How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Thomas Your Own Question
Thomas, Lawyer
Category: UK Property Law
Satisfied Customers: 7613
Experience:  BA (Hons), PgDip, Practising Solicitor
Type Your UK Property Law Question Here...
Thomas is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

I am considering exchanging and completing purchase of a house

This answer was rated:

I am considering exchanging and completing purchase of a house in SW England in 3 weeks time, and agreeing with vendor/owner of house for last 20 years that he and his wife can remain in house for up to exactly 2 months after completion before moving out. I cannot involve my conveyancing solicitor. (I believe the vendor and his wife are trustworthy but realise such an arrangement will always be advised against)).

The vendors would be prepared to consider signing any type of agreement/private agreement I require. I believe firmly they will leave of their own volition by the agreed date, but It is fairly essential for me they are out in 2 months.

Would it be satisfactory for an agreement to state they will pay me eg 50000 pounds if they are in the building beyond a certain date, or what is the best way to achieve desired result?
Thanks for your question.
To enable me to answer your question could you please respond to the following:-
1. Why can you not involve your conveyancing solicitor?
2. Are you purchasing with a mortgage? Is this why

Kind regards.
Customer: replied 5 years ago.
Yes, 2. is why

Thanks for your reply.

This really isn't a good idea. If you did this following completion then it would put you in immediate breach of your mortgage conditions. If your solicitor found out then he would be duty bound to inform the lender.

They would then be entitled to take enforcement action which could include switch to a buy to let mortgage and paying considerable fees for this. Once you have vacant possession once they moved out then you would have to switch back to a residential mortgage and pay the fees again.

Also, it would depend entirely with the Sellers going along with it and not telling there solicitors that they are not moving out. you cannot guarantee this. If you exchange and in reply to the requisitions on title the Sellers Solicitors reply that vacant possession is not to be given on completion then your solicitor would not be able to request/use the mortgage advance and would have to inform the lender. They would then withdraw their mortgage offer and you would find yourself in a web of litigation with the Sellers would could potentially be expensive to both parties and drag on for a very long time.

I would advise you not to consider proceeding in this way. Or if you are then you should inform your solicitor and get the consent of the lender.

You could really land yourself in hot water doing this and I would urge you in the strongest possible term not to proceed on this stealth basis.

Were you to get the consent of your lender then you could agree a form of either short term let or contract amendment with the penalty clause that you mention with the seller's solictor (who would seek a reduction from the £50, 000.00 that you mention)

If this has been useful please kindly click accept so that I may be rewarded for my time. If you do not click accept your money stays with the site and I do not receive any credit for the time I have taken to answer your question. You will not be charged any further money for clicking accept.

If you wish for me to provide you with further guidance on any question you may have in the future then please submit a further question to the board requesting me either by my profile or by marking your question. “FAO Tom”.

Kind regards,

Customer: replied 5 years ago.
Hi Tom.
It is a buy to let mortgage, how does this change situation?
Hi Gabi,

If it's a buy to let mortgage then this would mean that the lender would be more amenable to the seller's being granted a short term let following completion.

You need to tell your solicitor about this so that they can speak with the Seller's Solicitor and your lender so that you can proceed on this basis (if agreeable by other parties) without exposing yourself to liability.

Trust this clarifies, please click accept.

Kind regards,

Customer: replied 5 years ago.
Thanks Tom,

Could you just clarify a couple of points?

As it is a buy to let mortgage can the lender have any sensible/material objection to a 6 month shorthold assured granted to the vendor on completion?

Also, we would have to do a shorthold assured for between 6-12 months from completion date as this is requirement of lender for this buy to let mortgage. Assuming the lender Is keen to avoid this mortgage offer (higher rates/high fees etc for new application) what penalty clause or other agreement to discourage staying longer than 2 months would be feasible which lender has to accept, or failing this should or might accept?


It will likely be a term of your mortgage offer that the property is let on assured shorthold tenancies of 6 months, so they shouldn't object.

If the mortgage offer states that the property must be let on AST for 6 month periods then it is entirely up to them what to accept or reject if you are to depart from this, it's discretionary. If they agree in correspondence to a short term let on the terms you have stated earlier then there is no requirement for a new mortgage offer because it's simply an amendment of the existing one.

Please click accept. I will continue to answer your questions relating to this topic.

Kind regards,

Thomas and 2 other UK Property Law Specialists are ready to help you