Buying a property with vendors wanting to stay a few months?

Buying a property with vendors wanting to stay a few months?

by Readers Question

Guest Author

16:21 PM, 31st January 2017, About 7 years ago 30

Text Size

I plan to buy a house as a buy-to-let investment. time

The sellers have asked if they can continue to stay at the property (and pay rent) for a couple of months while some work is carried out at the house they are buying. I have no problem with this as I plan to rent anyway. I would simply put it on the market once the sellers vacate.

But it does mean the house would be sold “without vacant possession”. Is there a way I can agree to the vendors staying at the property for a couple of months without them accruing rights of occupation? I could ask them to stay at a hotel for a night or two at the time of the sale if this would signify a “clean break” but I don’t think they would want to move all their furniture out and then back.

Many thanks


Share This Article


Nigel Copage

15:21 PM, 1st February 2017, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Chris wood" at "01/02/2017 - 11:14":

Thanks for your input Chris - it's very helpful. I guess it comes down to an issue of trust.

Nigel Copage

15:22 PM, 1st February 2017, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Anne Noon" at "01/02/2017 - 09:03":

Thanks for your Anne - that's very helpful.

Jamie M

22:39 PM, 1st February 2017, About 7 years ago

Exchange now and Delay completion till they move

Mick Roberts

7:27 AM, 2nd February 2017, About 7 years ago

Yes Mark,

You are correct, looking back, I may have put too much 'helpful' against the rules info.

I have just checked quickly the rules as such, but a lot wouldn't apply to someone like me.
No mortgage lender to get involved.
Tenants there more than 5 years.
Giving 'em time to cool off.

Telling 'em what it's really worth etc. etc.
So would I have passed or not?

Apparently these rules put all the regulated sale & rent back firms out of business, so was they right?

And judging by the comments on this page, other Landlord purchasers & sellers have done the same thing.
Looks like the law is wrong.
If I did it, I'd sign tenancy months later anyway, giving them free rent for 6 months. Would free rent circumnavigate the rules?

And if solicitors don't even know the ins and outs, what help is there for us?

I know ignorance is no defence of the law. But I was doing this 18 years ago or so. I don't know when this law came in and no one told me. If I was a worrier, I'd let it bother me. But what can I do? I've stopped someone being homeless. And it appears Purchaser Landlords are still at it now, unaware or not fully knowing they have to comply.

How would one comply anyway?

Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118

7:44 AM, 2nd February 2017, About 7 years ago

Yes I agree the regulators screwed up.

The only way to stay within the law is to walk away from deals, even if that means somebody is going to become homeless.

Stupid laws caused by over regulation but regardless of how ridiculous the law is, we must comply.


17:16 PM, 3rd February 2017, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "31/01/2017 - 22:37":

Not a question of the payments but whether the bank would allow him to carry both mortgages, i.e. bridge. I sold a business property where the buyer wanted six weeks to do work before moving and didn't want to close his business. He could not pay the full amount until he had sold his, which I agreed to, to facilitate the sale. However he had a devil of a job getting his lenders to agree. I think it would be harder with residential as there are more regulations.


17:25 PM, 3rd February 2017, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mick Roberts" at "02/02/2017 - 07:27":

Sale and rent back has been outlawed for about five years. This was because unscrupulous people were buying distressed properties at a huge discount, promising a tenancy and then putting up rents to evict the occupants. Like all things if everyone had played fair as you are trying to do, this would not have happened. Indeed I did this several years ago, paid market price and still have happy tenants. I considered doing more similar deals and it never occurred to me to rip people off. But then the scavengers spoiled it for everyone. Looking at all the financial horror stories of the last few years, they are all underpinned by greed and corruption.

Chris wood

20:29 PM, 3rd February 2017, About 7 years ago

Another piece of legalise that no one ever gets prosecuted for ? I am a gas fitter and have found dozens of properties where gas appliances have been fitted by non qualified people. There are very few prosecutions for this, and if they are it is only because the installation has caused, or can potentially cause death or injury to people. And this is only if it has been brought to the attention of Health and Safety or Gas Safe. We have been arguing for years for the government to bring in legislation to stop 'Joe Public' from being able to purchase gas appliances. In one fell swoop this would prevent appliances being fitted by non qualified people because there would be traceability. But no, this has not happened and probably never will.
The government continually bring out new regulations or tighten up existing ones. In reality they have not got the man power to check that these regulations are being adhered too.
Mind you, I can hardly blame people for avoiding some of the nonsensical legislation they impose on us - the EPC ratings being a prime example. The majority of it is just another way of squeezing more money out of people.

Jamie M

20:37 PM, 3rd February 2017, About 7 years ago

We are swamped by this useless legislation and not one of us knows how to stop, then reverse this onslaught!
Well there is a way, but no one wants to go there 🙂

webly Harrison

13:06 PM, 23rd February 2017, About 7 years ago

Why not just agree exchange now and a fixed date for completion after they want to leave
You just lower the final price you pay to account for the equivalent rental amount you would have got otherwise
I assume they need the money for their purchase but you can agree paying the majority of the cash at exchange rather than completion

we've done this before and it avoids all the complexity and you still have security and vacant posession at the later date

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership


Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now