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

user1977

NervyBuyer said:

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?

But in reality the most likely income (in the unlikely event of somebody challenging the access rights) is that the insurers would negotiate a price for the access rights to be granted. It is after all more likely that the neighbouring owner would prefer to make some cash out of the situation rather than actually stop the OP from using the access.

housebuyer143

The lack of a build over agreement is really an indemnity job and not something that would put me off. It would go a bit like... the water board turns up to fix a busted pipe and they need to destroy your home to do so or charge you for the repair as it wasn't done correctly and damaged the pipe. It will pay out I believe for things like this. It's a tiny tiny risk but I would get the seller to get that. 

The other indemnity seems useless. You can't force someone to let you use the access if you have no legal rights to it. So you need to buy it on the understanding it can be withdrawn at any time. If you are not happy with this, then I wouldn't proceed. 

user1977

housebuyer143 said:

The other indemnity seems useless.

As explained above, it's far from useless.

HobgoblinBT

Think of the potential issues you would have in 5 years time if you were the seller rather than the purchaser. 

 

 Follow the good advice from your fiancé’s father.

Neil49

user1977 said:

NervyBuyer said:

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?

But in reality the most likely income (in the unlikely event of somebody challenging the access rights) is that the insurers would negotiate a price for the access rights to be granted. It is after all more likely that the neighbouring owner would prefer to make some cash out of the situation rather than actually stop the OP from using the access.

That's a pretty big assumption given that we don't really have all the facts to hand. In fact, it seems that nobody does. 

As mentioned above, once you become the owner you also own the issues. Personally I would walk away. 

user1977

Neil49 said:

user1977 said:

NervyBuyer said:

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?

But in reality the most likely income (in the unlikely event of somebody challenging the access rights) is that the insurers would negotiate a price for the access rights to be granted. It is after all more likely that the neighbouring owner would prefer to make some cash out of the situation rather than actually stop the OP from using the access.

That's a pretty big assumption given that we don't really have all the facts to hand. In fact, it seems that nobody does.  

If the indemnity insurers are prepared to cover the risk then somebody has come up with sufficient evidence to assure them that the risk is negligible. Worst case scenario is that the access is lost, and the insurers then compensate the OP (or their successors) for the diminution in value of the property.

Not clear from the OP how important the rear access is anyway.

housebuyer143

user1977 said:

Neil49 said:

user1977 said:

NervyBuyer said:

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?

But in reality the most likely income (in the unlikely event of somebody challenging the access rights) is that the insurers would negotiate a price for the access rights to be granted. It is after all more likely that the neighbouring owner would prefer to make some cash out of the situation rather than actually stop the OP from using the access.

That's a pretty big assumption given that we don't really have all the facts to hand. In fact, it seems that nobody does.  

If the indemnity insurers are prepared to cover the risk then somebody has come up with sufficient evidence to assure them that the risk is negligible. Worst case scenario is that the access is lost, and the insurers then compensate the OP (or their successors) for the diminution in value of the property.

Not clear from the OP how important the rear access is anyway.

Which is the reason I say the OP needs to buy it assuming they could lose the access. If it's that important that they wouldn't buy it without it, then I wouldn't think they should proceed.

Hoenir

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

Required to protect the lenders financial interest in the property.

lincroft1710

Hoenir said:

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

Required to protect the lenders financial interest in the property.

If the vendor is unable to provide evidence of a right of way and OP decides to go ahead with the purchase, then surely the sensible option would be to buy at a price which reflected the lack of a ROW 

eddddy

Olinda99 said:

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! 

That's a strange comment. I'm guessing it's meant to be sarcastic.

If you are being sarcastic, and you disagree with something I've posted, why don't you simply say what it is you disagree with? Then you would have made a helpful contribution to the thread.

If you're interested in seeing an example of Indemnity Insurance policy for "Absence of Easement", here's one: https://gcs-title.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Absence-of-Easement-SPECIMEN.pdf


But if you weren't being sarcastic, feel free to ignore this comment!