Removal of goods

[Rhyd6]

Sorry if this seems long winded but at the beginning of March my grandson exchanged contracts on a house, the tenant was due to vacate but covid struck and he said he couldn't get a removal van. Grandson was renting his place and landlord agreed to extend let. Tenant finally moved out at the end of June but this is where the problem arises. He has left behind enough junk to sink a ship. By junk I mean seven cars plus one landrover all in various states of decay, two barns, both lockable and secure full of the most peculiar things (he's into playing Roman legion stuff) and piles and piles of grade A rubbish. Grandson is a builder and has a lot of valuable equipment about and according to his insurance this must be kept under lock and key. At the moment a large proportion of it is residing in our barn but this means a fifteen mile round trip anytime he needs stuff. They are currently living in a caravan because the house needs gutting so forgetting to bring a particular set of tools is a pain in the proverbials. Tenant appears every now and again, always with an excuse, and has managed to remove one car but very little else. Is grandson entitled to break into the safe storage areas, which he owns and just chuck tenants stuff out (well he can put it in large Dutch barn) or does he have to wait for tenant to remove his junk bit by bit?

R6

[genou]

Unless your GS's lawyer is unusual, he bought vacant possession. Give notice to the previous owner that he has ( say) 14 days to remove his stuff, failing which it will be disposed of. The fortnight is random, but comes from https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5 ... 775e7ef149 .

I'm sure Clitheroekid will be along shortly, but your GS has the whip hand.

[Rhyd6]

Thank you Genou, I must admit that I thought that but my feelings were of righteous(?) indignation rather than anything else.

R6

[Lootman]

Thank you Genou, I must admit that I thought that but my feelings were of righteous(?) indignation rather than anything else.

I have sold a few buildings with tenants in them, but in most cases the buyer was another landlord who was happy to inherit tenants. So vacant possession was not an issue.

There was one time my buyer wanted vacant possession even though it was a multi-unit building. In that case I was advised by my lawyer to get all the tenants and their stuff physically out before exchanging contracts. Otherwise there is always a risk that you assure vacant possession and then the tenant stays put.

[Clitheroekid]

Your grandson is concentrating on the wrong person, i.e the tenant.

As has been said, he contracted to buy the property with vacant possession. This means that it must be empty of chattels - Cumberland Consolidated Holdings Ltd v Ireland (1946) is the case to quote.

Of course, the law applies a common sense approach - if there are just a few minor items lying around that wouldn't count, but if there are a large number, as here, to the extent that they are interfering with your grandson's ability to use the property then that does not amount to vacant possession.

However, your grandson's claim is against the seller, who is in breach of contract, not the tenant himself. It's the seller's problem that VP has not been given, and it's therefore his responsibility to ensure that it is, ASAP.

As the seller is clearly in breach of contract he can be sued for damages. Your grandson (or more realistically his solicitor) therefore needs to write to the seller / his solicitor pointing out the breach of contract and claiming damages on an ongoing basis (say £250 a day) until VP has been obtained. The seller will then have to take swift action against his tenant to ensure that he removes his stuff.

[Rhyd6]

Thanks CK, knew you'd come up with the goods. I've passed info on to grandson and seller. Hopefully as convoy of removal vans will soon appear over the horizon.

R6