Part of garden and a 2nd garage have been lost - vendor will not transfer to me

chaotic_j

Hi,

I've been buying an ex-vicarage off the church, ready to set a date for completion, BUT.. it has never been registered with the land registry before and..

They have voluntarily registered the entirety of the house and adjoining garden (I have paid for them to do this), they refuse to transfer all of it to me as they are not in possession of it all.

At some point they are saying a piece of the garden has been 'lost' (fence looks to have been moved closer) and also a 2nd garage is probably being used by someone else.

They say they are not letting out either the land or this 2nd garage. It has not been registered to anyone else via land registry.

It looks as though the piece of garden is being used as an extension of the garden of another property (being mowed etc). and someone has painted the garage door in recent years.

I'm not really after taking the land back, probably isn't worth moving the fence for/falling out with a new neighbour over - not sure what the position is with the garage, whether it was sold and the paperwork lost or what?

How best to proceed? Is there a chance the vendor may be intending on offering the land and garage for sale to whomever is currently using it? or am I too suspicious?

I have been given advice if it's been this way for over 12 years, the current occupiers/users of the land/2nd garage could register a possessory title i.e. squatters rights..

Thanks in advance for your help.

konark

If the land and garage are on the LR deeds then they are still legally part of the property.

A claim for adverse possession is possible ( but hasn't happened yet obviously) but since 2002 they have to inform the registered proprieters on the LR entry after 10 years, before they claim adverse possession after 12.( The exception to this is if the possession took place before 1993 when the 10 year rule does not apply). The problem is the house wasn't registered until recently so that in your case this wouldn't be a barrier.

moneyistooshorttomention

Doubtful they've got any plans to try and sell to someone else.

Sounds like the bit of garden and their 2nd garage have been nicked by the next door neighbour at some point and the church are being too "weak" to make an effort to hold onto their own property (rather than let it get stolen by the neighbour).

So I guess the considerations are:

- Is the house valued at a price that takes into account that garage and bit of garden having been stolen? Or valued at a price that includes all the property rightfully belonging to it?

- Are you prepared to live next door to a neighbour like that? Personally, I always hope for honest neighbours if possible and they've failed at the first hurdle on that one...:cool:. I wouldnt have the temperament to live comfortably next to them - as I'd be telling everyone what they'd done (so if people "backed the wrong horse" there - ie them) that could result in them trying to turn people against you for letting on what they are like. That's voice of experience time.....as a couple of mine "get up to all sorts" they shouldn't and then make out I'm wrong for "telling on them" about it.

Norman_Castle

Its possible a past resident vicar allowed neighbours to use the land and garage without considering later ownership issues. You could try speaking to the neighbours and suggesting the land still belongs to the vicarage.

moneyistooshorttomention

konark wrote: »

If the land and garage are on the LR deeds then they are still legally part of the property.

A claim for adverse possession is possible ( but hasn't happened yet obviously) but since 2002 they have to inform the registered proprieters on the LR entry after 10 years, before they claim adverse possession after 12.( The exception to this is if the possession took place before 1993 when the 10 year rule does not apply). The problem is the house wasn't registered until recently so that in your case this wouldn't be a barrier.

I must say I shall be following that thought with interest.

As I've got some nearby land down on the Register as part of my property. I was astonished to find that fact out. A house has been built on it in prior to my buying my house. I am going to be very interested to see what happens when that house comes to be sold on and then gets Registered for the first time. I assume the buyers solicitor will realise and am wondering if there will be a little knock on the door to ask if I will accept regularising the position (ie having that bit of land Registered as mine transferred over into the ownership of the new owner of the house)??

My Title Plan diagram includes my property only - but Register entry for my property and a plan in Land Registry possession indicates I still own that land.

LAND REGISTRY rep - if you're there....

Land_Registry

konark wrote: »

The exception to this is if the possession took place before 1993 when the 10 year rule does not apply

I think that should read before 2003 - see PG 5

Moneyistooshorttomention the PG 5 (or 4 if relevant to your circumstances) will help you also re the registration requirements/process. I'm sure you've read them though already as you've posted before on several threads referring. The legal niceties are though one for a solicitor to advise on due to the legal complexities of claiming land/property

davidmcn

chaotic_j wrote: »

Is there a chance the vendor may be intending on offering the land and garage for sale to whomever is currently using it?

Probably not, but even if they were, why should you care? You're buying what was shown to you as comprising the property and what you've (presumably) had valued as forming your property - the quality of the neighbours' title shouldn't be your concern.

Land_Registry

chaotic_J if I have read it correctly they have registered all the land and property and are selling you the majority if it but excluding the occupied land and garage.

If so and you are not interested in the land (or garage?) I guess the only suspicion is whether they intend doing anything with those that may affect your use/enjoyment if the property?

Have you asked them? Or is it simply a case of they are hanging onto them and the occupiers/users are then going to claim them as suggested or buy them? Only the seller and the 'occupiers' can really allay any suspicions it seems to me.

Lots of properties are sold as part of a larger title. Nothing odd about that but something to chat with your solicitor about if you have any concers

silvercar

Sounds like the vicarage sellers are trying to behave honestly. The other garage and land are not unencumbered, so they are only selling you what is free to be sold. No doubt at some point the other bits will be re-registered to the occupiers' properties on sale of those properties.

chaotic_j

Hi,

I have been told that the vendors do not have vacant possession of the strip of land and 2nd garage so they cannot transfer these areas to me. Is this correct?

How does this differ from selling a house with a sitting tenant?

Many thanks for your help.

davidmcn

chaotic_j wrote: »

I have been told that the vendors do not have vacant possession of the strip of land and 2nd garage so they cannot transfer these areas to me. Is this correct?

Well, they certainly can't transfer them to you with vacant possession, which would be the normal contractual requirement (and what your mortgage lender would require, if you are buying with a mortgage?).

How does this differ from selling a house with a sitting tenant?

The tenant's occupation would be regulated by the tenancy. Whereas these guys are, from what you have told us, possibly able to claim that they are in fact now owners. Which would also affect the quality of title which your sellers would be able to grant to you.

I'll ask it again - why should you care, if nobody has suggested that you were going to get title, let alone any sort of possession, of the areas in question?