Tenants in situ – Previous landlord does not have Gas/Electric/DPS?

Tenants in situ – Previous landlord does not have Gas/Electric/DPS?

9:54 AM, 23rd February 2023, About A year ago 76

Text Size

Hi All, Just a bit of advice please. I am in the process of purchasing my first buy to let and was expecting the property empty on completion.

The agent has now come back and stated that the property is tenanted. The tenants want to stay and the seller wants to sell the property with the tenants as he is in a hurry.

I have spoken to the seller who has advised that he was a first time landlord himself and the tenants were friends of a friend and he has not had any issues with them.

He advised that he got them to sign a generic AST in 2019 but did not know about the Gas Certificates/electric certificates or DPS. He does not have these but will get them done. He did take a deposit of them years ago.

Should I still continue and purchase the property?

Is there anything that can be done to rectify the situation or should just walk away?

Thanks,

Maz


Share This Article


Comments

Seething Landlord

18:53 PM, 26th February 2023, About A year ago

Reply to the comment left by David Houghton at 26/02/2023 - 15:11
"Byrne wasn't really anything, it was just a reading of the law in the ordinary natural meaning."

Not sure what you mean by this, can you clarify?

The meaning of the law was clearly not obvious to the DDJ as the tenant had to appeal against her judgment and there was also great uncertainty amongst landlords following Trecarrel about how the law should be interpreted where no GSC existed at commencement of the tenancy.

David Houghton

19:04 PM, 26th February 2023, About A year ago

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 26/02/2023 - 18:53
No Trecarell was about a GSC existing but not being served. Read the legislation for the EPC and GSC. The latter has much stronger wording.

A minor admin error should not permanently exclude s21. Dangerous gas appliances that could kill someone, that's different. That's why the legislation is so worded. Do not expect a decision opposite to Byrne.

Seething Landlord

19:05 PM, 26th February 2023, About A year ago

Reply to the comment left by Karen Gregory at 26/02/2023 - 10:59
A deposit received after 6th April 2012 has to be protected within 30 days, not 21. What has it to do with the council?

Seething Landlord

19:22 PM, 26th February 2023, About A year ago

Reply to the comment left by David Houghton at 26/02/2023 - 19:04
Are you replying to me or someone else? You seem to be repeating what I have said previously but have not explained what you meant by "Byrne wasn't really anything, it was just a reading of the law in the ordinary natural meaning."

My view is that Byrne is a definitive interpretation of the law where no GSC existed at commencement of the tenancy, which is why I have described it as the leading case. Some seem to have a problem with this because it was a County Court appeal case but have not yet explained on what grounds they think it could be challenged in the Court of Appeal.

David Houghton

19:35 PM, 26th February 2023, About A year ago

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 26/02/2023 - 19:22
I was replying to you, did you read the legislation. I can't see how it could be appealed. I'd work on the basis to pre tenancy GSC for qualifying tenancy no s21. I really do not expect to change

Seething Landlord

20:08 PM, 26th February 2023, About A year ago

Reply to the comment left by David Houghton at 26/02/2023 - 19:35
Why do you think I disagree with you?

You keep trying to convince me of things that I have previously said as though I had said the opposite!

I still do not understand what you meant when you said "Byrne wasn't really anything, it was just a reading of the law in the ordinary natural meaning", as though the case was of no significance.

David Houghton

20:27 PM, 26th February 2023, About A year ago

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 26/02/2023 - 20:08
Ok. Hers why the case is of no significance.

If the decision was the other way, i.e you could rectify the fault of no GSC by getting a GSC, then there would be absolutely no point in the legislation. In other words the supreme court would have the power to remove laws. It doesn't. It's as significantly as any of the other hundreds of county court decisions every day

Seething Landlord

23:47 PM, 26th February 2023, About A year ago

Reply to the comment left by David Houghton at 26/02/2023 - 20:27
You seem to think that the judgment was a statement of the obvious but have overlooked the fact that the DDJ did not have your clarity of vision as she originally granted the possession order, hence the appeal to the County Court by the tenant.

If the DDJ got it wrong it is quite likely that others have done so previously and would have continued to do so. That is why the case is significant and will be cited whenever the issue arises in future.

David Houghton

8:24 AM, 27th February 2023, About A year ago

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 26/02/2023 - 23:47
You are not making sense. County courts do not do appeals. The judge correctly refused the possession order I. The first instance is my understanding.

Seething Landlord

9:08 AM, 27th February 2023, About A year ago

Reply to the comment left by David Houghton at 27/02/2023 - 08:24
Your understanding is incorrect. I suggest that you read the judgement in the Byrne case.

Leave Comments

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

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now