Agricultural tie on property

Davesnave

loulou19 wrote: »

Thanks for your input and yes, we do still enjoy living here but we are worried about being told to leave, obviously. The Council is aware that we are here outside of the occupancy conditions because when we applied for planning permission they advised us that the tie was in place and it was obvious that we had no prior knowledge of this. So far, we have just buried our heads in the sand hoping that the Council does not make any contact with us!

Well, you never know, the council may be willing to bury its head in the sand too, if one of their officers failed to disclose the tie when the searches were done.

Enough speculation. You must have wanted the 3 acres for something, so is there a chance you could begin using it and looking as if you're complying, even if your income is mainly derived elsewhere? Three acres is virtually impossible to make a living from, but if it's being farmed and maintained, people are more likely to view your predicament sympathetically.

Two things you may not be able to avoid much longer are informing your mortgage provider, if you have a mortgage, and your insurer will need to know too. If you have land, it's possible you are already covered by a farming-friendly insurer, since many won't touch smallholdings with a barge pole.

loulou19_2

Davesnave wrote: »

Well, you never know, the council may be willing to bury its head in the sand too, if one of their officers failed to disclose the tie when the searches were done.

Enough speculation. You must have wanted the 3 acres for something, so is there a chance you could begin using it and looking as if you're complying, even if your income is mainly derived elsewhere? Three acres is virtually impossible to make a living from, but if it's being farmed and maintained, people are more likely to view your predicament sympathetically.

Two things you may not be able to avoid much longer are informing your mortgage provider, if you have a mortgage, and your insurer will need to know too. If you have land, it's possible you are already covered by a farming-friendly insurer, since many won't touch smallholdings with a barge pole.

Thanks for your thoughts. I never considered the other implications-I will contact the insurers today.
We are just going round in circles at the moment.
We might consider trying to get the tie removed....

GDB2222

loulou19 wrote: »

Thanks for your thoughts. I never considered the other implications-I will contact the insurers today.
We are just going round in circles at the moment.
We might consider trying to get the tie removed....

No, claim your 30% first. Then try to get the tie removed.

Davesnave

GDB2222 wrote: »

No, claim your 30% first. Then try to get the tie removed.

And if you succed in having it removed, let me know the secret, because on paper at least, I'll be £100k richer! :cool:

You will need to come up with a very good reason, which may not include someone else making an administrative error. The usual one is that the property has failed to sell at a realistic price, which means it needs to be on the market for a year or more. Therefore, in the circumstances, you might go for a Certificate of Lawful Use instead.Almost as good.

Seriously, people do break ties all the time and I don't see reports in the media of them being thrown out of their homes. There is a fining mechanism which can be invoked, but I think that would only be used in extremis, where persuasion and everything else has failed. These things take years.

Not a stone's throw from me is a family living in an ag-tied house. Neither adult has ever had anything to do with farming, and indeed, both are ill and on benefits. Presumably, the council that collects their council tax, and maybe waives some of it because of their low income, is the same one that should be enforcing the tie, but they're not.

At the other end of the village is another tied property, where a single lady lives. While she's from a farming family, she doesn't appear to 'do' any farming. She doesn't look likely to be going anywhere else in the forseeable future, either.

As I've said, different councils apply different levels of priority to the job of enforcement.

loulou19_2

GDB2222 wrote: »

No, claim your 30% first. Then try to get the tie removed.

I have made an appointment to speak to an expert next week-I will let you know how we get on. Thanks for all your input.

beefster

Reading this has got me seriously worried....

I am going through a divorce and need to get the home i inherited from my grandmother valued.
I have spoken to the council about the property and have been advised of an agri tie and it is worrying.... only those employed in agriculture etc.
After my grandmothers death my brother continued living there for 5 years. He had lived with her prior to her passing.
My grandmother was left the bungalow by her employer as she had been the house keeper and nursed the owner for years to her death in 1985. A lovely gift.
My grand parents lived there for many years with no farming etc being undertaken. All the associated land was left to the RSPCA and sold off. So it is a bungalow, barn, derlect chicken sheds and 5 acres of hay field.
This now continues with my occupancy. I have lived there for 4 weeks after a year where the property was refurbished and was empty.
Now i am on the councils Radar.... and cant comply.... having spent a lot of money refurbishing. My instinct is to stick my head in the sand! Keep quiet and get on with life.. however the divorce means the value will be queried and the soon 2 B X wife may delight in causing hasle there.

Continual 10 occupancy by someone not complying with the tie is broken by the year refurb! So that seems a no go.

Feel like I am in the dung heap!

Need to find a way to comply without giving up my day job!

Davesnave

beefster wrote: »

Feel like I am in the dung heap!

Need to find a way to comply without giving up my day job!

Forgive me, but you are hardly 'in the dung heap.'

You have been left a valuable piece of property by your grandmother, so even if it's tied and you eventually have to leave, you're still at a great advantage compared with the majority of us. I never even met my grandparents, and the property I inherited came with a mortgage to pay off!

As regards whether you could comply, that would depend how much time you devote to the day job. The tie will likely require you to be 'mainly working in agriculture,' which means devoting more time to that than being a chartered accountant, bus driver, film star, or whatever.

It isn't essential that you earn more from the agricultural bit though. Indeed, it's quite OK if the day job subsidises the farming to some extent, but the agricultural element ought to be significant, not simply keeping a few hens and running half a dozen sheep on the side.

You say you are on the council's radar, so if you want to remain living in the bungalow, why not give the impression that you are complying and see where that goes? You are not in the same position as someone simply contemplating a non- compliant purchase, so you may as well go for it. That might mean finding someone to help you farm the 5 acres properly, so that it is doing as intended and being fully productive.

Even if you are eventually asked to sell the bungalow and land, you'll be given a reasonable time to do that.

Mojisola

beefster wrote: »

however the divorce means the value will be queried and the soon 2 B X wife may delight in causing hasle there.

Isn't it to your advantage that the property is valued at a reduced rate because of the ag tie?

beefster

Dave, I have invested a lot of money and time into the refurbishment. Didnt see this coming, but i take your point. I dont own all the property but a share is obv better than nothing. And i was referring to the big picture including the divorce scenario. thanks for the info though.

Mojisola... depends on your outlook i suppose. I wanted my wife and kids to remain in the family home not have to sell and move.

Davesnave

beefster wrote: »

Dave, I have invested a lot of money and time into the refurbishment. Didnt see this coming, but i take your point..

I'm sorry, I should not have assumed you had sole ownership.

What I don't understand is why the solicitor handling the transfer did not alert you or your brother to the status of the property. On the face of it, there seems to have been an element of negligence here.