Buying house & land clause query

jimpix12

Hi all, I have an interest in a house that used to be owned by the farmer's family who still live nearby. The property is surrounded by fields owned by them, and aren't part of the sale per se but they have said the adjacent field can be purchased by separate negotiation. I don't have a need for the extra land so won't be buying it, however my concern is that 1-2 years ago the farmer sold some of the land (2 fields away) to a "traveller" family with a static home, which is currently at appeal with the planners as I believe they are there illegally. Apparently this traveller family have worked the fields for 50 years. I don't particularly mind this but my concern is that the farmer will sell further land to them if I don't buy it. The EA said that they won't as they aren't actively marketing it (they use it for arable/crops) however the fact they sold it to travellers recently is making me nervous.

So my question is, as the farmers are NOT the vendors of the house I'm looking to buy (it's their son, and his wife who are on the deeds) can I ask a solicitor to work some sort of clause that says the farmers won't sell the adjacent field to travellers? Or because they aren't the vendors is this ridiculous? Now that I've written it out it does sound kind of unreasonable but is there any way round this apart from a verbal agreement which doesn't hold any weight?

My concern is that I'll end up living next to Dale Farm II.

Alter_ego

Your best (only) option is to buy elsewhere.

Cheeky_Monkey

I agree that you should look elsewhere.

I would run away very quickly. If they've done it once, they're very likely to do it again.

As you say, if you end up in the middle of Dale Farm II, not only will your life be a misery but the value of your property will plummet :eek:

AdrianC

No, you can't get a clause written into the contract asking a third party not to do something fairly hand-wavey and generic at some unspecified point in the future...

If you're really concerned about who might own or use that land in the future, then the only way to control it is to buy it yourself and rent it out for purposes you do approve of.

jimpix12

Thanks. I had considered buying the field and selling it on immediately after, but then the risk is that a traveller family might buy it at auction and then the bid would be legally binding. Nothing is ever straight forward is it?

Freecall

spunko2010 wrote: »

Thanks. I had considered buying the field and selling it on immediately after, but then the risk is that a traveller family might buy it at auction and then the bid would be legally binding. Nothing is ever straight forward is it?

Could you not buy it then apply a restrictive covenant on future owners before selling it on again (possibly reducing its value slightly in the process)?

jimpix12

Thanks, I've not considered that. However would a traveller family who don't adhere to planning laws adhere to a restrictive covenant?

I suppose they could enter any field round there though, with or without a covenant... I'd have to be very unlucky for them to choose the one near me.

AdrianC

Freecall wrote: »

Could you not buy it then apply a restrictive covenant on future owners before selling it on again (possibly reducing its value slightly in the process)?

You would still need be prepared to enforce the covenant legally. If a potential occupants is happy to be in breach of planning law, a covenant is not going to be much of a deterrent.

By far and away the cheapest and easiest - and definitely the most effective - way to control it is to own it.

jimpix12

Thanks, although I have to disagree with you about it being the cheapest. It's ~6 acres in SE England so not cheap.

Freecall

spunko2010 wrote: »

However would [STRIKE]a traveller family[/STRIKE] people who don't adhere to planning laws adhere to a restrictive covenant?

I have modified your question to respond to the general case rather than specifically one ethnic group.

You would have legal remedies although I recognise that enforcement of restrictive covenants can be troublesome. The main thing that you would achieve would be to prevent any financial reward being realised using the land in a way which you have restricted.

It would therefore mean that someone could not buy the land and then sell it on with the new use in place.

Whether this is all worth the trouble only you can judge.

AdrianC

Six acres of agricultural land is a lot cheaper than development land, and a HECK of a lot cheaper than going legal... Plus, of course, it's not going to lose value over the years, so it's an investment in an asset rather than merely expenditure.