Freeholder not playing ball on garden transfer..

AdrianC

tizzle6560 wrote: »

And what's the downfall of him selling said land

Why does there have to be one? Isn't "I don't want to" good enough?

G_M

tizzle6560 wrote: »

Ok hypothetically speaking then, If someone approached you out the blue, and asked to buy something that is no longer in use; you may have had no prior interest or intention in selling it before, but now someone is willing to take it off your hands for nominal amount (not peanuts) - you would refuse?

But this is not the scenario here.

From the freeholder's point of view, the land IS in use. It is leased out by him for a period of time, in return for a certain ground rent during that period, and when that period ends, he will get it back.

He can then
* sell a new lease (for a large sum) for another period of time
* sell it freehold (perhaps along with the entire property)
* use it for his grandchildren to play football on.

It is YOU, the current, temporary, occupier of the land, who is failing to use it. Thus it is you who has an interest in 'getting it off your hands for a nominal amount'.

The freeholder has a long-term iterest in retaining it.

spadoosh

tizzle6560 wrote: »

And what's the downfall of him selling said land, if they now have admitted that it wouldn't really affect the overall value of the FH?

Would you be willing to allow the freeholder to sell that bit of the land to the neighbour without your involvement?

Youve already said you dont need/want it. Just let the freeholder sell it to next door.

tizzle6560

G_M wrote: »

But this is not the scenario here.

From the freeholder's point of view, the land IS in use. It is leased out by him for a period of time, in return for a certain ground rent during that period, and when that period ends, he will get it back.

He can then
* sell a new lease (for a large sum) for another period of time
* sell it freehold (perhaps along with the entire property)
* use it for his grandchildren to play football on.

It is YOU, the current, temporary, occupier of the land, who is failing to use it. Thus it is you who has an interest in 'getting it off your hands for a nominal amount'.

The freeholder has a long-term interest in retaining it.

putting it into perspective, this is a tiny portion of a near 90 ft garden. He could still do all of the above options youve outlined (in 120 years times...) for exactly the same money. No one in a century's time, is going to complain that the garden is fractionally smaller..

HouseBuyer77

Well he's presumably decided (rightly or wrongly) he can make more by holding on to it then selling it to your neighbour at proposed price. He's named his price, your neighbour isn't going for it.

tlc678910

OP you're right - the underused areas of our gardens are such a bind. Those of us that do live in freehold properties should give them away immediately. Let's campaign Right Move for a "free to a good home" section.

(I don't usually go in for sarcastic posts but your attitude is unreal!)

tizzle6560

tlc678910 wrote: »

OP you're right - the underused areas of our gardens are such a bind. Those of us that do live in freehold properties should give them away immediately. Let's campaign Right Move for a "free to a good home" section.

(I don't usually go in for sarcastic posts but your attitude is unreal!)

Not once did I say they should 'give it away'.. And what is it they say about sarcasm being..?

Fact is - Neighbours want to buy it for a substantial amount, Freeholder has admitted he is willing to sell it to them but is charging an absurd amount of money, based on a justification that is not even a valid argument. FH has near enough said to me - your neighbours look like they have dosh, we're gonna go after them for it.

spadoosh

tizzle6560 wrote: »

Not once did I say they should 'give it away'.. And what is it they say about sarcasm being..?

Fact is - Neighbours want to buy it for a substantial amount, Freeholder has admitted he is willing to sell it to them but is charging an absurd amount of money, based on a justification that is not even a valid argument. FH has near enough said to me - your neighbours look like they have dosh, we're gonna go after them for it.

That is his prerogative, i notice your avoiding my question that would see you not taking your cut?!

You asked, they said yes and gave you a price, the neighbour pays that price or doesnt. If they dont, the freeholder can do as they choose.

tlc678910

tizzle6560 wrote: »

Not once did I say they should 'give it away'.. And what is it they say about sarcasm being..?

Fact is - Neighbours want to buy it for a substantial amount, Freeholder has admitted he is willing to sell it to them but is charging an absurd amount of money, based on a justification that is not even a valid argument. FH has near enough said to me - your neighbours look like they have dosh, we're gonna go after them for it.

As is their right, to name their price for their land, which the potential purchasers can take or they can leave.

note3

So perhaps as freeholder understandably isn't really interested in selling, why don't you talk to them about whether they would permit you to rent that patch of land to the neighbour? They could pay you a monthly or yearly fee to use that patch. If you ever sold your property and the new leaseholders didn't want that arrangement to continue then they could choose to stop it and the freeholder would still own the land.

Someone else may be able to see a gaping pitfall in this suggestion so best to get verification on legalities but that's an option perhaps