Is there a legal solution for a landlocked property?

davidmcn

eloy7 wrote: »

Isn't it the right of an owner to access his house?

Only if the title deeds allow it.

For example, does the local government expect an owner to pay council tax for a house in which he cannot live (even enter)?

The council will expect the occupier of the house to pay council tax. They have no interest in what your title deeds say about access rights or gardens.

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

After all, if strangers (ie neighbours) sometimes have rights of way over gardens that don't belong to their property and have never belonged to their property and there are various home-owners having to put up with strangers walking through their gardens accordingly - then maybe this is the way forward here...

No, because neighbours sharing gardens is a rather different situation from "your" gardens being owned by the guy who was evicted from your house and (presumably) no longer has any other interest in the property or neighbouring ones. This sounds unmarketable, even if the house does have access rights (and it doesn't sound like it even has those).

xylophone wrote: »

Surely the mortgagee took a first charge over the whole of the property, including the front and back gardens?

If the deeds were to be split, would not the consent of the mortgagee be required?

Is it possible that a mortgagee would permit such a split, or, in the alternative, lend against only a house and not the front and back garden?

It's most likely that they lent against the house, without realising that it didn't include the gardens. And I'm not so sure that the title split was part of any cunning plan by the previous owner, there may be some other historical quirk behind it.

moneyistooshorttomention

Another thought - that phrase "easement by necessity".

As in its obviously "necessity" to be able to get to and from the house.

the more I think about it - the more I think what the mortgagee is doing is selling the house alone and assuming that new owner will claim "easement by necessity" to be able to access the house.

Again - a thing to check with a specialist solicitor (or get the mortgagee to sell the house to you with that down in writing that you have that "easement by necessity") and either put up with not being able to use the garden on the one hand OR buy it from the previous house-owner on the other hand.

moneyistooshorttomention

For info:

http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/property/neighbour_disputes/500501.html

AdrianC

First question... You've not exchanged contracts yet? Right. Great. Walk away. Actually, no. RUN away. This is not your problem yet, and you've dodged a bullet.

If you have exchanged, go to your solicitor's office first thing tomorrow, and knee him in the nadgers. Hard.

So the mortgage lender lent against a house with front and rear gardens, and didn't notice when their borrower split the LR registration into three? Dear Lord. They deserve to be landed with an unsaleable mess...

Hey-ho, just like all those nuggets who trash the place before repo, it'll end up back in the lap of the clever-clogs who thought he'd got one over on them when they can't sell it, or manage for three shiny buttons, so he ends up with a shed-load of debt remaining unless he goes bankrupt...

stator

You won't be able to get a mortgage on this property so walk away.
If you are a cash buyer and fancy an interesting challenge, then go for it, offering about 10% of it's unencumbered value.

eddddy

eloy7 wrote: »

Yes, it is repossessed. The mortgagee is offering the house for sale. The yards are owned by the previous owner, and probably he does not wish to sell them, instead he should be interested to buy the house for nothing.

I can't see how this would benefit the previous owner.

E.g. Lets assume the original owner has a mortgage of £100,000, and the repossessed landlocked house sells for just £1.

So the original owner still owes the bank £99,999.

So when the original owner sells the front/back garden, for say £100k, (or buys back the house cheaply) the bank claims its £99,999.

lonestar1

more likely original owners mate buys for a quid, original owner sells garden for 10k to mate. Original owner goes bankrupt, original owners mate sells house and garden and makes a killing

moneyistooshorttomention

Though, of course, owner of one of the attached houses could muck up Mr Awkward's plans and offer to buy the attached neighbouring house for peanuts and knock a door through the wall into it = cue for extension for their house for very little money...

If I were "neighbouring house" then I'd be trying to do exactly that and, for once, would agree with "adverse possession" - as in "adversely possessing" the house's own garden to get ownership of it back with the house where it belongs again.

Some years down the line = brick up that doorway again and sell my original house and Mr Awkward's house (complete with garden restored to its proper ownership) as the two houses it originally was and move on up the housing ladder.

Ronaldo_Mconaldo

So the previous owner owns all surrounding land and the bank have repossessed only the house in the middle? Forget about it.

davidmcn

lonestar1 wrote: »

more likely original owners mate buys for a quid, original owner sells garden for 10k to mate. Original owner goes bankrupt, original owners mate sells house and garden and makes a killing

That would involve an unfeasible amount of long term planning. I think c0ck-up is more likely than conspiracy here.