Buying house with sitting tenants - tenancy agreement?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Buying house with sitting tenants - tenancy agreement?

    Hi, I'm buying a house with sitting tenants, and am not sure what I need to do about the AST which has rolled over into a periodic tenancy. I'm happy with the tenancy agreement and want to leave it exactly as it is. Can anyone tell me what I need to do?

    #2
    When the purchase completes, you need to write to the tenants (google s48 and s3 notices) and confirm that you are now the landlord, and give them your name and address and to tell them where to send the rent in future.
    Or your conveyancer might know to do this.

    On completion, you simply become the landlord in the existing contract - legally you "step into the shoes" of the current landlord.

    Make sure that the seller transfers the deposit to you as part of the sale / purchase process.

    And, for the avoidance of doubt, make sure you know when the current tenant moved in to the property - before 1990 would be a concern.
    When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
    Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

    Comment


      #3
      Serve notice(s) compliant with s48 & S3 or no rent due to you and possible fines and criminal offence.

      Ask, before exchange, tenant when they 1st moved it - if early enough it won't be an AST, regardless of paperwork. Don't trust owner or agent
      I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

      Comment


        #4
        Great, thanks very much for the advice. So I don't actually need to do anything about the AST at all (they moved in in 2017), even though it has the current landlord's name on it? Is this because its all covered by the s48/s3 notices?

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by riskchick View Post
          Great, thanks very much for the advice. So I don't actually need to do anything about the AST at all (they moved in in 2017), even though it has the current landlord's name on it? Is this because its all covered by the s48/s3 notices?
          Yes, that's basically what they're for - to record the change.

          Just a quick check, when you say "they", how many people are there?
          When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
          Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by riskchick View Post
            Great, thanks very much for the advice. So I don't actually need to do anything about the AST at all (they moved in in 2017), even though it has the current landlord's name on it? Is this because its all covered by the s48/s3 notices?
            Given this is a substantial investment, to reduce risk & possible losses, check with tenant when they actually 1st moved in (or if there is evidence place was builtin 2010 fine).

            If they turned out to have an AT not AST then there's no s21: If even earlier and a "Rent Act" tenancy, almost impossible to evict.
            I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

            Comment


              #7
              Thanks - there are two tenants and they moved in on Nov 3rd 2017, its definitely an AST. It just seems strange that the AST will have the previous landlord's name on it.

              I did have another quick related query - ref the deposit, this is insured, and as I have a copy of the AST I can see that the agency (used just as a tenant finder) have put their name down as the landlord. I know that it should have my name on it, but since they have put their name on the AST nothing is really any different, so can I just leave it as it is?

              Thanks!

              Comment


                #8
                Where did you get the term 'sitting tenants' from? This usually refers (as theartfullodger suggests) to a tenant who took up residence before the AST/S21 came in 1988.

                If they truly moved in in 2017 they are just 'tenants on an AST'.

                Quite often on here we get buyers just about to or having purchased a property with a true 'sitting tenant' and asking us how they can evict or increase a very low rent. Both are almost impossible.



                Freedom at the point of zero............

                Comment


                  #9
                  Wikipedia says otherwise
                  I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by theartfullodger View Post
                    Wikipedia says otherwise
                    How so?

                    As we both know, true "sitting tenant" tenancies are/were an abject failure for most people.

                    We tried it, it didn't work.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitting_tenant
                      ....A sitting tenant is a tenant already in occupation of premises, especially when there is a change of owner. etc etc etc etc......
                      Ditto...
                      https://www.pettyson.co.uk/about-us/...-tenant-rights


                      Certainly it's also is my long-term understanding of what the expression means & common usage thereof: But, hey, free country, think/interpret as you see fit!
                      I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

                      Comment


                        #12
                        My mistake - I thought a 'sitting tenant' was the correct term for when you buy a house which is tenanted, . They moved in in 2017 so I apparently used the wrong terminology. I should have said 'tenants in situ'.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by riskchick View Post
                          I did have another quick related query - ref the deposit, this is insured, and as I have a copy of the AST I can see that the agency (used just as a tenant finder) have put their name down as the landlord. I know that it should have my name on it, but since they have put their name on the AST nothing is really any different, so can I just leave it as it is?

                          Thanks!
                          Can anyone advise about my query re whether I need to do anything about the deposit protection scheme, since it has the agent's name as the landlord?

                          Comment


                            #14
                            I'm guessing that Wikipedia being the recent and worldwide thing it is maybe does not represent the particular definition some of us put on the term in England.

                            Indeed have have had family who were 'sitting tenants' in the sense I described - no AST and been in a property since the 1960s. Throughout helping with their affairs I found government and legal persons always used the term 'sitting tenant'. That was good enough for me.




                            Freedom at the point of zero............

                            Comment


                              #15
                              First check AST and discus with tenant and take a action, don't believe landlord

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X