Land Registry Caution

Spin1

Hi - my parents recently sold a property (Property 1) but retained an adjoining attached property (Property 2) they owned as well. They have now decided to sell Property 2 to a neighbour who was interested but he has decided to pull out of the sale due there being a 'caution' on the property. The caution relates to the new owners of Property 1 having retained horticultural access rights across part of the land of Property 2. 
Property 2 has not yet been registered with the Land Registry but can/will be at point of Sale.
It appears the 'caution' was placed by the purchaser's solicitors of Property 1 - despite the horticultural access rights being in place and detailed within all legal documents that both parties have signed to contractually. This access will be retained by any new owners. 

Can a 'caution' like this restrict the sale of Property 2?
Can the owners of Property 1 - who are nightmares to deal with - interfere with a sale citing the caution as a reason? 
When registering Property 2 with the Land Registry, I'm assuming that owners of Property 1 would be notified - can they object to anything noting the right of access will be retained fully?
Do the owners of Property 1 have any say in anything regarding the Caution?

Many thanks for any assistance anyone can provide  

propertyrental

Presumably neither property was registered till P1 was sold and then registered? Were they owned originally as a single entity, on a single Conveyance, or were they always owned as two distinct legal entities?

Where were the horticultural access rights originally documented? 

It appears the 'caution' was placed by the purchaser's solicitors of Property 1 - despite the horticultural access rights being in place and detailed within all legal documents that both parties have signed to contractually. 

This is normal. Since the access rights (presumably) pre-dated the sale of P1, then when P1 underwent 1st Registration, the access would have been registered. So your post above should read:

It appears the 'caution' was placed by the purchaser's solicitors of Property 1 - despite because the horticultural access rights being in place and detailed within all legal documents that both parties have signed to contractually. 

See comments below in bold:

Can a 'caution' like this restrict the sale of Property 2? Only in the sense that some buyers of P2 might be put off by the presence of the access rights by the owners of P1.
Can the owners of Property 1 - who are nightmares to deal with - interfere with a sale citing the caution as a reason?  No. It's none of their business.
When registering Property 2 with the Land Registry, I'm assuming that owners of Property 1 would be notified - can they object to anything noting the right of access will be retained fully? The access rights will be included in P2's registration. Why would the owners of P1 object to that?
Do the owners of Property 1 have any say in anything regarding the Caution? No. Though obviously should the current or future owners of P2 restrict access by the owners of P1, P1 could enforce their right of access via the courts.

edit: perhaps you could quote the caution?

Spin1

propertyrental said:

Presumably neither property was registered till P1 was sold and then registered? Were they owned originally as a single entity, on a single Conveyance, or were they always owned as two distinct legal entities?

P1 and P2 were both owned by my parents - basically attached end of terrace properties. They, and some adjacent land were registered as one entity, but last year they decided to sell P1 and move away, leaving P2 as a separate rental. I don't believe at the point of sale of P1 that P2 was registered in its own right.

The access between the land of each property was always informally there due to parents owning both, but with the sale of P1 this was legally formalised into a horticultural access right which is fine - and will be retained for the sale of P2 without amendment. The legal drawings are quite clear in the route to be taken (although the new owners of P1 feel that they have the right to go where they please) and the descriptor also states how often it can be used and the required notification to give to us as owners (again, they ignore this and use it at will. I also have a gate we have locked due to it not being on the prescribed access route to which they are demanding is opened - despite the route being specifically shown as being different and from another gate ).  

I am frustrated that the new owners of P1 seem to think they have a right to comment on everything involving P2 when they don't - as the sale will not alter their current access limitations at all, the only thing that will change will be the owner

silvercar

Any insight @Land_Registry?

Land_Registry

silvercar said:

Any insight @Land_Registry?

Only that it reads as if it’s all become very complex as the informal right, rental property and more have morphed into something extra as the ‘intention’ has been challenged. 

I’m assuming the caution reference relates to a caution against first registration as cautions were no longer registered from late 2003 onwards 
I aso assume Property 2 applied for the caution against first registration as Property 1 remained unregistered
And its a right/easement that permits access to tend the garden/grow plants etc as not heard of a specific ‘horticultural right’ before 
So can it restrict the sale? - not too sure what is meant by restrict but I’d expect it to impact as any buyer should be aware of the right. And once registered the right would most likely be registered on Property 2 and the caution title closed. So nothings changed other than how the right is protected on the land register 
Anyone can ‘interfere’ but from a registration perspective I’m unclear how if the right exists legally 
The caution title owner would be notified but presumably on to advise that as Property 2 is being registered the right is to be too so the caution title isn’t needed
And again what ‘say’ would they want as the right switches from the caution title to the new title for Property 2, which is ‘better’ for them. 

As I said clear some complexity involved here but as with any sale/purchase everyone has a ‘say’ and can ‘interfere’ but ultimately it’s the right that’s the issue it seems. And if that’s been legally granted then that’s what really matters 

mobilejo

I would expect that the prospective buyer of P2 pulled out because of what the caution against first registration revealed (rights granted over the property that they did not like), not simply due to the existence of a caution in the first place.

All a caution does is say "hey, a third party is claiming an interest in this property". It is the nature of this third party interest that is the problem. If the caution related to something benign that they buyer had no issue with, I'd imagine they would have proceeded once the solicitor explained what the caution related to.

So your real problem I suspect is that rights have been granted over P2 that are potentially unattractive to buyers. Those rights will end up showing on the registered title of P2, once it is registered. There is no getting away from that. The owners of P1 are not the problem either - they can't prevent the sale or registration of P2. But they are entitled to have the right that was sold to them registered over P2. That will be all they want anyway.

What exactly are these rights? Do they seem like something you could see other prospective buyers not being happy to be subject to?