Right to Buy - entire plot not included?

chunkytfg

FlatFour wrote: »

No really relevant, is it? I wouldn't be able to buy it "in their name" anyway, would I?

Scoob.

So yes then?:rotfl:

G_M

FlatFour wrote: »

However, quite shockingly, we did find an official letter from the planning people when they inspected a Shed my dad had built - the one from early 2000's I mentioned earlier. The letter says it was built in accordance with the rules for a temporary structure - the sort of thing you'd typically expect for a garden shed. No mention of it being built outside the boundary or anything. .

Unfortunately it is likely the inspection was done in relation to either 'Building Regulations' and/or Planning Permission.


Neither of which would look at the matter of ownership.

FlatFour

It does look like this might be an issue from when HA took over from the Council back in 1986, if the handover simply didn't include the full details on the entire garden. What I can do about though, other than report the mistake, is a bit of a mystery at the moment.

All I can say is two of the other neighbours, whose garden backed on to the same strip of land, had no issues with it being included in their purchase from HA.

I've just re-read the letter sent to my parents and the paragraph in question is:

"The valuation has not included the parking area to the rear of the property. This will need to be confirmed as available for sale and valued separately"

So, they explicitly say "parking area" which is only part of the "extra" area. So this isn't about the entire extra strip of land, but just a part of it, roughly half. Why this wouldn't be automatically included is beyond me. Why would they think it not part of the rest of the garden? When I initially thought (based on what my parents told me) that there was an issue I thought they meant the entire "extra" bit, not just part of it. Now I don't know what to think as it's not a "simple" case of that extra strip of land being excluded, but just the parking area.

Basically, they're fine with the lawn area, which was extended like the neighbours, but the parking area "isn't included" yet has been part of the plot just as long. As I mentioned, the neighbours chose to use the entire area as additional garden - they already had Drives on the front of their houses. My parents place never did have the front off-road parking - it's an end plot, so a little different - hence my Dad choosing to split things, taking a small chunk of garden space to allow him to park.

Hopefully HA will respond promptly and I can get a better idea of what's going on. It's not quite what I first though regarding the entire extra strip of land from 1975 lol.

da_rule

Do they pay a separate rent for the parking space? If so, the space may be on a licence and therefore not part of the property demised under the secure tenancy.

If the Council/HA did fail to notice the land when they transferred the house and the part of the land in question still belongs to the Council there is pretty much nothing you can do. It’s unlikely that the Council will want the hassle of transferring it to the HA etc.

FlatFour

chunkytfg wrote: »

So yes then?:rotfl:

Lol, no. I don't think it works that way. Though I can help them out, which I'm doing.

G_M wrote: »

Unfortunately it is likely the inspection was done in relation to either 'Building Regulations' and/or Planning Permission.


Neither of which would look at the matter of ownership.

You're probably right. Though it now appears that only a small part of the area hasn't been included, the sheds are fine, it's just where the cars park that's in question. I will need to get some clarity from them as just the parking area being excluded like this is odd and I can't even begin to understand why just part of the extra area (from 1975 remember lol) is not included.

FlatFour

da_rule wrote: »

Do they pay a separate rent for the parking space? If so, the space may be on a licence and therefore not part of the property demised under the secure tenancy.

If the Council/HA did fail to notice the land when they transferred the house and the part of the land in question still belongs to the Council there is pretty much nothing you can do. It’s unlikely that the Council will want the hassle of transferring it to the HA etc.

No, nothing listed separately, just the rent for everything.


The council did transfer the land to the HA for the neighbours, then they ultimately got it when they bought their houses, no issues. There just seems to be some discrepancy with part of my parents bit for some reason. They were the only ones to use some of it for parking, due to lack of a front driveway, but that's the only difference in that sense.

00ec25

FlatFour wrote: »

Though it now appears that only a small part of the area hasn't been included, the sheds are fine, it's just where the cars park that's in question. I will need to get some clarity from them as just the parking area being excluded like this is odd and I can't even begin to understand why just part of the extra area (from 1975 remember lol) is not included.

I think you are reading too much into the words

what is being sold is shown on the title plan,
the fact someone calls something a "parking area" has no legal meaning, they could just as easily have called it: the bit of garden at the end

it seems from your posts so far:
- parents have a bit of land on which their house sits
- parents have at a date in the past been given permission to use an extra bit of land at the bottom of their "garden"

the extra is not part of the original title plans and nor does it seem you have any paperwork proving that your parents were granted permission to use it.
Was their rent increased to reflect the increased size of their "land"? If yes, you may have an argument for saying the land could be included. If not, you don't.

Either way the HA has every right to sell to your parents the land as delineated by the title plan.
As others have pointed out, if the HA don't own the "extra" land then they can't sell it. If they do own it, then they are perfectly within their rights to charge extra for the "extra" land.
Given this is a RTB, surely you have no objection to paying a tad more for the land and effectively taking a tad less discount. Presumably the object of the exercise is for you to make money when your parents die, not for your parents to own a property. So just take the financial hit and make less profit than you thought you were going to get.

Norman_Castle

G_M wrote: »

The extra land is presumably not included in the Land Registry Title for the property. Hence not being included in the sale.

^This will be the problem. The HA will refer to the land registry plan whereas the previous sales would have used council records showing the extended gardens possibly updated on land registry for the sale.
Its odd that the land isn't part of your property but the HA claim they own it. Do they? It sounds small and unusable to anyone else.
Have you tried explaining the situation to them. Common sense suggests including it in the property valuation and sale.
Not sure how difficult it is to alter the title plan as part of a sale. If the HA do own this land outside this property can they simply redraw the boundary as part of the sale or is it more involved than that?

FlatFour

00ec25 wrote: »

Presumably the object of the exercise is for you to make money when your parents die, not for your parents to own a property. So just take the financial hit and make less profit than you thought you were going to get.

Wow, just wow. That's what you take from me trying to help my parents out? I'm genuinely shocked to receive a comment like this. I've been carefully reading what everyone has contributed to this thread, but that one sentence almost makes me wish I'd not come here for advice. I'm afraid I blanked whatever relevant comments you may have made prior to that. One day, long in the future I hope, when my parents have passed, the place may well be mine. However, the objective is to look after my mum and dad, and I'm potentially putting up a rather large chunk of money to do this. It's my parents, I'm going to look after them, selling the place for "profit" is the last thing on my mind.

Norman_Castle wrote: »

^This will be the problem. The HA will refer to the land registry plan whereas the previous sales would have used council records showing the extended gardens possibly updated on land registry for the sale.
Its odd that the land isn't part of your property but the HA claim they own it. Do they? It sounds small and unusable to anyone else.
Have you tried explaining the situation to them. Common sense suggests including it in the property valuation and sale.
Not sure how difficult it is to alter the title plan as part of a sale. If the HA do own this land outside this property can they simply redraw the boundary as part of the sale or is it more involved than that?

I don't really understand how this works, but what you say makes sense. From what I've found out, my parents are the second tenants ever for this house. It was built in, I think, 1953 as a council house and my parents moved in in 1975. From what they told me the original tenant moved to a council flat, as it was just her. I guess her husband had passed and the kids had moved out, but I don't know of course. So, the place hasn't really been through the system so to speak, so things could well be outdated leading to discrepancies.



We have attempted to explain things in writing in the email, so hopefully common sense will play a part here. I don't object in principal to paying a little more to secure the parking area, but I need to be mindful that the house does need some modernising - not just a lick of paint, far from it.


There's not really enough information in their correspondence. I assume they own the land, else they'd not be discussing selling it separately surely, but perhaps that's not what they meant. Hopefully we can actually speak to someone to sort this out. We were dealing with one person throughout this, but the offer letter said we need to respond to some new group email, which we've done, but cc'd our prior contact. So, hopefully the right people are all on the same page.



I get that this is a bit of a weird one, but from our perspective, this has all been part of the garden for ever. The neighbours had no snags during their purchases with it not being included and being an extra purchase, so I'm surprised it came up.

da_rule

Common sense can only prevail if the HA own the land. If they don’t, you are relying on them and the Council rectifying the situation. That’s if it was a mistake in the first place.