Help! My conveyancer is being difficult!!!

kestrelskies

I’ll try and make this short. 😂

Our conveyancer is really hung up on a piece of council land that adjoins the back of the garden of the house we’re buying. The land is a dirt embankment that rises up to the road behind the house (the road goes up a hill). It’s covered in shrubs and bushes. There is no physical boundary in place, it just goes from flat lawn to dirt embankment.

The land is clearly marked on the title and is not included in the sale. Despite this our conveyancer will not let it go and says she’s not happy with the fact the seller has said he uses the land as a visual extension to his garden but there is nothing built on it. But she’s been annoyingly vague about what the legal issues are just saying that he’s had adverse possession of the land. Which I agree with, but we have said that we know it’s not included and won’t use it.

Does anyone have any suggestions on how to get over this hurdle?

[Deleted User]

I think i'd be pleased that he's being thorough, don't forget that this will be a hurdle to overcome when you sell the property, too, so let him get to the bottom of it, get it sorted out now, and make life easier on yourself.

tacpot12

I think you have to ask them again; what is the issue or potential issue here? And if they won't tell you, change conveyancer. Then refuse to pay them and refuse to tell them why...

kestrelskies

tacpot12 said:

I think you have to ask them again; what is the issue or potential issue here? And if they won't tell you, change conveyancer. Then refuse to pay them and refuse to tell them why...

Thank you, I think you’re right that it’s that simple. The seller’s solicitors haven’t raised any red flags about what he has submitted in his enquiry responses so it’s just infuriating. This has been going on for weeks now.

davidmcn

What on earth is a "visual extension"?

Davesnave

davidmcn said:

What on earth is a "visual extension"?

Another phrase for 'borrowed landscape,' perhaps?

A dirt embankment with a road on top doesn't sound like a wonderful outlook though.

trex227

Is there no boundary fence? Though not sure why this would be a legal issue, especially when the boundary is presumably clear from where the ground starts sloping

AnotherJoe

Just tell her that you wish to proceed with the purchase despite this issue and are happy to sign a disclaimer regarding this issue.

She's not worried about you, she's covering her derriere.

bouicca21

So the vendor does not use the land, just looks at it?  If so I can’t see the problem.  Why do you think adverse possession is claimable?  Did the vendor plant it up?  Who maintains it?  Who would be liable to clear the mess up if there were to be a land slip?

kestrelskies

Davesnave said:

davidmcn said:

What on earth is a "visual extension"?

Another phrase for 'borrowed landscape,' perhaps?

A dirt embankment with a road on top doesn't sound like a wonderful outlook though.

Exactly that. He was trying to make the point that there’s no physical boundary between the two pieces of land and because it’s sloped it’s not usable anyway. It’s just got trees and bushes on it. It looks nicer than it sounds!

kestrelskies

bouicca21 said:

So the vendor does not use the land, just looks at it?  If so I can’t see the problem.  Why do you think adverse possession is claimable?  Did the vendor plant it up?  Who maintains it?  Who would be liable to clear the mess up if there were to be a land slip?

it’s what our conveyancer has said about his ‘use’ of the land. He has maintained it and cut the plants and trees back away from overhanging the garden and has done so for 13 years. He probably should have made a claim on it but here we are! I can’t see the issue either, the boundary is clear as it changes from lawn to dirt slope, we know it’s not part of the sale, and how he’s used it should be of no relevance! Sigh...