1. Home
  2. UK Finance Discussions
  3. Selling a partly-let house.

Selling a partly-let house.

Can anyon help with any advice? I have a house which was originally a

3-bed end-of-terrace. When I bought it, 13 years ago, I converted it into two flats. I didn't apply for planning permission, but it was soon classed as two flats by the council tax department. I have a tenant in the ground floor flat, and I live in the first floor flat. I now want to sell the house (as quickly as possible), and am not sure what is the best way to proceed. My options seem to be:

1) Try to sell the place as it is, with the sitting tenant in one flat.

OR

2) Give the tenant notice (her shorthold tenancy expireres in 3 months), then change the place back to a three-bed house, get the coucil tax dept to class it as such, and sell as a 3-bed house.

My main problem is, that I can't afford to wait more than a couple of months or so without any rent coming in, with the house unsold. If I do get the tenant to move out, I need to sell the place really quickly. In fact, I need to sell the place quickly in any case, but particularly if the tenant has moved out.

One advantage I do have is that I'm not part of a chain. I have somewhere I can move into at any time ( a relative's place), where I can stay until I find a new place to buy.

Can anyone offer any advice on how best to tackle the selling of this property? I've sought advice from the local estate agents, but there doesn't seem to be any concensus among them on how best to sell it. Half of them say "leave it as it is - some buyer may be looking for a place just as it is" and others said "Change it back to a 3-bed house, because it will make it of interest to more people".

As for selling it quickly, I was wondering about selling it in an auction. I also wondered about looking for a developer who'd want to get the planning permission to divide it into two flats (i.e., flats that could then be sold individually).

Thank you for any advice..

Jake

Reply to
Jake
Loading thread data ...

Why not put it up for sale now on the basis that vacant possession will be granted in three months time? That way you don't have to wait for the tenant to go before starting the sale process, and in an ideal world you'll get the sale money on the day the tenant leaves.

Rob Graham

Reply to
Robin Graham

Only a fool will exchange with the tenant still in situ.

tim

Reply to
tim

Not if they're buying as an investment.

Have you worked out the numbers? i.e. are the 2 flats worth less than the house? what's the market like in your area? Are there a flood of 1 and 2 bed flats on the market? where is the demand?

I would also consider speaking to a housing association as they're quite often in the market for properties like this, quite happy to buy with a sitting tenant.

Hope this helps

Reply to
Jason Power

Agreed.

These sell tenanted properties -

- Online auction house links

Daytona

Reply to
Daytona

Not necessarily. It's not uncommon to sell a for-let property with a sitting tenant, if the landlord and tenant can provide convincing /bona fides/. It means that the buyer has (in this example) half the job of letting out the property already done: a rent set, and coming in regularly.

Take a look at commercial let property. It's *normal* to sell with a tenant /in situ/; in fact, the property's sale value can be impaired if there's no income stream already in place.

Jon

Reply to
Jon S Green

No. If the terms of the deal include 'vacant possession' then if there's no vacant possession then the deal's off.

Rob

Reply to
Robin Graham

Dear Tim.

Why would only a fool exchange with a tenant in situ? If a purchaser wants the property as an investment, to let out, would it not be beneficial to have a tenant in place, rather than having to spend time and money looking for one?

Reply to
Transliteration

Well, if the property is tenanted then the terms of the deal will not include 'vacant possession', rather they will probably include 'benefit of and subject to tenancy agreement' and then if the property is vacant ... then the deal's off.

Reply to
Transliteration

"Transliteration" wrote

Dear Tran - Please note that I didn't write the previous post - tim did.

Reply to
Tim

But the terms could include 'vacant possession' if both parties want that and the arrangement is that the tenant will be gone by completion date. It just depends what they want. If they want a tenant in place, then fine.

Rob

Reply to
Robin Graham

I had rather assumed that the seller wanted to get the best price for his property. He will not do this with a tenant in situ, the price will be reduced because of the risks attached to taking on the tenant, even if an investor buys it.

Of course, but (if he is properly advised) he will still pay less than for an empty property, he has no knowledge of the credentials of the tenant and if the owner can't find all the documentation then.....

tim

Reply to
tim

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.