Building with uplift clauses question.

AdrianC

Mgman1965 wrote: »

I take your point, by expressing my own personal view it has derailed the thread totally.

The issue is not so much you expressing your view, but you taking exception to others offering counter views.

At the end of the day, it's very simple.
The vendor is offering the plot with an uplift clause which is clearly specified up-front.
If you think that clause is unfair, then make him an offer that includes the removal of it. It will, as you suggested in post 4, probably need to be a higher offer. If he refuses, and you cannot come to a mutually acceptable arrangement, then find another plot. He's under just as much requirement to sell to you as you are to buy from him. If he cannot find any buyer who agrees with his terms, then he will need to either accept that and review his attitude... or not sell.


But, whether you like it or not, uplift clauses are far from uncommon. And they are legally binding.

moneyistooshorttomention

Mgman1965 wrote: »

My son is in the building trade and we've had this idea to possibly save him some money for his first house and in an area he wants.


Our idea is to sell our house and buy another for cash, if were short, he will lend us the difference (so no hassle with building societies) with large garden suitable for building on. We then "sell" him the garden plot at a "reasonable" price, or even not if he's not needing a mortgage (he could buy the ground at a later date off us when better off,) for him to build his house on.


Question is, all the ones we deem potentially suitable have had large uplift clauses on for development.


If the development (new house) on the plot is not built to be sold, would that still trigger the uplift payment to the (I consider greedy) previous owner ?


If just selling the plot triggers the uplift, could we defer selling but still building, till the uplift expires ?


The only time I could possibly see the uplift being triggered is if the house and/or plot is sold for the first time within the uplift clause timeframe, which is it seems 25yrs for most and wouldn't be intended (I know things don't always go as intended but then we'd just have to pay up).


Anyone any experience of uplift clauses ? Or pitfalls.




Me and OH are only in our early 50's so no worries about Deprivation of assets or such like, so no tax scams or such intended.

Quoted in case.

paddy's_mum

Mgman1965 wrote: »

you want your snout in the trough as well.

Sorry, OP, but it was you who brought that terminology into this thread in the first place.

G_M

Mgman1965 wrote: »

Because we would sell him the land on which his house is built at a reasonable price as we don't see why we should give it to him and neither do we want as some seem to think, want our "snouts in the trough" to make a fat profit out of him for it.

what could be suspicious about that ????

Again - I'm afraid you brought this on yourself! You did not initially say "we would sell him the land on which his house is built at a reasonable price"


You said : "We then "sell" him the garden plot at a "reasonable" price,"


The use of the "inverted commas" must have been motivated by something. And it is the interpretation of those "inverted commas" that leads to suspicion - the thought being that if there were nothing to be suspicious about you would have simply written

"We then sell him the garden plot at a reasonable price..." (sans "s).

Mgman1965

G_M wrote: »

Again - I'm afraid you brought this on yourself! You did not initially say "we would sell him the land on which his house is built at a reasonable price"


You said : "We then "sell" him the garden plot at a "reasonable" price,"


The use of the "inverted commas" must have been motivated by something. And it is the interpretation of those "inverted commas" that leads to suspicion - the thought being that if there were nothing to be suspicious about you would have simply written

"We then sell him the garden plot at a reasonable price..." (sans "s).

Motivated by a wish to help my offspring in difficult times by selling him something at a reasonable price, not "cheap" (ooops, inverted commas) and not at a profit.


you have the suspicious mind there I don't see anything suspicious about it.

G_M

Not me - I'm just trying to helpfully explain the reason for others' suspicions!


but if you were just motivated by a wish to help your offspring in difficult times by selling him something at a reasonable price, why not simply say that?


Why imply something different by use of the ""?

Mgman1965

I really don't get the obsession with inverted commas ?????

So helpfully explain to me what everyone is suspicious about me doing by using inverted commas I used them to emphasize a doing.

Afraid I never got round to doing my A level in pure English to know their exact meanings and contexts .

G_M

Hmmm.... not sure this is really the time or the place for an English lesson.

Suffice it to say they have a meaning. The presence of them changes the meaning of a sentence from the meaning it would have had without them.

And no, they do not denote emphasis (see what I did there?).


(ps - long time ago now but I'm sure I covered punctuation earlier than A levels)

davidmcn

Though if you do want an English refresher, this might be of use:

https://www.businesswritingblog.com/business_writing/2010/04/the-overuse-of-quotation-marks.html

eddddy

Mgman1965 wrote: »

Motivated by a wish to help my offspring in difficult times by selling him something at a reasonable price, not "cheap" (ooops, inverted commas) and not at a profit.

Maybe the seller with the uplift clause, has kids too - who can't afford to get on the housing ladder - hence the uplift clause is intended to help them in the future..


So you want to make a profit to benefit your kids - just like a seller might want to make a profit to benefit their kids.


You're not a bad person because you want to make a profit (I aim to make profits too), and neither are the sellers bad people for wanting to make a profit. That's just how the world works.