Section 8, Ground 1 Help Needed.

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

    Section 8, Ground 1 Help Needed.

    I have a question which I haven't been able to find an exact answer for and by the looks of it I doubt I will until the day. Here is my predicament:

    I am currently purchasing an apartment which I hope will complete in June this year. I wish to move into the apartment and carry out extensive remodelling (whole apartment to be gutted) but the issue I have is the vendor who is selling the apartment has recently re let it on a 12 month AST running from May 14 to May 15.

    This is highly annoying as I want to move in to the apartment as soon as the renovations are finished.

    Before anyone askes the current vendor isn't willing to do anything with regards to the tenants. She wishes to keep them in and if I mention the idea of removing them she will not sell the property to me.

    So I have came up with two options but I need to know how much of a chance I really have of this working:

    1. As soon as I take ownership of the property I ask the tenants nicely and explain the situation and give them the option of having 1 1/2 months rent free to find somewhere else and leave (I really hope they take me up on this offer).

    2. Subject to that failing and them not willing to leave I issue them with a Section 8 on Ground 1:

    "Not later than the beginning of the tenancy the landlord gave notice in writing to the tenant that possession might be recovered on this ground or the court is of the opinion that it is just and equitable to dispense with the requirement of notice and (in either case)—
    (a)
    at some time before the beginning of the tenancy, the landlord who is seeking possession or, in the case of joint landlords seeking possession, at least one of them occupied the dwelling-house as his only or principal home; or
    (b)
    the landlord who is seeking possession or, in the case of joint landlords seeking possession, at least one of them requires the dwelling-house as his or his spouse’s only or principal home and neither the landlord (or, in the case of joint landlords, any one of them) nor any other person who, as landlord, derived title under the landlord who gave the notice mentioned above acquired the reversion on the tenancy for money or money’s worth."


    I will be moving into the property so that is covered under sub heading "B". I am more concerned with where it states that the court is of the opinion that it is just and equitable to dispense with no notice being given prior to the tenant signing their AST. Will the courts consider that I was not the owner nor landlord when the tenant signed up so I could not have given them any notice before the tenancy was signed?? This is where I am really unsure if I will be granted the possession or not.

    Does anyone have any experience or knowledge on this at all?

    Regards

    OR

    #2
    Firstly, I did not believe you could serve a Section 8, Ground 1 unless you have previously lived in the property... but that might be wrong. Secondly, I did not think you could serve a Section 8, Ground 1 while the tenancy was in a fixed term - and the current vendor appears to have signed the Tenants up from May 2014 to May 2015, which sounds like a fixed term.

    In either case, I would be heavily relying on your idea #1... it's best for all concerned. The incentive you offer them might well change to suit how difficult it is for them to move on.

    I will watch other incoming replies with much interest... and hopefully learn something myself.

    Comment


      #3
      I'd also add that you seem to be somewhat uncomfortably tied into this transaction... or are the days gone where vendors do the things purchasers want for fear of them walking away from the deal? Have you considered a walk-away if the vendor is going against your wishes in this manner? I'd, personally, like to take a bit more control... I'd be insisting on vacant possession, I think, and handing the problem over to the vendor in its entirety. If the vendor's not happy, no sale. You may be very emotionally invested in the purchase, of course.

      Comment


        #4
        Why would the vendor re let for 12 months starting next month when the property is being sold. Doesn't sound right to me. Good luck getting in for June, I can't see it happening myself.
        "I'm afraid I didn't do enough background checks apart from checking her identity on Facebook" - ANON

        What I say is based on my own experience and research - Please don't take as gospel without first checking the gospel yourself.

        Comment


          #5
          You think there's an AST: If the tenants moved in some time ago the paperwork could be erroneous & they could have an AT (much harder to evict) or regulated/"Rent-Act" tenancy (nigh on impossible to evict). Ask TENANT (don't trust vendor, agent or their solicitor) when they moved in/did they sell the place to current owner...

          Personally I'd walk away from this "deal": Something very suspicious/smelly is going on
          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


            #6
            Because I am buying the property off market and the vendor didn't plan on selling it but my offer was good enough for her to let it go. I agree I should have more power but I was this particular property a great deal which is why I'm under these pressures to remove the tenants.

            I don't plan on being in the property by June but I would like to be in by September really.

            With regards to having lived in the property it states to have lived in before "or" to want to live in it as your main residence. This particular Ground seems to have some grey areas which is why I came here to find out if I stand much of a chance or not legally.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by theartfullodger View Post
              You think there's an AST: If the tenants moved in some time ago the paperwork could be erroneous & they could have an AT (much harder to evict) or regulated/"Rent-Act" tenancy (nigh on impossible to evict). Ask TENANT (don't trust vendor, agent or their solicitor) when they moved in/did they sell the place to current owner...

              Personally I'd walk away from this "deal": Something very suspicious/smelly is going on
              They definitely only have a 12 month AST in place. I hope my last reply makes this sound a lot less fishy as this saga of me trying to buy it has been on going for some time (due to my deposit problems) so the vendor decided to take the property off the market and then rent it out last year... on a 6 month AST. They have since now just signed a new 12 month AST just before I came in with an offer (I've now sorted my finances out)

              Comment


                #8
                If they have a 12 month AST in place, I'd expect (and even hope, on their behalf) this is fixed.

                Tenants certainly don't like it when Landlords won't release them from a tenancy early, for whatever reason. You'd expect it swings both ways, the Tenants surely have security of the 12 month fixed term now, regardless of what the Landlord wants or needs? I mean, if Landlords wanted Tenants out during their fixed term, they could always pretend that they wanted to live in it, then change their plans - for whatever reason (but generally it being an abuse of the system / law) - after the Tenant was gone.

                So, if my first thought about Ground 1 is blown out of the water (previously lived there), is my second thought (not in fixed term)?

                I think your idea #1 is best - might have to dig deep(er).

                Comment

                Latest Activity

                Collapse

                Working...
                X