Exchanged on a property and the Tenant won't leave.....
Discussion
98elise said:
How are decent tenants not protected. Most landlords would welcome decent tenants, otherwise whats the point in being a landlord?
A tenant can get away with murder. I recently had to watch mine loading my posessins (contents) onto their moving van.
3 months later they are still preventing the release of the deposit.
No makey sense!!! You are the LL so why would you want to release the deposit? Or are you saying you aim to keep it because they stole your stuff?A tenant can get away with murder. I recently had to watch mine loading my posessins (contents) onto their moving van.
3 months later they are still preventing the release of the deposit.
garyhun said:
98elise said:
How are decent tenants not protected. Most landlords would welcome decent tenants, otherwise whats the point in being a landlord?
A tenant can get away with murder. I recently had to watch mine loading my posessins (contents) onto their moving van.
3 months later they are still preventing the release of the deposit.
No makey sense!!! You are the LL so why would you want to release the deposit? Or are you saying you aim to keep it because they stole your stuff?A tenant can get away with murder. I recently had to watch mine loading my posessins (contents) onto their moving van.
3 months later they are still preventing the release of the deposit.
benters said:
Du1point8 said:
Makes me scared to go get a BTL, have the money set aside for a 911, but OH says I should invest, but I read more and more stories like this and wonder if its worth it and a few months (6 or so) would see me in trouble with the bank.
done properly it shouldn't cause you any aggro. . . .problems occur when either corners get cut, the wrong advice is given/followed, but that can be said of more or less anything.All depends on the tenants. Like Landlords, there are good ones and bad ones.
k up.
Ok, quick update. The tenant moved out after blackmailing us for £3000 which now means completion can take place as planned today.
As many have said, the solicitors have dropped a huge clanger by not advising us that you'd be nuts to exchange contracts without vacant possession incase this very situation arose. As a result, we intend to complain to the solicitors for negligence and ask for them to cover the £3k which i think is the least they can do considering they put us in a situation which could have cost us (and them) a lot more.
As many have said, the solicitors have dropped a huge clanger by not advising us that you'd be nuts to exchange contracts without vacant possession incase this very situation arose. As a result, we intend to complain to the solicitors for negligence and ask for them to cover the £3k which i think is the least they can do considering they put us in a situation which could have cost us (and them) a lot more.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Or you could take responsibility for your own actions and stop blaming everyone else ....
Or they could take the view that, when employing the services of a professional, they are expecting access to both specialised knowledge and its wise application. They were expecting to be advised of the things they did not know, nor need to know in their everyday life. batmanreturns said:
Thats why i used a solicitor as i'm not an expert in this area, their job was to protect me and advise accordingly.
Clearly.If you are going to be a landlord it is your responsibility to understand the laws under which you operate. Ignorance is no defence.
Did you specifically ask your solicitor what would happen if the tenant did not leave on expiry of the S21 notice?
PurpleMoonlight said:
batmanreturns said:
Thats why i used a solicitor as i'm not an expert in this area, their job was to protect me and advise accordingly.
Clearly.If you are going to be a landlord it is your responsibility to understand the laws under which you operate. Ignorance is no defence.
Did you specifically ask your solicitor what would happen if the tenant did not leave on expiry of the S21 notice?
WinstonWolf said:
Such as allowing landlords to carry out inspections without getting your panties in a bunch?
Landlords often forget that for the duration of the tenancy the property is the tenants home and they are entitled to peaceful enjoyment of that home without overbearing inspections. Letting agents just want to justify their own existence ....PurpleMoonlight said:
WinstonWolf said:
Such as allowing landlords to carry out inspections without getting your panties in a bunch?
Landlords often forget that for the duration of the tenancy the property is the tenants home and they are entitled to peaceful enjoyment of that home without overbearing inspections. Letting agents just want to justify their own existence ....batmanreturns said:
Ok, quick update. The tenant moved out after blackmailing us for £3000 which now means completion can take place as planned today.
As many have said, the solicitors have dropped a huge clanger by not advising us that you'd be nuts to exchange contracts without vacant possession incase this very situation arose. As a result, we intend to complain to the solicitors for negligence and ask for them to cover the £3k which i think is the least they can do considering they put us in a situation which could have cost us (and them) a lot more.
I can't see them paying the 3k as you had other option rather than paying up but let us know how what they say.As many have said, the solicitors have dropped a huge clanger by not advising us that you'd be nuts to exchange contracts without vacant possession incase this very situation arose. As a result, we intend to complain to the solicitors for negligence and ask for them to cover the £3k which i think is the least they can do considering they put us in a situation which could have cost us (and them) a lot more.
KTF said:
batmanreturns said:
Ok, quick update. The tenant moved out after blackmailing us for £3000 which now means completion can take place as planned today.
As many have said, the solicitors have dropped a huge clanger by not advising us that you'd be nuts to exchange contracts without vacant possession incase this very situation arose. As a result, we intend to complain to the solicitors for negligence and ask for them to cover the £3k which i think is the least they can do considering they put us in a situation which could have cost us (and them) a lot more.
I can't see them paying the 3k as you had other option rather than paying up but let us know how what they say.As many have said, the solicitors have dropped a huge clanger by not advising us that you'd be nuts to exchange contracts without vacant possession incase this very situation arose. As a result, we intend to complain to the solicitors for negligence and ask for them to cover the £3k which i think is the least they can do considering they put us in a situation which could have cost us (and them) a lot more.
batmanreturns said:
Paying 3k was cheaper than not being able to complete with vacant possession, that would have forfeited the deposit of approx 40k and then we are liable for costs for the rest of the chain not being able to complete. So yes, 3k was the cheapest route!
With the deposit on the table then you could certainly seek redress as you acted reasonably to mitigate your losses.All I can say is 'wow'.
I think the problem is that with 'conveyancing solicitors' a lot of the time an actual qualified solicitor does not do the paperwork a lot of the time.
I guess you get what you paid for, and I've always gone with a proper, physical, respected local firm.
Sir Bagalot said:
Incorrect.
All depends on the tenants. Like Landlords, there are good ones and bad ones.
Your splitting hairs with me here. . . . it doesn't JUST depend on the tenant/landlord. All depends on the tenants. Like Landlords, there are good ones and bad ones.
The advice given or not given, followed or not followed is the key to the OP's issue. I accept the tenant knew that he had the landlord into a corner. But it is clear from the OP's posting that the so called professional side in this matter didn't fulfil the clients expectations.
my point was to suggest that if done properly these things (and I used the word shouldn't) happen, like almost everything else in life.
Still it appears to be resolved, and expensive lessons have been learnt the hard way which is regrettable.
batmanreturns said:
Paying 3k was cheaper than not being able to complete with vacant possession, that would have forfeited the deposit of approx 40k and then we are liable for costs for the rest of the chain not being able to complete. So yes, 3k was the cheapest route!
OK, I'm slightly lost with a lot of the comments in this thread, which seem to be from the buyers perspective.As a seller, why would you forfeit the deposit? Sure, you might have to give it back, but forfeiting implies losing it, which is something that only happens to buyers.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff