Ransom strip?

Narc0lepsy

elsien wrote: »

The squatters rights you refer to will be adverse possession, an element of which is that you have to be occupying the land without permission which doesn't seem to be the case if there is a lease on the land.

From what we have read, and with the benefit of hindsight, we should have put in place an easement when we purchased the house. "An easement may be created of necessity. Thus a parcel of land will have a right of way of necessity over a road, track or path leading to it if that route is the only means of access between the public highway and that parcel of land. An easement may also be created by prescription. This happens when someone carries out an act (that is capable of being an easement) repeatedly, openly and without the (potentially servient) landowner's permission for a period of at least twenty years." http://www.boundary-problems.co.uk/boundary-problems/easements.html
As the "agreement" was between the previous householder and the council, we may fall into the category of prescription. I suspect that to prove this and get it legally accepted would cost more than the cost of just biting the bullet and paying what they ask. However, if it was easy to prove, I would happily let them sell the land at auction so long as I had continued access to my house.

Narc0lepsy

glentoran99 wrote: »

If it was sold to someone else could the rental fee actually be increased? Any mention of that in the terms?

No mention in this agreement but as I said, we need to trawl through a load of paperwork in case there is something we have overlooked.

davidmcn

Narc0lepsy wrote: »

My main objection and what I really don't understand, is why we are expected to cover the legal costs of the council. If we were to sell the house, we would expect to pay our own conveyancing and for the purchaser to pay their own; surely it would be unusual for us to insist on the purchaser to pay our fees?

Pretty commonplace for the purchase of odd bits of land from councils. Anyway, it's not really a reason for "objection", just take all those costs into account when considering the price.

Mossfarr

It is usual for the purchaser to pay the legal feels for the vendor/freeholder when purchasing a lease. I had to pay the legal fees last year when I purchased the freehold on my house from the local authority.
The same applies when purchasing a local authority property at auction, it is detailed in the legal pack.

Narc0lepsy

rjwr wrote: »

If you do not buy it and a frontage company helps themselves to it, what is the potential damage to your future? If the answer is anything but none you might need to consider buying this.

Did this not come up when you first bought the house?

I think I've pretty much covered this in other replies. We're going to have a close check of all our old documents in case there is something we overlooked. Certainly I recall discussing this "agreement" with the solicitor when we bought the house but I can't remember what we decided; we aren't reckless people so if something needed to be done we would have done it.

My 1st choice, if we could guarantee future ability to access our house, would be to let them sell the land; we have a large back garden and a bit less to maintain wouldn't upset me!

I accept that if there is any risk at all of not being able to get to our house/drive, or being liable in future for a large rent, or having difficulty selling the house, then we have to buy the land. I just object to paying the council's legal fees. Their letter says "not negotiable" so I'm sure when the shock has died down we will reluctantly write a large cheque and get back to normal life - it's not worth fretting over in the long term.

Narc0lepsy

Mossfarr wrote: »

It is usual for the purchaser to pay the legal feels for the vendor/freeholder when purchasing a lease. I had to pay the legal fees last year when I purchased the freehold on my house from the local authority.
The same applies when purchasing a local authority property at auction, it is detailed in the legal pack.

Fair enough; I've only ever bought a freehold property before so I didn't know that. Thanks for explaining. I feel a bit better if it is normal procedure!

ThePants999

Any chance the adverse possession route would apply here? It's been leased to someone who's not the OP, so "adverse" is checked, and their driveway is on the land, so "possession" is checked...

ProDave

In relation to the OP, as the council originally purchased the land for a road widening scheme, can you not argue that although it was not ALL used for the road, the remaining bit is still part of "the highway" (the verge) and so a public right of way over which you have therefore got a right of access.

davidmcn

sarafreeman01 wrote: »

I purchased a building plot with outline planning permission in Dec 2016. I have found out today that there is a ransom strip at the front of the property stopping access to the land. Who's responsibility was it to inform me of this when I purchased the land?

Probably your solicitor, if you used one?

ProDave

sarafreeman01 wrote: »

I purchased a building plot with outline planning permission in Dec 2016. I have found out today that there is a ransom strip at the front of the property stopping access to the land. Who's responsibility was it to inform me of this when I purchased the land? Any advise of what to do next would be greatly appriciated!

Your solicitor should have checked this. Mine did.

We bought a plot that at the time of last sale was accessed via a private track, over which we had a right of access. In the intervening period the track was upgraded and adopted as a public road. My solicitor was very particular to ensure the public road did indeed follow the same route as the track did, otherwise there could have been a bit of land we did not own between the plot and the road.