Jump to content

Is this a squatter & who is responsible to get him to leave?

Recommended Posts


 Landlord serves tenant appropriate notice for tenant to leave, as landlord selling the property. Two months later, the property is sold, everything is completed and the new owner is ready to move in, only to find the tenant is still in the property and refuses to leave. Who is responsible for getting the tenant to leave, the previous landlord or the new owner? Is this now classed as a squatter that the new owner must deal with? 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new owner, unless the seller witheld relevant information about the situation with the tenant.

 

Caveat emptor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, poppet2 said:


 Landlord serves tenant appropriate notice for tenant to leave, as landlord selling the property. Two months later, the property is sold, everything is completed and the new owner is ready to move in, only to find the tenant is still in the property and refuses to leave. Who is responsible for getting the tenant to leave, the previous landlord or the new owner? Is this now classed as a squatter that the new owner must deal with? 
 

 

37 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

The new owner, unless the seller witheld relevant information about the situation with the tenant.

 

Caveat emptor.

1. The tenant (T) is not a squatter if the tenancy is still in existence.

2. Merely serving Notice on T (e.g. under s.8 or s.21 of the Housing Act 1988) does not end it.

3. Did the vendor (V) sell to the purchaser (P) with vacant possession (see the precise terms of the sale contract)?

- If YES: V is in breach. P can make V pay P's costs of removing T, or P can sue V for breach.

- If NO, i.e. P purchased subject to T's tenancy, it's up to P to remove T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"2. Merely serving Notice on T (e.g. under s.8 or s.21 of the Housing Act 1988) does not end it".

 

Please explain your point 2

otherwise, what is the point of giving a tenant notice to leave? 

 

Vendor sold with vacant possession. The building was unoccupied right up until new purchaser moved in.

 

Tenant made a copy of the key to gain re-entry, the same day new purchaser moved in. It is for this reason I ask whether he can be classed as a squatter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the tenant vacated the property, which sat vacant during the sale and then regained access??

 

Does sound more like a squatter when you put it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, geared said:

So the tenant vacated the property, which sat vacant during the sale and then regained access??

 

Does sound more like a squatter when you put it that way.

Technically yes, but if the person claimed that they were actually on holiday/ill/visiting friends whatever, when the property was empty they may claim that the tenancy was continuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Technically yes, but if the person claimed that they were actually on holiday/ill/visiting friends whatever, when the property was empty they may claim that the tenancy was continuous.

They could, but then if the place was photographed for the sale (and was vacant) then it makes their claim pretty tough.

 

"You went on holiday with the fridge-freezer and washing machine????"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, geared said:

They could, but then if the place was photographed for the sale (and was vacant) then it makes their claim pretty tough.

Do we know that it was?

 

Also, if the locks were changed, how did the tenant make a copy of the key if they weren’t living there.

 

Something fishy here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The locks weren't changed.

Just a copy key made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, francypants said:

The locks weren't changed.

Just a copy key made.

I see.

 

In that case the purchaser may have a claim against the vendor for failing to fully secure vacant possession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely a case for a legal professional, I bet the seller is very unhappy with everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/04/2019 at 12:42, Top Cats Hat said:

Technically yes, but if the person claimed that they were actually on holiday/ill/visiting friends whatever, when the property was empty they may claim that the tenancy was continuous.

But tenant wasn't on holiday as landlord was there the day tenant left with all his suitcases, and then tenant handed the key to the landlord in person. Landlord then checked everything and locked up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.