Who's to blame? (Mis-selling land with property)

Davesnave

For some potential purchasers, there is a practical problem with 1.1acres compared with two.

If a house has 2 acres, an appropriate amount may be given over to garden and the rest, if it's a paddock, may be used for keeping a horse.

As anything under an acre really isn't viable as a pony paddock, a house with only 1.1 acres will not suit those looking to keep a horse, and in the countryside that's a fair number.

There will therefore be a price penalty for properties under 1.5 acres, disproportionate to the raw value of the 'missing' land.

People who keep horses don't need anyone to measure the land; they'll just look and know!

Slinky

Well you could have a read of the property misdescriptions act (since repealed but in force 8 years ago) which would seem to be relevant here

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/29/section/1

Edit, thinking about this, I seem to recall it has a time bar on it, which may be 6 years so you could be too late.

AdrianC

Davesnave wrote: »

For some potential purchasers, there is a practical problem with 1.1acres compared with two.

If a house has 2 acres, an appropriate amount may be given over to garden and the rest, if it's a paddock, may be used for keeping a horse.

As anything under an acre really isn't viable as a pony paddock, a house with only 1.1 acres will not suit those looking to keep a horse, and in the countryside that's a fair number.

The only time that'd be an issue is if a potential buyer is gullible enough to believe the EA details without independently verifying the figures, if the absolute number is important, rather than the actual parcel of land itself.

And, surely, nobody's that daft...?

There will therefore be a price penalty for properties under 1.5 acres, disproportionate to the raw value of the 'missing' land.

If you're talking about a property that's _actually_ 2 acres, compared to one that's _actually_ 1.1 acre (no matter what the EA says).

People who keep horses don't need anyone to measure the land; they'll just look and know!

Well, quite.

Davesnave

My point was that, all other things being equal, a country house with 1.1 acres is less valuable than one with two, and the difference is usually much more than the raw cost of an acre of 'farm' land. i.e. around £10-15K

I became aware of this when looking for properties with land, finding I could only afford the non-equestrian properties in my search area.

AdrianC

Davesnave wrote: »

My point was that, all other things being equal, a country house with 1.1 acres is less valuable than one with two, and the difference is usually much more than the raw cost of an acre of 'farm' land. i.e. around £10-15K

Absolutely. But the "property with 2 acres" never existed. The OP didn't buy two acres, and has been quite happily coping with "only" 1.1 acres ever since. If this claimed "2 acre" (Subject to Survey) figure was important to him, he should have clarified that with the solicitor when the solicitor sat him down with the LR plan and asked him to confirm that his understanding of the boundaries agreed with the LR's understanding.

Davesnave

AdrianC wrote: »

Absolutely. But the "property with 2 acres" never existed. The OP didn't buy two acres, and has been quite happily coping with "only" 1.1 acres ever since. If this claimed "2 acre" (Subject to Survey) figure was important to him, he should have clarified that with the solicitor when the solicitor sat him down with the LR plan and asked him to confirm that his understanding of the boundaries agreed with the LR's understanding.

And if it was sold to him at a typical 1 acre price, no problem. If it wasn't....

I am not here apportioning 'blame,' just pointing out practicalities. I agree it's up to the purchaser to check what they are getting, exactly.

I have a number of friends/acquaintances with smart properties between 1 and 4 acres, none of which is farmed or used productively. They all focus more on their houses and no doubt rank them on number of bedrooms, quality of fittings etc. However, when it comes to selling, it's the places with stables and viable paddocks that go quickly.

Countryside isn't like town.

AdrianC

Davesnave wrote: »

And if it was sold to him at a typical 1 acre price, no problem. If it wasn't...

Which assumes the price was defined by the amount of land, rather than by the other merits of the property. Since the OP's been happy with his <insert preferred figure here> acres, it seems safe to assume it was - and remains - the latter.

Countryside isn't like town.

<looks around our 1.5 acre (yes, checked, not that it matters to us) of Welsh borderland> Yep, that's true 'nuff. And LONG may it remain so!

Davesnave

I know you like the last word Adrian, so you've got it.

Richard_Webster

I wondered whether OP was going to say that potential buyers who wanted to keep a pony wouldn't be interested so his ability to sell was impaired - but he hasn't said that so we are left thinking that it is the mere feeling that he can now only tell acquaintances that his house sits on 1.1 acres rather than 2!