Land not transferred by solicitors

jabbabroadley

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).

Our solicitors were also acting for the building society in this instance - what’s the significance of this? I guess to make sure that the lender was getting what they had secured their loan against?

user1977

jabbabroadley 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).

Our solicitors were also acting for the building society in this instance - what’s the significance of this? I guess to make sure that the lender was getting what they had secured their loan against?

Yes, essentially they're doing much the same job for the lender as they are for you. My point there was that, even if there was some odd arrangement about you "renting" the extra bit of garden, that wouldn't help the lender as their mortgage wouldn't cover it. And the solicitors probably shouldn't rely on your confirmation about the boundaries, when they've got independent sources telling them what the boundaries ought to be.

jabbabroadley

Another route we are currently exploring is to get the company reinstated and then to get the assets transferred back to the company and then on to us. If this is possible if appears to be significantly cheaper