Landlocked House!

AnotherJoe

Leeds8888 wrote: »

We are thinking that surely they would agree to register it first if they saw no problem, rather than having to put it back on the market and find another buyer. Do you think thats a sensible assumption?

I am mindful that our solicitor doesn't get paid unless we buy the house; so whilst I'm sure he wouldn't present the facts wrongly to us I think he also isn't trying to put us off. So long as he can get an Absence of Easement policy in place then thats good enough for him....and maybe it should be good enough for us, but what happens if the ROW was challenged, the insurance fought it and lost! We are really out of our depth in trying to decide whats best!

I just wish we knew how likely the Land Registry are to add the right of way on to our title. It does afterall talk about or right of way over the land whos register it is on! It seems to me to be common sense, but I'm not a property solicitor and I cant find anything on google which gives us any indication as to what LR do in this situation.

Likely wouldn't cut it for me, if I am buyinga house I want certainty.
Yes, your sellers ought to be rational and sort it. If they aren't, why should you be the patsy taking the risk?

Leeds8888

davidmcn wrote: »

Then the insurers pay out the loss in value of the property (all the way up to whatever you paid for it). Though in practice, the insurers would probably agree a price for the grant of access rights.

So should we be happy with the situation so long as we have an indemnity policy in place? We have never bought a house before. Is this quite common? Would a reasonable person be satisfied with the lack of a right of way in the deeds so long as its insured? Would this put off a future buyer? Even with the indemnity policy in place, does this lower the value of the house? Maybe we should offer less??

We are lost and confused!

davidmcn

Leeds8888 wrote: »

So should we be happy with the situation so long as we have an indemnity policy in place?

Yes

We have never bought a house before.

Well, your solicitor has, so they ought to be giving you advice, given that's what you're paying them for, not just blandly stating some facts and then shrugging their shoulders when you ask them for advice.

Is this quite common?

Yes

Would a reasonable person be satisfied with the lack of a right of way in the deeds so long as its insured?

Yes

Would this put off a future buyer?

Yes, it would probably put off some future buyers. All sorts of things can. But if the insurance adequately covers the risk then it generally makes the property marketable.

Even with the indemnity policy in place, does this lower the value of the house?

No

Maybe we should offer less??

If you like, but as I said, it doesn't objectively lower the value of the property.

Leeds8888

davidmcn wrote: »

Yes

Well, your solicitor has, so they ought to be giving you advice, given that's what you're paying them for, not just blandly stating some facts and then shrugging their shoulders when you ask them for advice.

Yes
Yes
Yes, it would probably put off some future buyers. All sorts of things can. But if the insurance adequately covers the risk then it generally makes the property marketable.
No
If you like, but as I said, it doesn't objectively lower the value of the property.

Well thats a totally different perspective from everyone else! We are now well and truly stumped. It does make sense that if we are insured against the loss then we should be okay with it, but if they will only pay out what the house is worth and we make substantial renovations then we will have to up the insurance. Isn't this adding a risk that they may not reinsure at an increased house value?

Leeds8888

Does anyone know anything about rights pertaining to a house which are contained in the title register to another property? Specifically whether land registry will then list that right against our title register? This really would be the most perfect situation, but I can find no information about it anywhere online.

davidmcn

Leeds8888 wrote: »

if they will only pay out what the house is worth and we make substantial renovations then we will have to up the insurance. Isn't this adding a risk that they may not reinsure at an increased house value?

I don't see why they wouldn't, unless a claim was already looking likely.

But in reality:
(a) it's very unlikely to be challenged (if it were, they wouldn't offer the insurance!)
(b) if it is challenged, whoever is quibbling about it would probably just be seeking a wodge of money in return for granting you the access rights. Why on earth would they want to specifically exclude your house from the access?

Leeds8888

davidmcn wrote: »

I don't see why they wouldn't, unless a claim was already looking likely.

But in reality:
(a) it's very unlikely to be challenged (if it were, they wouldn't offer the insurance!)
(b) if it is challenged, whoever is quibbling about it would probably just be seeking a wodge of money in return for granting you the access rights. Why on earth would they want to specifically exclude your house from the access?

You are definitely bringing us round to the idea that we might indeed not be totally idiotic if we decide to go for this house.

We still have a nagging question as to why its taken the other side 8 months to provide us with deeds. Surely they knew that our solicitor would ask them to do the first registration with land registry before we bought it. And why have they refused to do so. Do they know something about the situation that we dont?

Leeds8888

If we don't want to go down the route of Absence of Easement Insurance and we ask Land Registry to register our right of way over of number 1 as contained in number 1s own title register then what are our prospects of LR agreeing?

Surely there are many cases of someone elses deeds containing your right of way? As a layman it seems common sense that if my right is contained in the deeds of the property of which that right is over that it should just be 'copied and pasted' onto my deeds!

Does anyone know where I might find any more information on this concept?

AnotherJoe

Leeds8888 wrote: »

You are definitely bringing us round to the idea that we might indeed not be totally idiotic if we decide to go for this house.

We still have a nagging question as to why its taken the other side 8 months to provide us with deeds. Surely they knew that our solicitor would ask them to do the first registration with land registry before we bought it. And why have they refused to do so. Do they know something about the situation that we dont?

Either its a hassle to deal with, or if its a probate property 8 months isnt particularly slow.


I am going to be really at odds with some of the posters here saying"dont worry the insurance will settle it." because i wonder if that would be along the lines of insurance "settling" your written-off car for £5k when you could have got £8k for it privately but the book value is £5k so tough.

And do you really want the hassle?

lincroft1710

Leeds8888 wrote: »

The vendor is a huge, well known firm of solicitors

Who should have sorted this *****y matter out before marketing the property!

selling in their capacity as a trustees on behalf of the estate of an old lady who passed away. To say they have been unhelpful is the understatement of the year. It has taken them 8 months since they accepted our offer just to provide the deeds to our solicitor. They have ignored us, taken months to reply, sent the wrong documents and generally been uncooperative. We don't know whether this is because they are a very big firm of overworked solicitors who don't really care if it sells or not or maybe something more sinister.

Our solicitor has said his function is to provide us with their findings and we make the decision. He hasn't advised not to buy, but I am also aware that if we pull out he doesnt get paid!

Your solicitor should be pointing out all the pitfalls associated with your proposed purchase and looking after your interests and trying to sort out these problems. That is what you pay him to do as part of the conveyancing process.

Anybody want to give odds on which is the more useless of the 2 solicitors?