We bought a property 5 yrs ago, valued at $320k, for $130k on the condition that the vendor lived at the property rent free (until he died) under a lease to occupy agreement. He is 72. The agreement included clauses that he should pay all outgoings (except insurance) and allow us reasonable access. We were recently served with final demands of about $4.2k for unpaid rates, etc. He conveniently pays the water, 'phone and electric bills but ignores the "non essential ones". We have been unable to access the house for nearly 4 yrs as he refuses. I am concerned that it has deteriorated as we received negative comments via a valuation 3 yrs ago.
The District Tribunal awarded us the costs and the 30 days for him to pay expires tomorrow. I do not expect any success from appointing bailiffs as he clearly does not want to pay or allow us access to the property. He alleges that "even the armed offenders squad would not get into the property".
Whilst I accept that we got a good deal at the time, I am not convinced that our "investment" was such a good one now. Having re-read the agreement (which a solicitor drew up) we do not have too many remedies. Surely, the law would allow us to terminate the agreement by giving reasonable notice?
Does anyone have a similar example of a lease to occupy going pear shaped please?
The District Tribunal awarded us the costs and the 30 days for him to pay expires tomorrow. I do not expect any success from appointing bailiffs as he clearly does not want to pay or allow us access to the property. He alleges that "even the armed offenders squad would not get into the property".
Whilst I accept that we got a good deal at the time, I am not convinced that our "investment" was such a good one now. Having re-read the agreement (which a solicitor drew up) we do not have too many remedies. Surely, the law would allow us to terminate the agreement by giving reasonable notice?
Does anyone have a similar example of a lease to occupy going pear shaped please?


Comment