PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.

Can anyone get their head around this situation?

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



"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"



«13

Comments

  • artyboy
    artyboy Posts: 809
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper
    Forumite
    edited 9 February at 10:15AM
    I'm not surprised they can't promise vacant possession when the current occupants have no way of getting out  :D
  • user1977
    user1977 Posts: 13,320
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    edited 9 February at 10:24AM
    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
    Albermarle Posts: 21,116
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper
    Forumite
    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
    Zinger549 Posts: 1,284
    First Post Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 9 February at 10:53AM
    IT says sold (STC) on Rightmove so looks like someone has taken a punt
    Come on you Irons
  • Keep_pedalling
    Keep_pedalling Posts: 16,193
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper Photogenic
    Forumite
    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
    ProDave Posts: 3,614
    First Anniversary Name Dropper Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    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
    Flugelhorn Posts: 5,418
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    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
    Albermarle Posts: 21,116
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper
    Forumite
    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
    ProDave Posts: 3,614
    First Anniversary Name Dropper Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    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
    Section62 Posts: 7,494
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper
    Forumite
    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.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 341.7K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.1K Spending & Discounts
  • 233.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 606K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.5K Life & Family
  • 246.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards