We are in the process of buying a property in the UK. The seller asked if we would let him stay in the property for a period of 3 months after the purchase was complete so that he could carry out renovations on the house he is buying. At the time this was agreed, the estate agent said that a short-let tenancy agreement would be appropriate and we proceeded with the purchase on that basis. The seller's solicitor thinks that is unnecessary and we could adapt clause 5.2.2 of Standard Condition of Sale by changing the word 'buyer' to 'seller'. Both the tenancy agreement and the licence seem to impose liabilities or risks that we did not expect and we're not sure, at this late stage, what is best.
Thanks Sam
You can repost Sam, just make it clear that you have already posted - make sure you check both sets of threads then, as some will answer wherever you post it!