Help - Right of way question

BHB

Davesnave wrote: »

That blooming dog again!

My dog is bigger than your dog....

stator

BHB wrote: »

At one point we had the estate agent knocking at the door saying "sign this bit of paper to say you will allow the ROW to be moved". Obviously we asked her nicely to leave.

Wow, that's awful

moneyistooshorttomention

BHB wrote: »

My dog is bigger than your dog....

On the other hand, they might have a hosepipe and go in for strategic garden watering;)

I wondered why their house seemed to be worth so much more than your house. Put like that (ie that the presence, or otherwise, of the ROW can make such a difference to the value of the house) then I dont foresee any very happy situation if they pay the "without a ROW" price and the ROW is still there. They will "want what they have paid for", ie no ROW usage, and that wont be a comfortable situation to live in. That EA has really mucked-up valuing the house at a "without ROW" price havent they?:eek:

To me, it really looks rather like its the owner of this house (and not the potential buyers of it) that you would need to negotiate with re whether you are prepared to sell your ROW. That would put the seller in the position of paying you for relinquishing the ROW before they've actually managed to sell their house and with no guarantee they will be able to sell it still to this couple (as they might not be prepared to hang around for long enough for this to be done).

As I see it the seller has two choices:
- reduce the price to reflect the fact that there is a ROW burdening his property

OR

- pay you a reasonable amount to give up your ROW and then re-market the house at the (without ROW) price he currently has it on the market for. Followed by hoping the would-be buyers are still interested.

Personally, I'd probably sell the ROW, provided the price I could get for it would cover the costs of getting suitable alternative access for myself and a decent profit for doing so.

I would think a realistic price to expect for the sale of that ROW would be half the price difference between what the house should be on the market for (ie burdened by a ROW price) and what it is actually on the market for (ie no account having been taken of that ROW). IF all else is equal between your two houses (ie equivalent condition/same size house/same size garden/etc) then the price of that ROW would appear to be £22,500. Hence the earlier suggestion of £20,000 - ie to allow for the legal costs.

Davesnave

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

To me, it really looks rather like its the owner of this house (and not the potential buyers of it) that you would need to negotiate with
...this couple (... might not be prepared to hang around for long enough for this to be done).

The OP can't negotiate meaningfully with anyone else, but the process of legally changing the RoW isn't lengthy. Before we purchased, we had a similar RoW move formalised within a couple of weeks.

As I commented a few weeks ago, that left one party with an integral garage which no car may enter, but as it's the neighbour, it's not our concern. Presumably, she's happy with a devalued house and a more distant driveway.

It shows that the implications of these things need careful thought, though!

BHB

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I wondered why their house seemed to be worth so much more than your house..

Ironically its probably not in reality as we have associated land and a barn. But based on the house and garden price alone- I guess its the difference between a mid terraced and end terraced .... (And its being marketed as a semi !)

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

That EA has really mucked-up valuing the house at a "without ROW" price havent they?:eek:.

Yes definitely, as they have already had one sale fall through because of it, and looks like this one will too.

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

To me, it really looks rather like its the owner of this house (and not the potential buyers of it) that you would need to negotiate with re whether you are prepared to sell your ROW.

The house has actually been empty for two years since the sellers mother died and up for sale for 18 months or so. Ironically he has had plenty of time to get it sorted before it got to this (though they were obviously grieving for a time).


My wife and I have been saying this for months since the first sale fell through. It could all be sorted in less than a week if they come up with the right solution.


The ACTUAL solution is becoming clearer thanks to you guys and gals ! Thank you for your support.

EmmyLou30

The EA is at fault for not remarketing the property correctly after the first sale fell through. I thought legally they had to bring to a potential buyers attention anything they had been made aware of like the ROW. And more fool the buyer for not forseeing this happeneing again by not mentioning it from the start!
If I were you I'd stand my ground and flat out refuse. It causes issue with your septic tank, your fuel deliveries, and makes a ridiculously long route round for access. It's not like you'd be saying no to be spiteful, I think the fuel and sewage are both very valid reasons that will cost money, not just inconvenience you. Maybe they are unaware of this. I also wouldn't want an extension being added unless I wanted a matching one too as that is exactly why they want the ROW removed - to build on it. If you want one too then great but sounds like you can't afford it yet. I might settle for a new road suitable for the trucks, removal of the conifers and something that gives you rear vehicle access. That would increase the value of your home then too.

BHB

Davesnave wrote: »

The OP can't negotiate meaningfully with anyone else ...[Other than the seller]

I think that its just the potential purchasers really like the house, that's why they are trying to negotiate a change.

Having said that, because they haven't talked to me directly, then they are only getting half the information from the seller and from the estate agent. The same applies to their solicitor - he didn't know half the stuff and informed me in writing that every thing had been agreed - sign here! Of course I had to put him right.

I think what will happen is that the purchasers will pull out and the sellers will have to sort it out and remarket the property.


BHB

moneyistooshorttomention

EmmyLou30 wrote: »

I also wouldn't want an extension being added unless I wanted a matching one too as that is exactly why they want the ROW removed - to build on it. If you want one too then great but sounds like you can't afford it yet. I might settle for a new road suitable for the trucks, removal of the conifers and something that gives you rear vehicle access. That would increase the value of your home then too.

They may or may not want the ROW removed for the purposes of an extension. Its not a "given" that everyone would want one.

Personally, in their position, I'd want that ROW gone in order to have normal level of privacy expected in a back garden and no-one walking directly past my house and that would be my only reason for wanting that.

Obviously, if it was thought a buyer wanted an extension, then considerations as to whether to sell the ROW would be influenced by whether any extension would be overlooking/blocking the view/etc - in which case my own personal view would change to "Make that £100,000 you pay me for the ROW - if I am prepared to sell it at all", in order to ensure they were unable to start overlooking me.

BHB

There is no chance of an extension to the rear, except the single story existing extension being lifted to make 2 story. That would really effect us at all. They cant really build out to the rear as if you look at the plan - we own that bit.


However, there is potential to double even triple the size of the house by building on the end over the first part of the right of way ... ie equivalent to putting another house on the end of the terrace.

Mojisola

BHB wrote: »

There is no chance of an extension to the rear, except the single story existing extension being lifted to make 2 story. That would really effect us at all. They cant really build out to the rear as if you look at the plan - we own that bit.

However, there is potential to double even triple the size of the house by building on the end over the first part of the right of way ... ie equivalent to putting another house on the end of the terrace.

If that is their plan, would you be happy with the ROW being directed around their extension - a bit longer than the present route but not like the other suggestion.