Can anyone get their head around this situation?

adzy77

What on earth is happening here and how does this work, can't get my head round it?!

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/bargain-north-staffordshire-farmhouse-you-9050653 

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/142651199#/?channel=RES_BUY 

"On behalf of lender not in possession – ****NO VIEWINGS ARE AVAILABLE****
The property is not in possession, therefore access cannot be gained and no viewings can take place.

Important Note:-
We have been provided with a letter from solicitors acting on behalf of the owners who have stated as follows…

The Property is land locked and does not enjoy any rights of access over the driveway leading from the public highway.

The adjoining owner will not grant any such rights of access and, in the event that a purchaser of the Property attempts to gain access over the driveway, the adjoining owner will seek an injunction preventing access from being gained over their land.

The Property does not enjoy any rights or easements to receive a mains water supply.

Prior to completion, the adjoining owner will disconnect the existing water supply prior to the Property.

The adjoining owner will not grant any rights or easements over the surrounding land for any alternative supply.

The Property is currently occupied and vacant possession will not be given on completion"

artyboy

I'm not surprised they can't promise vacant possession when the current occupants have no way of getting out 

user1977

It "works" because the lender has a security over a defective title - so they're selling their interest, but sounds like you'll need to negotiate with the neighbours to get rights of access (or buy a helicopter...).

Oh, and possibly evict the borrowers (or whoever else might be occupying the house).

Albermarle

There might be some link between the neighbours and they have made it as difficult as possible for the lenders to get a decent price?

Zinger549

IT says sold (STC) on Rightmove so looks like someone has taken a punt

Keep_pedalling

Zinger549 said:

IT says sold (STC) on Rightmove so looks like someone s taken a punt

Possible the a hole blocking access or someone with a helicopter. 

ProDave

I wondered if the adjoining owner that is denying rights was hoping to buy it at a knock down price for their own use?

One must assume it is a private water supply not one from one of the mains water suppliers otherwise it would surely be illegal to interfere with the water companies pipes?

This is a lesson why solicitors can appear to be over particular when checking title deeds and sometimes appear to be concerned about something seemingly trivial.  

Flugelhorn

Keep_pedalling said:

Zinger549 said:

IT says sold (STC) on Rightmove so looks like someone s taken a punt

Possible the a hole blocking access or someone with a helicopter. 

would make sense that the only person to buy it would be the neighbour, will no doubt now try to get the occupants out, create access and then resell

Albermarle

Zinger549 said:

IT says sold (STC) on Rightmove so looks like someone has taken a punt

In the Stoke Sentinel link it says - The property sold during a national online auction on January 9. The winning bid came in at £158,750 having gone under the hammer with Auction House.

Nearly £30K over the guide price.

ProDave

A relative of mine pulled out of a purchase over a similar issue.  The house did have a legal right of access but it went under a very low railway bridge, okay for a normal car, but not much else.  The seller saif the adjoining farmer let them use an alternative access for deliveries like oil, but that was not a legal right and they had to ask permission each time.  My relative tried to negotiate with the land owner to buy a right of access but he would not.  So my relative pulled out of the sale as he could see a situation where he could not get vital deliveries.

Section62

ProDave said:

One must assume it is a private water supply not one from one of the mains water suppliers otherwise it would surely be illegal to interfere with the water companies pipes?

The public water supply responsibility usually* ends at the public highway boundary where the 'communication pipe' becomes the 'supply pipe'. (*farms and some other commercial premises may have a public main going beyond the boundary)

So if the supply pipe belongs to the neighbour it wouldn't be interference with the water undertaker's pipes.

But cutting off the water supply to a dwelling (especially one with a tenant) could be unlawful for other reasons, depending on the details.

There was a thread here (now deleted IIRC) which touched on the issue of someone else's water supply pipe passing through their property, and that you can't just cut the pipe.