Neighbour Dispute Over A Garage

silvercar

I think the seller should have declared to the buyer ie the new neighbour, that the garage space was subject to a rental agreement and that the obligation is subject to the contract between the land owner and you ie with the purchase comes the parking space and the contract for the parking space rental between yourself and the landowner ie the new owner takes on the contract in the place of the old owner.

It is a commercial contract eg if a shop was renting a property that was sold, the new owner couldn't turf the shop keeper out with no notice, they would be subject to the rental agreement.

Herzlos

The seller, being the estate executor, may not have known about the arrangement between the late owner and the OP, though.  It certainly doesn't sound like it was recorded in the deeds or anywhere a solicitor would stumble across it.

ThisIsWeird

I don't think the ex-neighbour is deceased, just sold and moved away.

The OP acknowledges that the contract they had is now void, but just wants their physical garage removed from the space, presumably to reuse or sell.

Gavin83

ThisIsWeird said:

janeybh said:

Hi, I rented a garage space in a block from a neighbour and I had a sectional garage built (I have the receipts) We had an internet printed form that we both signed, all was good.
Unfortunately the neighbour sold up and moved away. The new owner now wants  his space back but also wants the garage that I paid for. I said he could purchase it from me for half the original cost or I could take the garage down. He states the garage is his because it’s on his space. Things are getting fraught and he threatened to knock the garage down with my car in it. 

Where do I stand ?
Any advice would be appreciated.

From reading similarish threads, tho', it seems to be the case that anything that is 'affixed' to the land is included as part of it as far as ownership is concerned. I certainly understand that is the presumption when you buy a property; anything fixed to the ground within the boundaries is part of that property. He bought his parking space on which was built a garage, and he now owns the garage which is clearly affixed to it. An item placed on the land is not the same - vehicles, a timber shed, etc. Think it through - when you buy a new home, you don't say, "Hmm, nice garage with this house - I wonder who it belongs to?"

Is this actually the case though? Ultimately the garage was never the original owners property so I don't see how they can include it as part of the sale, it was never theirs to give away. If they mistakenly included it as part of the sale that is unfortunate but it doesn't mean the OP needs to just accept that and pass it on. The mistake is for the new owner to take up with the old owner. It would really be no different from a landlord buying a rental property and insisting the expensive light fittings the tenant installed now belonged to them, rather than the cheap ones they kept from the start of the rental.

You also mention about items placed on the land, such as a timber shed, not being considered. I don't see how this garage is any different from a timber shed. This garage is a temporary structure, can be collapsed and reused like a shed and for what we know could even be built out of wood. I agree it would be a bit more cloudy if it was a brick built permanent structure but that's not the case here.

I wonder if you took this to the extreme how it would work legally? So for example if someone accidentally built a house on your land could you then claim ownership of the house or would the house builder be free to demolish the house, put the land back as it was and reuse any salvageable materials?

I think potentially this is legally quite complicated, aka: expensive.

OP, I assume you can prove ownership of the garage? If you can I'd be taking ThisIsWeird's advice and removing it, ideally when the new neighbour isn't around. I wouldn't delay this though, get your car moved and the garage taken down ASAP. If you can't prove ownership it does get more difficult as I expect a judge to side with the balance of probabilities that it belongs to the owner of the land if there's no documentation backing up your version of events.

You could of course just leave it and that might go some way to repairing neighbourly relations, especially given they've just moved in and you've already fallen out. That doesn't bode well for the future. Potentially the relationship might already be soured beyond repair, living there will be awkward and arguably you'd need to include it as a dispute were you to sell in the future. All of this is frankly a real shame but you are where you are.

ThisIsWeird

Gavin83 said:

ThisIsWeird said:

janeybh said:

Hi, I rented a garage space in a block from a neighbour and I had a sectional garage built (I have the receipts) We had an internet printed form that we both signed, all was good.
Unfortunately the neighbour sold up and moved away. The new owner now wants  his space back but also wants the garage that I paid for. I said he could purchase it from me for half the original cost or I could take the garage down. He states the garage is his because it’s on his space. Things are getting fraught and he threatened to knock the garage down with my car in it. 

Where do I stand ?
Any advice would be appreciated.

From reading similarish threads, tho', it seems to be the case that anything that is 'affixed' to the land is included as part of it as far as ownership is concerned. I certainly understand that is the presumption when you buy a property; anything fixed to the ground within the boundaries is part of that property. He bought his parking space on which was built a garage, and he now owns the garage which is clearly affixed to it. An item placed on the land is not the same - vehicles, a timber shed, etc. Think it through - when you buy a new home, you don't say, "Hmm, nice garage with this house - I wonder who it belongs to?"

Is this actually the case though? Ultimately the garage was never the original owners property so I don't see how they can include it as part of the sale, it was never theirs to give away. If they mistakenly included it as part of the sale that is unfortunate but it doesn't mean the OP needs to just accept that and pass it on. The mistake is for the new owner to take up with the old owner. It would really be no different from a landlord buying a rental property and insisting the expensive light fittings the tenant installed now belonged to them, rather than the cheap ones they kept from the start of the rental.

You also mention about items placed on the land, such as a timber shed, not being considered. I don't see how this garage is any different from a timber shed. This garage is a temporary structure, can be collapsed and reused like a shed and for what we know could even be built out of wood. I agree it would be a bit more cloudy if it was a brick built permanent structure but that's not the case here.

I wonder if you took this to the extreme how it would work legally? So for example if someone accidentally built a house on your land could you then claim ownership of the house or would the house builder be free to demolish the house, put the land back as it was and reuse any salvageable materials?

I think potentially this is legally quite complicated, aka: expensive.

OP, I assume you can prove ownership of the garage? If you can I'd be taking ThisIsWeird's advice and removing it, ideally when the new neighbour isn't around. I wouldn't delay this though, get your car moved and the garage taken down ASAP. If you can't prove ownership it does get more difficult as I expect a judge to side with the balance of probabilities that it belongs to the owner of the land if there's no documentation backing up your version of events.

You could of course just leave it and that might go some way to repairing neighbourly relations, especially given they've just moved in and you've already fallen out. That doesn't bode well for the future. Potentially the relationship might already be soured beyond repair, living there will be awkward and arguably you'd need to include it as a dispute were you to sell in the future. All of this is frankly a real shame but you are where you are.

You make valid points, and it can be a bit grey. But, when you buy a new property, it is assumed you also own everything that is on it, certainly if it is fixed to the ground - unless it's specifically excluded in writing. And this, I'm pretty sure, would extend to a concrete garage - if no specific reference were made to the contrary, you would expect it to be part of the property. I suspect it's mentioned - possibly even photographed - in the sales particulars, for example.

Yes, I would also 'expect' a timber shed to be included in a sale, but I'd also expect it to be specifically mentioned in the SIP as it would otherwise be open to question. If it isn't mentioned, and a neighbour subsequently told the new owner that they'd loaned the previous homeowner that shed, and they now like it back, the neighbour could well have a case. 

I cannot see any situation where this would occur with a properly built garage, clearly surely considered a 'permanent' fixture - like the house's porch.

Ditto with a car left on a drive or in the garden - the new owner would know that it wasn't part of the purchase. Ditto with light fittings - these should be referred to in the SIP, and a good reason to do a pre-completion visit.

silvercar

ThisIsWeird said:

Gavin83 said:

ThisIsWeird said:

janeybh said:

Hi, I rented a garage space in a block from a neighbour and I had a sectional garage built (I have the receipts) We had an internet printed form that we both signed, all was good.
Unfortunately the neighbour sold up and moved away. The new owner now wants  his space back but also wants the garage that I paid for. I said he could purchase it from me for half the original cost or I could take the garage down. He states the garage is his because it’s on his space. Things are getting fraught and he threatened to knock the garage down with my car in it. 

Where do I stand ?
Any advice would be appreciated.

From reading similarish threads, tho', it seems to be the case that anything that is 'affixed' to the land is included as part of it as far as ownership is concerned. I certainly understand that is the presumption when you buy a property; anything fixed to the ground within the boundaries is part of that property. He bought his parking space on which was built a garage, and he now owns the garage which is clearly affixed to it. An item placed on the land is not the same - vehicles, a timber shed, etc. Think it through - when you buy a new home, you don't say, "Hmm, nice garage with this house - I wonder who it belongs to?"

Is this actually the case though? Ultimately the garage was never the original owners property so I don't see how they can include it as part of the sale, it was never theirs to give away. If they mistakenly included it as part of the sale that is unfortunate but it doesn't mean the OP needs to just accept that and pass it on. The mistake is for the new owner to take up with the old owner. It would really be no different from a landlord buying a rental property and insisting the expensive light fittings the tenant installed now belonged to them, rather than the cheap ones they kept from the start of the rental.

You also mention about items placed on the land, such as a timber shed, not being considered. I don't see how this garage is any different from a timber shed. This garage is a temporary structure, can be collapsed and reused like a shed and for what we know could even be built out of wood. I agree it would be a bit more cloudy if it was a brick built permanent structure but that's not the case here.

I wonder if you took this to the extreme how it would work legally? So for example if someone accidentally built a house on your land could you then claim ownership of the house or would the house builder be free to demolish the house, put the land back as it was and reuse any salvageable materials?

I think potentially this is legally quite complicated, aka: expensive.

OP, I assume you can prove ownership of the garage? If you can I'd be taking ThisIsWeird's advice and removing it, ideally when the new neighbour isn't around. I wouldn't delay this though, get your car moved and the garage taken down ASAP. If you can't prove ownership it does get more difficult as I expect a judge to side with the balance of probabilities that it belongs to the owner of the land if there's no documentation backing up your version of events.

You could of course just leave it and that might go some way to repairing neighbourly relations, especially given they've just moved in and you've already fallen out. That doesn't bode well for the future. Potentially the relationship might already be soured beyond repair, living there will be awkward and arguably you'd need to include it as a dispute were you to sell in the future. All of this is frankly a real shame but you are where you are.

You make valid points, and it can be a bit grey. But, when you buy a new property, it is assumed you also own everything that is on it, certainly if it is fixed to the ground - unless it's specifically excluded in writing. And this, I'm pretty sure, would extend to a concrete garage - if no specific reference were made to the contrary, you would expect it to be part of the property. I suspect it's mentioned - possibly even photographed - in the sales particulars, for example.

Yes, I would also 'expect' a timber shed to be included in a sale, but I'd also expect it to be specifically mentioned in the SIP as it would otherwise be open to question. If it isn't mentioned, and a neighbour subsequently told the new owner that they'd loaned the previous homeowner that shed, and they now like it back, the neighbour could well have a case. 

I cannot see any situation where this would occur with a properly built garage, clearly surely considered a 'permanent' fixture - like the house's porch.

Ditto with a car left on a drive or in the garden - the new owner would know that it wasn't part of the purchase. Ditto with light fittings - these should be referred to in the SIP, and a good reason to do a pre-completion visit.

When you buy a property, if it is subject to a contractual lease, the new buyer takes on that lease.

Imagine if the Halifax was renting a branch off a commercial landlord. If the landlord sells the property, it doesn't mean that the Halifax has no legal right to remain at that location. The new owner becomes the new landlord. 

I don't know why people don't think the same situation hasn't occurred here.

MeteredOut

silvercar said:

ThisIsWeird said:

Gavin83 said:

ThisIsWeird said:

janeybh said:

Hi, I rented a garage space in a block from a neighbour and I had a sectional garage built (I have the receipts) We had an internet printed form that we both signed, all was good.
Unfortunately the neighbour sold up and moved away. The new owner now wants  his space back but also wants the garage that I paid for. I said he could purchase it from me for half the original cost or I could take the garage down. He states the garage is his because it’s on his space. Things are getting fraught and he threatened to knock the garage down with my car in it. 

Where do I stand ?
Any advice would be appreciated.

From reading similarish threads, tho', it seems to be the case that anything that is 'affixed' to the land is included as part of it as far as ownership is concerned. I certainly understand that is the presumption when you buy a property; anything fixed to the ground within the boundaries is part of that property. He bought his parking space on which was built a garage, and he now owns the garage which is clearly affixed to it. An item placed on the land is not the same - vehicles, a timber shed, etc. Think it through - when you buy a new home, you don't say, "Hmm, nice garage with this house - I wonder who it belongs to?"

Is this actually the case though? Ultimately the garage was never the original owners property so I don't see how they can include it as part of the sale, it was never theirs to give away. If they mistakenly included it as part of the sale that is unfortunate but it doesn't mean the OP needs to just accept that and pass it on. The mistake is for the new owner to take up with the old owner. It would really be no different from a landlord buying a rental property and insisting the expensive light fittings the tenant installed now belonged to them, rather than the cheap ones they kept from the start of the rental.

You also mention about items placed on the land, such as a timber shed, not being considered. I don't see how this garage is any different from a timber shed. This garage is a temporary structure, can be collapsed and reused like a shed and for what we know could even be built out of wood. I agree it would be a bit more cloudy if it was a brick built permanent structure but that's not the case here.

I wonder if you took this to the extreme how it would work legally? So for example if someone accidentally built a house on your land could you then claim ownership of the house or would the house builder be free to demolish the house, put the land back as it was and reuse any salvageable materials?

I think potentially this is legally quite complicated, aka: expensive.

OP, I assume you can prove ownership of the garage? If you can I'd be taking ThisIsWeird's advice and removing it, ideally when the new neighbour isn't around. I wouldn't delay this though, get your car moved and the garage taken down ASAP. If you can't prove ownership it does get more difficult as I expect a judge to side with the balance of probabilities that it belongs to the owner of the land if there's no documentation backing up your version of events.

You could of course just leave it and that might go some way to repairing neighbourly relations, especially given they've just moved in and you've already fallen out. That doesn't bode well for the future. Potentially the relationship might already be soured beyond repair, living there will be awkward and arguably you'd need to include it as a dispute were you to sell in the future. All of this is frankly a real shame but you are where you are.

You make valid points, and it can be a bit grey. But, when you buy a new property, it is assumed you also own everything that is on it, certainly if it is fixed to the ground - unless it's specifically excluded in writing. And this, I'm pretty sure, would extend to a concrete garage - if no specific reference were made to the contrary, you would expect it to be part of the property. I suspect it's mentioned - possibly even photographed - in the sales particulars, for example.

Yes, I would also 'expect' a timber shed to be included in a sale, but I'd also expect it to be specifically mentioned in the SIP as it would otherwise be open to question. If it isn't mentioned, and a neighbour subsequently told the new owner that they'd loaned the previous homeowner that shed, and they now like it back, the neighbour could well have a case. 

I cannot see any situation where this would occur with a properly built garage, clearly surely considered a 'permanent' fixture - like the house's porch.

Ditto with a car left on a drive or in the garden - the new owner would know that it wasn't part of the purchase. Ditto with light fittings - these should be referred to in the SIP, and a good reason to do a pre-completion visit.

When you buy a property, if it is subject to a contractual lease, the new buyer takes on that lease.

Imagine if the Halifax was renting a branch off a commercial landlord. If the landlord sells the property, it doesn't mean that the Halifax has no legal right to remain at that location. The new owner becomes the new landlord. 

I don't know why people don't think the same situation hasn't occurred here.

..because there was no lease in place. There was a signed "form from the internet".

I do wish the OP would share the form, but I don't think we're going to get that.

Grumpy_chap

silvercar said:

When you buy a property, if it is subject to a contractual lease, the new buyer takes on that lease.

Imagine if the Halifax was renting a branch off a commercial landlord. If the landlord sells the property, it doesn't mean that the Halifax has no legal right to remain at that location. The new owner becomes the new landlord. 

I don't know why people don't think the same situation hasn't occurred here.

I don't think there was a contractual lease in place.
There was an informal arrangement between two neighbours / friends, one of whom is deceased and no longer able to comment.

ThisIsWeird said:

You make valid points, and it can be a bit grey. But, when you buy a new property, it is assumed you also own everything that is on it, certainly if it is fixed to the ground - unless it's specifically excluded in writing. And this, I'm pretty sure, would extend to a concrete garage - if no specific reference were made to the contrary, you would expect it to be part of the property. I suspect it's mentioned - possibly even photographed - in the sales particulars, for example.

Yes, I would also 'expect' a timber shed to be included in a sale, but I'd also expect it to be specifically mentioned in the SIP as it would otherwise be open to question. If it isn't mentioned, and a neighbour subsequently told the new owner that they'd loaned the previous homeowner that shed, and they now like it back, the neighbour could well have a case. 

I cannot see any situation where this would occur with a properly built garage, clearly surely considered a 'permanent' fixture - like the house's porch.

Ditto with a car left on a drive or in the garden - the new owner would know that it wasn't part of the purchase. Ditto with light fittings - these should be referred to in the SIP, and a good reason to do a pre-completion visit.

I'd agree, everything should be referenced in the fixtures listing, especially anything that is to be removed from the property prior to the sale.

AIUI, usually anything left at the property after completion is usually deemed to have transferred to the new owner.

What is odd here is that from the death of the neighbour to the sale will not have been that quick.  
You would have thought that the OP would have spoken with the Executors Vendor and / or the EA when they became aware the property was being marketed and asked what the arrangement would be for the car / garage / anything else the OP owns that was on the neighbouring plot and potentially being sold.
There is no reason why the Executors or the EA would know that there was an informal arrangement between the deceased and the OP.  Equally, the Executors might have made assumptions about the garage but you would reasonably assume they would have considered the car before the sale completed.  Either the car was part of the Estate and the Executors would be responsible for clearing it, or the Executors Vendor knew the car belonged to the OP and they should have made some firm agreement between themselves (and the Purchaser) as to what would happen.

There seem to be some gaps in the detail

EDITED to correct my senior moment where I mixed my train of thought with another thread.  The OP said the neighbour "sold up and moved away" not that the neighbour died.  Sorry for any confusion.

MeteredOut

Grumpy_chap said:

silvercar said:

When you buy a property, if it is subject to a contractual lease, the new buyer takes on that lease.

Imagine if the Halifax was renting a branch off a commercial landlord. If the landlord sells the property, it doesn't mean that the Halifax has no legal right to remain at that location. The new owner becomes the new landlord. 

I don't know why people don't think the same situation hasn't occurred here.

I don't think there was a contractual lease in place.
There was an informal arrangement between two neighbours / friends, one of whom is deceased and no longer able to comment.

The OP said the previous owner sold up and moved away I don't know why some people are trying to kill him off! 

There seem to be some gaps in the detail

And some additions too

Grumpy_chap

MeteredOut said:

Grumpy_chap said:

silvercar said:

When you buy a property, if it is subject to a contractual lease, the new buyer takes on that lease.

Imagine if the Halifax was renting a branch off a commercial landlord. If the landlord sells the property, it doesn't mean that the Halifax has no legal right to remain at that location. The new owner becomes the new landlord. 

I don't know why people don't think the same situation hasn't occurred here.

I don't think there was a contractual lease in place.
There was an informal arrangement between two neighbours / friends, one of whom is deceased and no longer able to comment.

The OP said the previous owner sold up and moved away I don't know why some people are trying to kill him off! 

There seem to be some gaps in the detail

And some additions too

Aaaah - thank you for pointing out my erroneous memory.  I recalled that the OP said the old neighbour was deceased but I now see they only said "sold up and moved away".  I will strike out most of my post.

It still seems odd that the old neighbour did not think to discuss the garage with the OP and / or clarify to the Buyer / EA / Solicitor at any time in the sale process.
At a very minimum, you'd have thought the old neighbour would have been prompted when filing out the Fixtures & Fittings paperwork that there was a garage and a car that would be taken away...