Should I pull out of a sale of a house with no overage agreement and no back access???

FedUpBuyer2309

Hi All!

My fiance and I are first time buyers, we're currently trying to buy a house but have been told by our solicitor that the back access road to the property which we thought was part of the property is not included in the title - the seller was asked to seek indemnity insured but they have refused.

We later found out that a kitchen extension was built over a public sewer with no overage agreement. We've been told by our solicitor that in view of their refusal to get indemnity insurance for the passage she probably wouldn't want to approach the water company or pay for indemnity insurance for this issue.

We have essentially emailed back and put two choices before the vendor:

1. Get restrospective overage agreement (which seems to be cheaper) and we will take out the indemnity insurance for the passage IF the cost of that is taken out of the purchase price.

OR

2. Get indemnity insurance for both, and when we get the title to the house we will look at getting the overage agreement sorted.

If neither of these conditions can be satisfied we will walk away. We have a rental contract until March, we're both in stable jobs and this mortgage was about £50,000 less than our top borrowing limit, so we have wiggle room. I feel that the seller is trying their luck a bit because we are first time buyers.

But all of this is giving me a bad feeling and I'm not certain we shouldn't just walk away. I come from a family of engineers and surveyors and my fiance's father is an architect, they all say it sounds quite bad - can anyone offer us any advice?? Would you buy a house with these problems?

Brie

Worst with our first place was there was no off road parking.  Yours sounds a lot worse.  Not sure if I would suggest you walk or run away frankly.  But hey, that's just me.

housebuyer143

When was the kitchen extension built? That will determine if they even need a build over agreement. It wasn't a widely required thing prior to 2011. Doesn't stop solicitors just saying it's needed and pushing useless indemnity policies.

What's the indemnity policy for the back access for? What's it's protecting you from? 

lincroft1710

FedUpBuyer2309 said:

Hi All!

My fiance and I are first time buyers, we're currently trying to buy a house but have been told by our solicitor that the back access road to the property which we thought was part of the property is not included in the title - the seller was asked to seek indemnity insured but they have refused.

We later found out that a kitchen extension was built over a public sewer with no overage agreement. We've been told by our solicitor that in view of their refusal to get indemnity insurance for the passage she probably wouldn't want to approach the water company or pay for indemnity insurance for this issue.

We have essentially emailed back and put two choices before the vendor:

1. Get restrospective overage agreement (which seems to be cheaper) and we will take out the indemnity insurance for the passage IF the cost of that is taken out of the purchase price.

OR

2. Get indemnity insurance for both, and when we get the title to the house we will look at getting the overage agreement sorted.

If neither of these conditions can be satisfied we will walk away. We have a rental contract until March, we're both in stable jobs and this mortgage was about £50,000 less than our top borrowing limit, so we have wiggle room. I feel that the seller is trying their luck a bit because we are first time buyers.

But all of this is giving me a bad feeling and I'm not certain we shouldn't just walk away. I come from a family of engineers and surveyors and my fiance's father is an architect, they all say it sounds quite bad - can anyone offer us any advice?? Would you buy a house with these problems?

It is a "build over" agreement, "overage" is something completely different.

Indemnity insurance for the rear access is pointless, you either have a right of access or you don't.

FedUpBuyer2309

housebuyer143 said:

When was the kitchen extension built? That will determine if they even need a build over agreement. It wasn't a widely required thing prior to 2011. Doesn't stop solicitors just saying it's needed and pushing useless indemnity policies.

What's the indemnity policy for the back access for? What's it's protecting you from? 

The solicitor said we needed insurance because the owner of the property isn't clear, we have physical access as there is a locked gate at the end of a passageway but the portion of the passageway used by the house doesn't appear on the title.

The extension was built in 2015.

FedUpBuyer2309

lincroft1710 said:

FedUpBuyer2309 said:

Hi All!

My fiance and I are first time buyers, we're currently trying to buy a house but have been told by our solicitor that the back access road to the property which we thought was part of the property is not included in the title - the seller was asked to seek indemnity insured but they have refused.

We later found out that a kitchen extension was built over a public sewer with no overage agreement. We've been told by our solicitor that in view of their refusal to get indemnity insurance for the passage she probably wouldn't want to approach the water company or pay for indemnity insurance for this issue.

We have essentially emailed back and put two choices before the vendor:

1. Get restrospective overage agreement (which seems to be cheaper) and we will take out the indemnity insurance for the passage IF the cost of that is taken out of the purchase price.

OR

2. Get indemnity insurance for both, and when we get the title to the house we will look at getting the overage agreement sorted.

If neither of these conditions can be satisfied we will walk away. We have a rental contract until March, we're both in stable jobs and this mortgage was about £50,000 less than our top borrowing limit, so we have wiggle room. I feel that the seller is trying their luck a bit because we are first time buyers.

But all of this is giving me a bad feeling and I'm not certain we shouldn't just walk away. I come from a family of engineers and surveyors and my fiance's father is an architect, they all say it sounds quite bad - can anyone offer us any advice?? Would you buy a house with these problems?

It is a "build over" agreement, "overage" is something completely different.

Indemnity insurance for the rear access is pointless, you either have a right of access or you don't.

Apologies for wording but problem is the same

gazfocus

If the back access road is not included in the title, I don't really see what good an indemnity policy is to be quite honest. Legally speaking, it sounds like you would have no right of access to the rear of the property and no indemnity policy is going to give you that right of access so if whoever owns that land suddenly gets fed up and blocks all access, there's nothing you can do about it.

If you really want the house, I would be trying to find out who owns the back access road and go from there, but if I couldn't get some form of legally binding agreement, I would walk away as there's nothing worse (in my opinion) than wanting to do work in your garden and having to have turf/soil/goodness knows what else, carried through the house. 

eddddy

lincroft1710 said:

Indemnity insurance for the rear access is pointless, you either have a right of access or you don't.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Indemnity insurance for absence of easement/right of access would generally work like this...

If somebody turns up saying that the homeowner doesn't have the right to use the access, the Indemnity insurance should pay for something like one of the following...

• The cost of challenging that person in court, and if you lose...

• The cost of 'buying' an access right from that person
• The cost of establishing an alternative access right
• The loss in value of the property, resulting from it not having the access

RHemmings

FedUpBuyer2309 said:

Hi All!

My fiance and I are first time buyers, we're currently trying to buy a house but have been told by our solicitor that the back access road to the property which we thought was part of the property is not included in the title - the seller was asked to seek indemnity insured but they have refused.

We later found out that a kitchen extension was built over a public sewer with no overage agreement. We've been told by our solicitor that in view of their refusal to get indemnity insurance for the passage she probably wouldn't want to approach the water company or pay for indemnity insurance for this issue.

We have essentially emailed back and put two choices before the vendor:

1. Get restrospective overage agreement (which seems to be cheaper) and we will take out the indemnity insurance for the passage IF the cost of that is taken out of the purchase price.

OR

2. Get indemnity insurance for both, and when we get the title to the house we will look at getting the overage agreement sorted.

If neither of these conditions can be satisfied we will walk away. We have a rental contract until March, we're both in stable jobs and this mortgage was about £50,000 less than our top borrowing limit, so we have wiggle room. I feel that the seller is trying their luck a bit because we are first time buyers.

But all of this is giving me a bad feeling and I'm not certain we shouldn't just walk away. I come from a family of engineers and surveyors and my fiance's father is an architect, they all say it sounds quite bad - can anyone offer us any advice?? Would you buy a house with these problems?

I was told something short and to the point by a solicitor. If I buy a house with problems then all those problems become my problems. 

Personally I wouldn't want to buy a house with the problems you describe. That's my answer to your topline question. There are enough problems to deal with in life without buying a whole lot of new ones at a very high price. 

Though, I'd probably think about the specifics of the house, and might eventually come around to indemnity insurance (if I could confirm it will apply since I know the problems already) But, I'd really be looking for another house. 

NervyBuyer

Maybe the intention of 'insurance is pointless' was in practical terms rather than legal ones - insurance may cover all the costs and paperwork but do you want the hassle of not actually having access, even if you're compensated for that?

Olinda99

eddddy said:

lincroft1710 said:

Indemnity insurance for the rear access is pointless, you either have a right of access or you don't.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Indemnity insurance for absence of easement/right of access would generally work like this...

If somebody turns up saying that the homeowner doesn't have the right to use the access, the Indemnity insurance should pay for something like one of the following...

• The cost of challenging that person in court, and if you lose...

• The cost of 'buying' an access right from that person
• The cost of establishing an alternative access right
• The loss in value of the property, resulting from it not having the access

wow that sounds like a pretty good insurance policy I didn't realize insurance companies were that generous these days!