Property misadvertised by Estate Agent

bigfreddiel

phill99 wrote: »

But all this is doing is describing the garage. At no point does this indicate that the land that the garage is built on is within the same demise as the house.

You will struggle with this claim.

Very good point, but again I will restate what I said in a reply just before yours which is that the agent is not responsible for content of the details, it's the vendor who has signed a copy of the details saying that they are accurate. So you would need to have this out with the vendor.

Cheers fj

Winter_Phoenix

You don't specify how old the house is. You do say that that particular (detached) garage does not show up on the plans.

Is it possible that the current owners (or their predecessors) have taken possession of a piece of land which no-one seemed to own/use, and built their own garage on it?

If so, and if they have been in possession of that land, unchallenged, for a considerable number of years, they may now be able to claim ownership of it (possessory title, I think it's called). They may also have created a right of way over the "shared drive" if this does not belong to them either.

But they really need to sort this out before selling their house - unless you are prepared to take the risk of doing it yourself after buying the house - "the risk" being that you might not succeed.

Freecall

Winter_Phoenix wrote: »

(possessory title, I think it's called).

May be getting a bit ahead of ourselves here. 'Possessory title' refers to a situation where ownership is clear but there is no formal documentary evidence such as deeds.

Firstly the current owner would have to demonstrate adverse possession of the land and then apply for possessory title (assuming that they can demonstrate such possession).

The important point though is that as things stand only the current owner would be able to do this as the OP clearly has not occupied the land for the requisite period of time. Simply selling ajacent land to a new owner will not confer any rights on the new owner.

moneyistooshorttomention

phill99 wrote: »

But all this is doing is describing the garage. At no point does this indicate that the land that the garage is built on is within the same demise as the house.

You will struggle with this claim.

If its stated that a house has a garage - then it has a garage = ie that garage belongs to the house and is on land owned by the house (unless its stated otherwise).

That is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make and one we would all make too. Any time I've seen mention of a house having a garage that wasn't quite obviously in the garden of the house concerned - my only thought has been "Darn...if I were to buy that house then I'd have to do the storing of possessions I would be using my garage for a bit of a distance from my house. Wish my garage was in the garden - as per usual".

But - from what OP has now found out - it sounds like the garage was deliberately built on land the owner (or a previous owner) has tried to get possession of by "adverse possession" (to use the polite name for it). So - OP would be best as regarding the house as being minus a garage basically and amend their offer on that basis (assuming they still want the house).

Even if OP agrees with "adverse possession" - I think the rules for managing to grab someone else's land that way might be different for public sector land, than someone's private land. I think it might be 30 years of squatting on the land that is deemed to constitute a valid claim for land if its public sector???

phill99

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

If its stated that a house has a garage - then it has a garage = ie that garage belongs to the house and is on land owned by the house (unless its stated otherwise).

Please put us all out of misery and advise us of what Statute, Regulation or Case Law are you relying on to support or confirm this.

Assumptions cannot be made in Land Law. That's exactly why we have solicitors - to confirm the facts and to allow us to proceed on that basis. If we made assumptions, then all sales of houses in England & Wales would be transacted by Estate Agents, based only on wild guesses and ignorance.

I have two garages. One on my land and one I rent. If you asked me how many garages I have, I would say 2. I wouldn't go in to a diatribe about legalities of ownership. But if you wanted to buy my house, I would expect your solicitir to identify this, not the dead horse and donkey salesman masquerading as an estate agent.

You are commenting on a subject about which you have no knowledge.

Winter_Phoenix

Freecall wrote: »

The important point though is that as things stand only the current owner would be able to do this as the OP clearly has not occupied the land for the requisite period of time. Simply selling ajacent land to a new owner will not confer any rights on the new owner.

Mmmm ... well, you could be right, I am no expert.

But according to the Government website (apparently updated in June this year), a claim can be made on the basis of one's own, and one's predecessors', adverse possession of a particular piece of land.

Paragraph 2 of https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/adverse-possession-of-registered-land/practice-guide-4-adverse-possession-of-registered-land

kinger101

phill99 wrote: »

Please put us all out of misery and advise us of what Statute, Regulation or Case Law are you relying on to support or confirm this.

Assumptions cannot be made in Land Law. That's exactly why we have solicitors - to confirm the facts and to allow us to proceed on that basis. If we made assumptions, then all sales of houses in England & Wales would be transacted by Estate Agents, based only on wild guesses and ignorance.

I have two garages. One on my land and one I rent. If you asked me how many garages I have, I would say 2. I wouldn't go in to a diatribe about legalities of ownership. But if you wanted to buy my house, I would expect your solicitir to identify this, not the dead horse and donkey salesman masquerading as an estate agent.

You are commenting on a subject about which you have no knowledge.

You're right about the land law, and that's the reason we have surveys and searches. But the EA still needs to comply with consumer protection law. I think whether the property comes with a garage or not falls within material information, and the EA needs to take reasonable measures to ensure this is correct, and inform the vendor ASAP if something later comes to light.

Without knowing what the EA knew, when, and what measures they took to confirm material information was accurate, it's a bit premature to state that the OP has no case. They should make an official complaint to the EA, and then the ombudsman. That's what they're there for.

dragonsoup

pmorrison wrote: »

are the estate agents liable for the fees we have incurred to this point?

Any help and advice would be much appreciated.

Why don't you just ask your solicitor whether you have a case?

pmorrison_2

Appreciate the advice and comments from everyone - dragonsoup your comment made sense, I raised this with the solicitor and he came back with the following:

"With respect to your query as to reclaiming costs if the purchase falls through, unfortunately there is nothing you can really do in this respect. They are under no obligation whatsoever to reimburse any spent costs and as you have not entered into a binding Contract there is really no grounds on which you could claim them back."

It is looking like the purchase will fall through as the seller is only willing to reduce their price by £500 despite not legally owning the garage but it looks like we probably won't be able to get anything back if what the solicitor is saying is correct.

Thrugelmir

pmorrison wrote: »

It is looking like the purchase will fall through as the seller is only willing to reduce their price by £500 despite not legally owning the garage

Then would you trust this seller in any other regard? I know I wouldn't. I'd walk and put it all down to experience.