House owner off the grid!!

martindow

supa34 wrote: »

Yeah the trespass question. Council says I post a letter first with notice of what I am going to do and when and then do it at the time stated. I know doesn't make sence and you know no one is going to read it, but hey that's why they have loopholes in the law!!

Are you sure the person at the council is sufficiently qualified to advise you on this? If there is any come back it will be you held responsible.

getmore4less

If fixing the holes in the property flushes out an owner to make a trespass claim that's a major result.

qwert_yuiop

getmore4less wrote: »

If fixing the holes in the property flushes out an owner to make a trespass claim that's a major result.

Yes, I’d go for it. The only problem is going to be with the neighbours who’d like the property.

supa34

An update of this.

I had a Roofer working today and he mentioned he worked on the properties next to the abandoned house and he knew the history behind it.

The houses belonged to an old couple who had a child at a very old age. The child had mental health issues and in their will they left the house to the son with a condition that he can't sell it.

The son couldn't look after himself and got moved to a care home. The neighbour did track him down and make a stupid offer apparently for the property which the son agreed to. However the solicitor put a stop to it as he can't sell the property.

So until the son is alive, the property cannot be sold.

Council does have keys to the property as when I complained they did go to have a look at it. However why they don't do it up and atleast rent it out to cover the son's living expense, I don't know.

But there you have it.

xylophone

So until the son is alive, the property cannot be sold.

:eek:

While the son is alive?

AdrianC

I suspect there's a bit more to it than that in reality.

The only way I can think of that such a stipulation would be actually binding in any way is if the property was put in trust, with the son the beneficiary of the trust. Even then, the trustees could (and would have a duty to) vary it if it was in the best interests of the beneficiary. Which it clearly is, as the property's losing a substantial proportion of the value.

So either the solicitor/trustee is a jobsworth muppet thinking of the fees rather than the beneficiary, or there's Chinese Whispers going on.

supa34

Yeah I reckon it's in a trust and solicitor is the one responsible for it.

I'm this day and age everyone is after money. Solicitor and council.

When I complained of pigeons the council lady that was telling me they had no idea who lives there and nothing they can do, went the following day, opened the door with set of keys she had (its a very old peeling paint door with a brand new gold handle) and inspected the property. It usually takes the council longer than that just to answer the phone.

I reckon when the son dies, the solicitor will take all the expense that has incurred over the years and so Will the council after auctioning the building. Anyone with common sence wouldn't have done it this way and have the person's interest at heart, worse case put it on rent and let benificiery enjoy it.