NO management company

Haircut15

So that means land reg must have disapplied the restriction in order for you to sell.
Are mortgage companies that concerned about these restriction??

AskAsk

Haircut15 said:

So that means land reg must have disapplied the restriction in order for you to sell.
Are mortgage companies that concerned about these restriction??

i just went and read the deed and there were a few restrictive covenants in there.  like the trees in the road can not be cut down, no caravans can be parked in the road or on the properties, the properties can not be used for business and can only be used for residential purpose, no brick structure may be built in the road.  but the most important covenant was that the private road can not be dug up, except for laying pipes, unless the consent of the owner is given.

the road has been resurfaced without the owner's permission as he can't be found.  and that is still in the deed.  there is no mention of any payment to the owner for the maintenance cost to the road though.

the buyer had a mortgage and that didn't seem to affect it.

Haircut15

I think the major issue is that the developer put the management company in place. (They owned the management company) .
The restrictive covernment states can't sell unless/buy without their permission. E.g. if you owed them money you couldn't then sell unless you paid your cost to the management company.  But as they don't exist anymore you can't get it removed forever. Only temp in order to buy and sell. Sounds like you haven't got this as a restriction. It is still good to know that mortgages are ok on unadopted road.

AskAsk

Haircut15 said:

I think the major issue is that the developer put the management company in place. (They owned the management company) .
The restrictive covernment states can't sell unless/buy without their permission. E.g. if you owed them money you couldn't then sell unless you paid your cost to the management company.  But as they don't exist anymore you can't get it removed forever. Only temp in order to buy and sell. Sounds like you haven't got this as a restriction. It is still good to know that mortgages are ok on unadopted road.

your covenant is more onerous.  i am guessing the house was last sold when the developer was still around?  so has your solicitor advised you against buying the house?

Haircut15

Houses on the road sell well. The restrictive covernment will always be there. The house last sold about 8yrs ago.

Solicitor just very risk aware. Doesn't like unadopted road,  doesn't like restrictive covernment.
The concerns the solicitor has are if the road deteriorates will any one get a mortgage, will it affect house prices and will the land reg refuse to remove the covernment on a temp basis in order to sell.  Personally I think she would run a mile!!
The house is an ideal rental house/ftb house. The plan is to get an income from it for about ten years then sell it on. Not overly concerned on selling it for major profit. 

AskAsk

Haircut15 said:

Houses on the road sell well. The restrictive covernment will always be there. The house last sold about 8yrs ago.

Solicitor just very risk aware. Doesn't like unadopted road,  doesn't like restrictive covernment.
The concerns the solicitor has are if the road deteriorates will any one get a mortgage, will it affect house prices and will the land reg refuse to remove the covernment on a temp basis in order to sell.  Personally I think she would run a mile!!
The house is an ideal rental house/ftb house. The plan is to get an income from it for about ten years then sell it on. Not overly concerned on selling it for major profit. 

if you were to live in it then it wouldn't be a huge risk.  the omission of anyone taking ownership of the road would worry prospective buyers as the road being unroadworthy and no one wants to stump up the money for the repairs would cause a pronlem for the residents where the road is damaged.  i wouldn't say it was a huge cost but the headache of getting it sorted.

you will have to make up your own mind if you think the risk is worth taking on.  your solicitor has done their job in pointing out the risks.  so it will be down to the cost of the property, whether you think it is cheap enough to reflect the risk.

greatcrested

I agree a residents association is a good solution. And I agree that in all probability most would see it as a beneficial way to manage the road.

I was merely point out that it would be a voluntary  mechanism and legally it would have no force, a caveat the OP should be aware of. Does not mean it's not worth pursuing.

But if, say, one resident refused to contribute and took legal advice, there would be little the RA could do. And of course then the rot might spread: "well number 5 is not contributing so why should I?"

Haircut15

Yes solicitor is good. Think if I'd known before even looking at it I'd have run!! But didn't find out till later on. Think it is better than some in the road as the front of the property is on an adopted part of the road. It is just the back of the property that is on the unadopted part.  Approx ten houses have sold in ten yrs roughly. I do think it would be a nightmare to get other owners contribute as think a few are rentals. Think if I look at it rationally we have got the house at really good price. No maintance needed. New boiler and kitchen eventually. Needs guttering emptying.  And approx 700 to bring electrics up to rental standards that's it.  In ten yrs shouldn't need to do anything else. Other than normal e.g. replace carpets etc. If I sold it at asking price I've not lost as had an income. I wouldn't earn in the bank. If it couldn't sell I'd have to carry on renting it. But have been in touch with land reg and feel happier that as long as there is evidence they commonly temp lift restriction in order to sell.   

AskAsk

greatcrested said:

I agree a residents association is a good solution. And I agree that in all probability most would see it as a beneficial way to manage the road.

I was merely point out that it would be a voluntary  mechanism and legally it would have no force, a caveat the OP should be aware of. Does not mean it's not worth pursuing.

But if, say, one resident refused to contribute and took legal advice, there would be little the RA could do. And of course then the rot might spread: "well number 5 is not contributing so why should I?"

i think the key to the RA is the low annual cost.  when we moved in it was £50 a year.  so for such a small amount of money no one would ever worry about contributing and we did see work done to the road.  if it was a larger amount you may start to see people refusing to pay.  so it is important to buy where there is already an established RA as people will be expecting the annual fee when they move in.

Mickey666

AskAsk said:

Haircut15 said:

Just out of interest. Was it then put onto title deeds that you had this residents association?? X

no.  you couldn't mess around with the title deeds.  an article of association was set up for the association and when we sold the house, we said that there was an annual fee associated with the property. 

a copy of the article of association was obtained and forwarded to the buyer's solicitors.  also the association annual account was sent across.  all went fine without any issue.

it is not unusual that the owner of a private road can not be traced.

Same here.  Our association also has a ‘welcome letter’ that is posted to new owners, explaining everything plus a copy of the AoA. We’ve had a few neighbour changes without any problems.  Actually, I suspect it helps because searches will reveal the road is not adopted, which instantly raises questions about maintenance and the residents association provides all the answers.