Land not transferred by solicitors

jabbabroadley

As an update we have engaged with our neighbour to request information from his solicitor to understand the exact information provided by him to his solicitor and from his solicitors to ours, hopeful this will cover all areas and the flow of information end to end.

I have spoken with our neighbour regarding planning consent and whether it was stated he had to have the additional plot to get planning approved.

Can anyone provide advice on where I should be looking within the planning application for a condition the plot of land was required?

I have been through the local councils website and reviewed the planning applications but I cannot see much about land parcels. However there are diagrams of the full plot 

user1977

jabbabroadley said:

I have been through the local councils website and reviewed the planning applications but I cannot see much about land parcels. However there are diagrams of the full plot 

It's difficult to explain without seeing the papers ourselves, so would be helpful if you copied them here or told us where to look.

There wouldn't be anything about the registered "land parcels" in the planning application. The point is that the planners would have approved the house provided it had a certain size of garden to go with it - which presumably is shown on the plans, and includes the "missing" bit of land?

jabbabroadley

I totally understand and thank you for your help, this is maybe as far as it goes on this group as I don’t want to place up specific details due to the sensitive point we are at with our solicitors/neighbour.

thank you for you help thus far it has provided us with some great information.

I have attached below a diagram that shows the proposed block plan diagram (included within planning application) and the land registry single plot diagram. Not sure if this is evidence that would help us?

lincroft1710

jabbabroadley said:

I totally understand and thank you for your help, this is maybe as far as it goes on this group as I don’t want to place up specific details due to the sensitive point we are at with our solicitors/neighbour.

thank you for you help thus far it has provided us with some great information.

I have attached below a diagram that shows the proposed block plan diagram (included within planning application) and the land registry single plot diagram. Not sure if this is evidence that would help us?

Doesn't really help you. Planning applications show what is intended which may not be what actually happens. In your case (from what you have previously posted) you have enjoyed the usage of more or less the area of the land shown in the planning app, but your actual ownership is that shown in the LR plan.


My first house had a similar (but not identical) set up. It was a corner plot with a large unfenced lawned area to the side. The council owned a large part of this (possibly to widen the road) but I had exclusive use of all of it (and possibly had to maintain it).This was all pointed out to me by my solicitor. I don't know what has happened since, but looking on Google Streetview shows that by 2009 a lot of this area had been fenced and merged into the back garden of the house

user1977

lincroft1710 said:

jabbabroadley said:

I totally understand and thank you for your help, this is maybe as far as it goes on this group as I don’t want to place up specific details due to the sensitive point we are at with our solicitors/neighbour.

thank you for you help thus far it has provided us with some great information.

I have attached below a diagram that shows the proposed block plan diagram (included within planning application) and the land registry single plot diagram. Not sure if this is evidence that would help us?

Doesn't really help you. Planning applications show what is intended which may not be what actually happens. 

But part of the solicitor's job (particularly when it's as significant as a newly-built house) is checking that you're getting does actually comply with the planning consent. And the planners will have considered the application (among other things) against their minimum requirements for garden ground, so if the house ends up not having the benefit of the garden shown in the plans then that's potentially an enforcement issue.

So the OP's solicitor should really have spotted this, even without any clues from the vendor.

jabbabroadley

In the original drawings submitted in the application, it explicitly states that land needs to be purchased from the neighbour. I have redacted the address

lincroft1710

user1977 said:

lincroft1710 said:

jabbabroadley said:

I totally understand and thank you for your help, this is maybe as far as it goes on this group as I don’t want to place up specific details due to the sensitive point we are at with our solicitors/neighbour.

thank you for you help thus far it has provided us with some great information.

I have attached below a diagram that shows the proposed block plan diagram (included within planning application) and the land registry single plot diagram. Not sure if this is evidence that would help us?

Doesn't really help you. Planning applications show what is intended which may not be what actually happens. 

But part of the solicitor's job (particularly when it's as significant as a newly-built house) is checking that you're getting does actually comply with the planning consent. And the planners will have considered the application (among other things) against their minimum requirements for garden ground, so if the house ends up not having the benefit of the garden shown in the plans then that's potentially an enforcement issue.

So the OP's solicitor should really have spotted this, even without any clues from the vendor.

My point was that just because the land is shown on a pp application site plan doesn't prove in itself it is or would be in the same ownership as the house. There is a possibility (for whatever obscure reason) the builder wished to retain ownership of the land but allow cultivation by the owner of the house. I don't disagree that the OP's solicitor appears not to have acted wholly in his client's best interest.

IMHO on the information so far given, there is 4 way blame - vendor, vendor's solicitor, OP, OP's solicitor, so the OP's solicitor's offer of 25% of the cost of transferring ownership of the land doesn't seem unfair.

user1977

lincroft1710 said:

user1977 said:

lincroft1710 said:

jabbabroadley said:

I totally understand and thank you for your help, this is maybe as far as it goes on this group as I don’t want to place up specific details due to the sensitive point we are at with our solicitors/neighbour.

thank you for you help thus far it has provided us with some great information.

I have attached below a diagram that shows the proposed block plan diagram (included within planning application) and the land registry single plot diagram. Not sure if this is evidence that would help us?

Doesn't really help you. Planning applications show what is intended which may not be what actually happens. 

But part of the solicitor's job (particularly when it's as significant as a newly-built house) is checking that you're getting does actually comply with the planning consent. And the planners will have considered the application (among other things) against their minimum requirements for garden ground, so if the house ends up not having the benefit of the garden shown in the plans then that's potentially an enforcement issue.

So the OP's solicitor should really have spotted this, even without any clues from the vendor.

There is a possibility (for whatever obscure reason) the builder wished to retain ownership of the land but allow cultivation by the owner of the house.

From a planning point of view, yes that would be possible, but it would be a bizarre arrangement in the context of a house purchase, and not one the OP's solicitor would have been entitled to assume was in fact the case. Particularly if they were also acting for a mortgage lender (not sure if the OP has said there's a mortgage involved).

lincroft1710

user1977 said:

lincroft1710 said:

user1977 said:

lincroft1710 said:

jabbabroadley said:

I totally understand and thank you for your help, this is maybe as far as it goes on this group as I don’t want to place up specific details due to the sensitive point we are at with our solicitors/neighbour.

thank you for you help thus far it has provided us with some great information.

I have attached below a diagram that shows the proposed block plan diagram (included within planning application) and the land registry single plot diagram. Not sure if this is evidence that would help us?

Doesn't really help you. Planning applications show what is intended which may not be what actually happens. 

But part of the solicitor's job (particularly when it's as significant as a newly-built house) is checking that you're getting does actually comply with the planning consent. And the planners will have considered the application (among other things) against their minimum requirements for garden ground, so if the house ends up not having the benefit of the garden shown in the plans then that's potentially an enforcement issue.

So the OP's solicitor should really have spotted this, even without any clues from the vendor.

There is a possibility (for whatever obscure reason) the builder wished to retain ownership of the land but allow cultivation by the owner of the house.

From a planning point of view, yes that would be possible, but it would be a bizarre arrangement in the context of a house purchase, and not one the OP's solicitor would have been entitled to assume was in fact the case. Particularly if they were also acting for a mortgage lender (not sure if the OP has said there's a mortgage involved).

Don't disagree, but I'm sure you've come across some illogical land transactions in your career. Thinking more about this scenario, it is in itself bizarre. Doesn't the transaction cost of £10,000 seem excessive to you?

user1977

lincroft1710 said:

user1977 said:

lincroft1710 said:

user1977 said:

lincroft1710 said:

jabbabroadley said:

I totally understand and thank you for your help, this is maybe as far as it goes on this group as I don’t want to place up specific details due to the sensitive point we are at with our solicitors/neighbour.

thank you for you help thus far it has provided us with some great information.

I have attached below a diagram that shows the proposed block plan diagram (included within planning application) and the land registry single plot diagram. Not sure if this is evidence that would help us?

Doesn't really help you. Planning applications show what is intended which may not be what actually happens. 

But part of the solicitor's job (particularly when it's as significant as a newly-built house) is checking that you're getting does actually comply with the planning consent. And the planners will have considered the application (among other things) against their minimum requirements for garden ground, so if the house ends up not having the benefit of the garden shown in the plans then that's potentially an enforcement issue.

So the OP's solicitor should really have spotted this, even without any clues from the vendor.

There is a possibility (for whatever obscure reason) the builder wished to retain ownership of the land but allow cultivation by the owner of the house.

From a planning point of view, yes that would be possible, but it would be a bizarre arrangement in the context of a house purchase, and not one the OP's solicitor would have been entitled to assume was in fact the case. Particularly if they were also acting for a mortgage lender (not sure if the OP has said there's a mortgage involved).

Doesn't the transaction cost of £10,000 seem excessive to you?

I guess whatever the neighbours were paid for it would be a reasonable guide to its value, and the Treasury Solicitor will get whatever they can (plus all their expenses on top).