We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Nine Weeks In and Find Out Restriction
ajayre
Posts: 58 Forumite
We put an offer in nine weeks ago and it was accepted. The house sits on a piece of land and has an adjoining section of land that was purchased later (2008) by the seller.
I found out early on that the additional land has a title restriction "cannot be sold without written permission" and then then names of two people - the previous owners.
The seller never mentioned anything about this when we viewed the house.
Only last week did our solicitor finally get details from the seller's solicitor. Somehow they kept forgetting to send the documents and they didn't send them with the draft contract. I'm not sure if they were stalling or incompetent.
When the land was transferred to our seller in 2008 it was sold at a knock-down price providing that it stays as a garden and isn't developed for 30 years. This document binds the seller and the buyer and their successors in title.
So now our seller's solicitor is having to track these two people down (or their heirs) and get permission. The document stays that we (as the new buyers) have to pay a "reasonable" fee to the original people (or their heirs).
If we sell within the next 25 years then our buyer will have to go through all this hassle as well and our solicitor at the time might have to track down lots of heirs. I presume they will all want their pound of flesh as well.
We are pretty annoyed that we only find out about this after spending fees on survey and solicitors and we are nine weeks into the process.
Also we only now find out that about 20% of this land has only a limited title because it is unregistered and the previous owners believed they owned it, but couldn't prove it. So we have to do the 24 year adverse possession route. When we asked the seller three weeks ago about that 20% they said they had no clue but they signed a document in 2008 with a map showing it and acknowledging the limited title!
Is it reasonable to be angry about this? Would you want to buy a house with part of the land having this restriction hanging over your head for the next 25 years?
Andy
I found out early on that the additional land has a title restriction "cannot be sold without written permission" and then then names of two people - the previous owners.
The seller never mentioned anything about this when we viewed the house.
Only last week did our solicitor finally get details from the seller's solicitor. Somehow they kept forgetting to send the documents and they didn't send them with the draft contract. I'm not sure if they were stalling or incompetent.
When the land was transferred to our seller in 2008 it was sold at a knock-down price providing that it stays as a garden and isn't developed for 30 years. This document binds the seller and the buyer and their successors in title.
So now our seller's solicitor is having to track these two people down (or their heirs) and get permission. The document stays that we (as the new buyers) have to pay a "reasonable" fee to the original people (or their heirs).
If we sell within the next 25 years then our buyer will have to go through all this hassle as well and our solicitor at the time might have to track down lots of heirs. I presume they will all want their pound of flesh as well.
We are pretty annoyed that we only find out about this after spending fees on survey and solicitors and we are nine weeks into the process.
Also we only now find out that about 20% of this land has only a limited title because it is unregistered and the previous owners believed they owned it, but couldn't prove it. So we have to do the 24 year adverse possession route. When we asked the seller three weeks ago about that 20% they said they had no clue but they signed a document in 2008 with a map showing it and acknowledging the limited title!
Is it reasonable to be angry about this? Would you want to buy a house with part of the land having this restriction hanging over your head for the next 25 years?
Andy
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.2K Life & Family
- 258K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards