• Vacant Possession Contract But Should Of Been Tenants In Situ

    By Guest on 30th Mar 2025

    Myself and my wife were renting a property and both signed rental agreements to that effect,and the landlord was known to both of us personally, but any communications regarding the property went through a letting agency.
    My wife was a named beneficiary of a recent inheritance, and her trustees decided to buy the property from the landlord, the landlord is also a beneficiary of a trust, they're the main capital beneficiary.
    Valuation was based on a leasehold tenure with vacant possession, but the trustees purchased the freehold based on the leasehold valuation.
    The property sale was with a vacant possession, but as we were rent paying tenants no one told us about having to move out to fulfil the vacant possession needed.
    Today we continue to live in the property and recently the property was transferred to my wife as the new owner.
    When I questioned the trustees about vacant possession even though we had authorisation to continue to live in the property after the sale, the trustees replied saying, we based it on vacant possession to reduce the amount of funds needed to pay for the property, but I have found out that it would of been cheaper to be with tenants in situ..
    One of the trustees had been assigned to deal with the purchase and transfer of the property, but he was a solicitor then, the solicitor was appointed as a trustee just before the purchase
    To me it seems that the vendor and purchasers and solicitor have acted knowingly with disregard for the Law..
    What is the best route for me to take...

  • No answers has been posted yet!

  • Post Your Answer


  • Do you want to be informed of further comments / replies? Yes No

Ask a Question

Search