We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Update on "Can seller change the terms of the Land Registry Title?"
This refers to an old thread I posted
a long time ago and which has now been 'closed' by MSE. I'd forgotten to update it as I'd promised to do once resolved.
The house involved wasn't actually for me but for a relative, and I was trying to help
them out.
Thank you to AdrianC, davidmcn, tom9980, Carrot007, paddyz, AndyTails, MobileSaver, and Smodlet. (I don't know how to put 'alerts' on their usernames?)
Just realised I hadn't updated this thread even though the matter resolved itself more than a year ago by the 'seller' pulling out of the sale (as they'd always wanted to do), blaming us for dragging our feet when he wouldn't provide the most basic and essential information on the property to our solicitor, such as "where is the soil pipe to the treatment plant, do we have right of access to it if needed, and what model and size is the plant, which you fitted only last year?"
The background is, this is a piece of land on which he managed to build a house a good 20 years back, with an agri tie on it. He's since been trying to push the planning boundaries on this by changing the land's use, adding more buildings, and generally giving the council a hard time - at one point they had to get the SecofState involved, who sided with the council.
He put the original house up for sale a few years back, with the agri tie in place. As with such AT sales, there are one of two intentions - one to sell it, and the other to hope it doesn't sell, so you can then apply to have the AT removed. So our first task was to work out which is which... It became very clear, very quickly, that the latter was his intention, despite the EA's protestations - a slimy local outfit. His chosen EA was - whilst probably not completely in cahoots - clearly happy to play along, and it was only towards the end when faced with an irrefutable argument, that even they accepted it was the case. Until then, they played along.
Were we (my relatives) taking a risk? Yes, but a calculated one, and after discussions with a local councillor in that ward who was sympathetic. We decided a very good argument could be made to have the AT lifted, or actually complied with, and the worst case scenario is they'd just have to sell up again!
The hastily-written TP1 contained some bizarre covenants, many of which referred directly to our some of our casually-mooted plans (as friendly-chatted with the EA) for the surrounding acre - no chickens, pigs or other animals to be allowed, no business activities of any kind, no additional buildings or outhouses - stuff like that, most of which he, himself, had been carrying out since his ownership as part of the AT compliance! This is in a rural farming community, and the point of these covenants were obviously just to try and put us off. We told him that these were unreasonable, and also told them we'd report this to the LA planning dept as it was clear he was deliberately trying to scupper the sale - forbidden under any attempt to have a tie lifted - and his solicitor immediately agreed to remove the most onerous of these covenants. They then tried the tactic of not providing essential info to us which would allow us to continue without unreasonable risk (for instance, it wasn't clear what rights he'd still have over the boundaries, to access 'our' land, or even whether he'd retain control over the treatment plant. By then we knew he was a devious person who would almost certainly use this to make life hell in the future, so we needed to have all this nailed down first. His solicitor (clearly acting in a similar manner to the EA - whoever pays their wage...) just complained that we were asking for too much info, and "do we wish to withdraw from the sale?"! They stalled and stalled and stalled - and then they pulled out, blaming us.
So they were reported to the LA's planning dept for what appeared to be a clear attempt to scupper a sale in order to try and have the tie lifted.
There endeth the tale!
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards