the time of occupation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X