finley wrote:That's true (I mentioned that he could be included in the "package deal" as a sitting tenant) but the fact remains the landlord should tell him what's going on. What the law says isn't really the issue - it's common human decency to talk to your tenant and tell him that the house is being sold, he might have a new landlord, but not to worry. Otherwise, it's natural to assume that something weird is going on. It's also prudent to assume the worst, just so you can make preparations.
Yep, the landlord was very sneaky, but you also mentioned that it takes months to complete a transaction. However, thinking about it, if the landlord has been trying to sell the place, hopefully already rented, he was more than sneaky. Nevertheless, there is little hope for advance disclosure. The only law-enforced disclosure has to do with any deaths/ghosts in the house.
Nevertheless, it is as per SOP, also you mentioned that. What I do not want is the OP going guns blazing on the landlord, because then we will have loss of face and you know where that goes.
Regarding what Sandman said, yes, changing the locks is a good move. The tenant is entirely on his/her right to allow anybody, including the landord, into the property once the contract has been signed, so, yes, if he wants to let them in, good, if not, the landlord must have a lot of bowing and paisei to do. The landlord is NOT allowed to enter the property if the tenant is not in teh house, and must give ample advance announcement of such intentions. And this is really enforced.
Again, I am not advocating confrontation, but rather being as sneaky, playing innocent, cooperating if possible -maybe there are other advantages that can be negotiated in return for cooperation? Yes, it is enfuriating, yes, it makes you feel bad, but in Rome, do as Romans, tread softly and get far, save the ammunition for the real fight if and when it comes. The OP is sitting on teh catbird's seat, it is him the landlord should be afraid of losing ground now.