Search Q&A
Thinking of buying house with tenants in situ
We are thinking of buying a house that has tenants currently living there. We have been advised they have only a verbal contract with the current owner and have been there for quite some time. We already know they are not happy that the owner is selling and that they have to leave the property. Wondering who has more rights in this case to live there - the new owner or the current tenants ? We have been told that when the property is transferred to the new owner we could give them 3 months notice to leave - the question is can they appeal against this and which side is the Belgian law on in this case? We have received conflicting advice from notaries - wondered if anybody has experience dealing with this issue?
There's a property seminar next Tuesday at ING. You'll get all the answers to your questions. You can register through this website.
The letter of the law is one thing. Difficult tenants are another.
Do it the way you would if they have a written contract.
That means 6 months notice by registered letter stating that you, the new owner, want to live in the property. The can give 1 month counter-notice.
2 reasons for that:
1. It is fair to them. They are more likely to be cooperative if you are nice.
2. It is 100% watertight legally, and should the worst come to the worst, you will be sure to win any legal arguments about it.
In most cases under a normal contract not only does a landlord have to give 6 months notice but they would also have to pay the tenants out substantially depending on how long they have been living there. If the landlord does not follow protocol then he is liable to pay 18 months rent to the tenants.
That said if the contract isn't a standard one there is little chance the courts will do a thing about it and I'm not sure how that applies to a new owner either.
"they would also have to pay the tenants out substantially depending on how long they have been living there. If the landlord does not follow protocol then he is liable to pay 18 months rent to the tenants."
This is only the case if the landlord wants to break the lease without a valid reason.
If the landlord moves into the property themselves (or a close relative moves in), that is a valid reason and a notice of six months is enough. There is no compensation to be paid to the tenants.
This applies to a standard lease of nine years; if the lease is for a set time of three years or less it cannot be broken for any reason, not even if the landlord wants to move in.
Well I'm just going by what I have found online which seems to contradict that statement.
"After each three-year period, the landlord may eject you if he needs the property for his own or a close family member’s use, but he must give six months’ notice and pay you a large penalty (equal to nine months’ rent after three years and six months rent after six years). If the landlord fails to give proper notice, he must pay you 18 months’ rent as a penalty. "
I wouldn't be surprised at all if this wasn't the case though.
No, that is definitely wrong. It should be:
"During a nine-year lease, the landlord may eject the tenant at any moment, by giving a notice of a minimum of six months, if he needs the property for his own or a close family member's use. The notice given must specify the reason (personal occupation) and give the
name of the person who will occupy the premises.
The landlord or his close family member must then move to the premises within one year of the lease ending and must live on the premises for a minimum of two years.
If after the lease has ended it becomes apparent that these conditions are not met the tenant has the right for compensation equivalent to 18 months of rent unless the landlord can justify exceptional circumstances that have prevented him to meet the conditions.
During a nine-year lease, at the end of each three-year period, the landlord may eject the tenant by giving a notice of a minimum of six months:
a) if it is necessary to carry out major renovation works on the property (the cost of these must be equal to a minimum of three years' rent)
b) without giving a motive. In this case, the landlord must pay the tenant a penalty equivalent to nine months rent if the notice is given at the end of the first three years, and equivalent to six months rent if the notice is given at the end of six years.
Yeah you are right, I looked a bit further into it too.
There are an awful lot of sites though that give the same information as I posted which is wrong but when you have 5 sites all saying the same thing no wonder things get confused.
Yeah you are right, I looked a bit further into it too.
There are an awful lot of sites though that give the same information as I posted which is wrong but when you have 5 sites all saying the same thing no wonder things get confused.
