Misled by new house builder help needed

AnotherJoe

I'm going to disagree with most here, I think OP has a case against the developer for attempting to sell a house with such a significant flaw that it's unsaleable, and therefore should be able to get her solicitor fees back as well as (obviously) the deposit and any other monies paid to them

parkrunner

warby68 wrote: »

Surely the builder will be trying to resolve this somehow so they can sell the plot?

What did they suggest?

I doubt there is much of a claim or not one that doesn't cost more to pursue than its worth. Your sols have done their job, the builder might have a case with their solicitor but I doubt anyone is going to leave a property incapable of being sold because its 'landlocked' for ever so patience might have been the name of the game.

Neighbour probably doesn't want a dispute but clearly does want to take advantage of the situation.

What are the considerable costs though?

This ^^^^^^. The builders will be sorting this out as quickly as possible, they can't sell until an agreement has been reached with the neighbour.

AdrianC

AnotherJoe wrote: »

I think OP has a case against the developer for attempting to sell a house with such a significant flaw that it's unsaleable

Except they weren't trying to do that.

They tried (and succeeded) to sell a house without such a flaw... then the buyer's solicitor found out during the course of due diligence that a hairy one had been dropped, and the flaw had inadvertantly been created. It was very likely the first the vendor even knew.

Spriggan

So the neighbour is saying that they won’t let another person use a path? They want the path “exclusively”. Honestly, legal issues aside, just what is wrong with people. Can’t we all just get along?

davidmcn

Spriggan wrote: »

So the neighbour is saying that they won’t let another person use a path? They want the path “exclusively”. Honestly, legal issues aside, just what is wrong with people. Can’t we all just get along?

I expect that if the OP's daughter had hung around long enough, a suitably large inducement would have been offered to the neighbour to sort it out.

AdrianC

Spriggan wrote: »

So the neighbour is saying that they won’t let another person use a path? They want the path “exclusively”. Honestly, legal issues aside, just what is wrong with people. Can’t we all just get along?

And why not? All the legals say it's their exclusive path, after all.

Now imagine it was a driveway...

Thrugelmir

parkrunner wrote: »

This ^^^^^^. The builders will be sorting this out as quickly as possible, they can't sell until an agreement has been reached with the neighbour.

Hopefully the OP will return with some further information. As the neighbour appears to be "claiming exclusivity" not has. One assumes that the neighbour's title is likewise flawed.

AnotherJoe

AdrianC wrote: »

Except they weren't trying to do that.

They tried (and succeeded) to sell a house without such a flaw... then the buyer's solicitor found out during the course of due diligence that a hairy one had been dropped, and the flaw had inadvertantly been created. It was very likely the first the vendor even knew.

The flaw was not created at point of sale it was always there from the point they allocated land and created those titles. And it doesn't matter they weren't aware, they made a mistake that created costs for a buyer. Their problem they need to rectify.

Th either interesting point of this is, how the owners of the other knew. They must have spotted it during purchase and kept quiet.

AdrianC

AnotherJoe wrote: »

The flaw was not created at point of sale it was always there from the point they allocated land and created those titles.

Allocating land and creating titles are two very, very different things at very different stages of the process.

The allocation wasn't a problem (unless you view a shared path as intrinsically problematic - and the buyer clearly didn't).

The problem was purely one of paperwork.

Blockhead77 wrote: »

...a new build whereby access to the front door is only possible via a communal path shared with an adjoining plot. Unfortunately the builders solicitor had failed to insert a clause on the title allowing access

davidmcn

Thrugelmir wrote: »

One assumes that the neighbour's title is likewise flawed.

I wouldn't. I suspect it's more likely to be fine from the neighbour's point of view.

AnotherJoe wrote: »

The either interesting point of this is, how the owners of the other knew. They must have spotted it during purchase and kept quiet.

I assume they now know because they've been approached during the OP's daughter's transaction. No particular reason why the lack of a reservation of "her" house's rights would be highlighted during the neighbour's purchase.