PDA

View Full Version : Notice period in order to put property on market??



jerushjo
26-05-2007, 23:26 PM
Hi folks!

Newbie here.... :o

I am looking to put my tenanted property on the market. The estate agent tells me that I HAVE to give the tenants notice on the property before I am allowed to market.

The 2 month notice therefore is required BEFORE Tuesday, 29th May (as end tenancy 6 month contract 29th July.)

Is this correct, that I HAVE to serve notice BEFORE I can market the property?

I bought the property with sitting tenants, so surely that cannot be the case???

Thanks in advance for any help!!!

Joanna

PropertyLog
27-05-2007, 00:09 AM
Your assumption is correct. You are perfectly entitled to sell the property with the tenants in situ if you so wish.

Ruth Less
27-05-2007, 01:17 AM
Your assumption is correct. You are perfectly entitled to sell the property with the tenants in situ if you so wish.

I don't think it's that straightforward if jerushjo wishes the viewers to view inside. As a tenant I would only allow viewings in the last month of the tenancy as that's what the AST says. In order to determine when the last month is notice would have to be given. Of course it's worth asking the tenants what viewings if any they will allow to see of something can be worked out. Bear in mind that if the tenant has to move then they will have less time for tidying up and the hassle of viewings so jerushjo would need to arrange a compromise.

pippay
27-05-2007, 08:02 AM
Yes but isn't it also the case that tenants don't have to allow anyone in the property if they don't want to regardless of what the AST says? ? If so, then it's back to square one.

It may well be that if the tenant knows it's just a change of ownership and his tenancy is still secure (as much as it can be with an AST) he may be more willing to show prospective purchasers round at agreed times, if only to get a measure of any prospective new landlord ..

The OP can market and sell with a sitting tenant - many properties are sold this way - but may need to reach a compromise with the tenant regarding internal viewings..



I don't think it's that straightforward if jerushjo wishes the viewers to view inside. As a tenant I would only allow viewings in the last month of the tenancy as that's what the AST says. In order to determine when the last month is notice would have to be given. Of course it's worth asking the tenants what viewings if any they will allow to see of something can be worked out. Bear in mind that if the tenant has to move then they will have less time for tidying up and the hassle of viewings so jerushjo would need to arrange a compromise.

Ruth Less
28-05-2007, 00:00 AM
Yes but isn't it also the case that tenants don't have to allow anyone in the property if they don't want to regardless of what the AST says? ?

Yes, this is true. I'd allow some viewings myself just to be helpful but certainly not before the last month of the tenancy. I would use the fact that the AST says viewings in the last month to exclude any viewings before that even though as you say that it isn't necessary to allow any at all.


It may well be that if the tenant knows it's just a change of ownership and his tenancy is still secure (as much as it can be with an AST) he may be more willing to show prospective purchasers round at agreed times, if only to get a measure of any prospective new landlord ..

When selling the property could go to another landlord or for owner occupation, surely there's no way of knowing which upfront so the tenant is bound to feel a bit insecure. (Are people still really buying property to let these days with yields so low?!).


The OP can market and sell with a sitting tenant - many properties are sold this way - but may need to reach a compromise with the tenant regarding internal viewings..

Well yes, I said to compromise!

Miffy
28-05-2007, 18:49 PM
(Are people still really buying property to let these days with yields so low?!).


The answer seems to be "yes" as I know of some people preparing to run buy to let's at a projected annual LOSS of 4-5 thousand. Its too rich for my blood but they are gambling on the capital gain outweighing the short term losses. So far they would have been right, of course, but I like to hedge my bets-which is why I will probably never be a real millionaire! On the other hand I should never end up bankrupt if I guess wrong....

P.Pilcher
28-05-2007, 21:58 PM
Oh, I'd be a millionaire tomorrow if I sold ALL my properties - just! However the day after b**!*y Gordon or his successor would send me his bill for capital gains tax and I certainly would not!

P.P.

Paul_f
28-05-2007, 22:44 PM
It's worth pointing out only because posters forget that:

No tenant who has an AST has any security of tenure beyond the initial fixed term or 6 months dependent upon the tenancy.
The agent is talking nonsense, so should start doing some training!