Buying House Freehold Clause

toga38

Good evening,

I have a leasehold house (900+ years left on the leasehold). I was offered the opportunity to purchase the freehold. I agreed with the costs and started proceedings.

In the terms there is a clause relating to mining and mineral rights, which I don't think is unusual. However as follows:

"Unto the person or persons entitled thereto all mines and mineral
sand mineral substances or products of every description within and
under the Property with full power to win work and carry away the
same and any adjoining mines and minerals and by any underground
operation without making or leaving support
whether vertical or lateral for the surface of the land and without
being under liability (other than statutory liability) to
pay compensation in respect of any injury or subsidence past or
present or future caused at any time by any such underground
operations to the surface of the land or any buildings for the time
being thereon."

My own thoughts on this are that Health & Safety Law should require that the ground is made safe.

This clause is already in the leasehold.

Maybe it would be better to just stick with the leasehold as then the freeholder would possible be responsible for any subsidence or injury caused; by virtue that they own the land.

Has anyone had any experience of this?

What problems could there be?

Thank you to anyone who replies

user1977

It's a pretty obscure risk (especially once you exclude coal mines, for which there is statutory compensation from the government).

Is there any mining history in the area? Obviously it's incredibly unlikely anybody would ever be permitted to mine under existing housing in a manner which is likely to cause damage - and in practice, there is no longer any deep mining in the UK.

Woodstok2000

Has the freeholder done any mining under the house? Are you planning to do any mining under the house? How old is the house, and is it in a mining area?

gm0

Not the specific clause. But crufty deeds and wayleaves and evolving title with gaps/overlaps. Yes.

The clauses pertaining to mineral rights alongside surface land or buildings on surface land are a product of their time and context. They don't have to line up with other laws 100%. Saying somebody who owns X can do ABC under conditions 123 - doesn't exhaust other laws of then or now, planning, restrictions and certainly not laws that came along later. Can this leave gaps and contradictions between a snapshot document from long ago and 5 other parliamentary bills and detailed regulations. For sure.

Some mentioned up thread issues with the coal board (as was) and its activiites as an example.

The old deeds. They don't have to be changed. Far too much energy for zero rewards when there are bunch of leases on a broader title which just is a multiplier on cost and effort and parties to educate and agree.
They don't have to align. Until or unless there is a real world issue that is the subject of legal dispute and establishing accountability it is all moot.

Clauses often exist to define the mineral rights separately from the surface dwelling, land use bit. Pretty common feature.

Some of this is just how the world is. Point in time documents. And some of it is loose ends which leave room for dispute and litigation and more £££ for lawyers. Sometimes you do wonder if they are doing it sloppily deliberately.

If this house is in a pit village above near shallow surface passages without or with uncertain backfill from long ago - and there is a widespread history of subsidence and demolition locally. And the mining searches survey comes back with a thick binder. That's a distinct situation with one level of real world risk.

And if not. Not.

A house with no mining underneath it on solid ground is in general often worth a bit more than one in an area with limestone caves or coal or salt mines and a history of sinkhole troubles. But that too depends on locations, proximities, views, nature of buildings.

Fretting about old legal wording adjacent to an obscure or very low probability risk - is in general overthinking it.

If you succumb to it - you will not buy anything unusual or very old.

toga38

There is a history of mining and subsidence in the area. The houses (built in 1983) are adjacent to a coupe of nature reserves. One directly behind the houses is designated a site of special scientific interest; which consists of the largest body of water in the area. It came about due to old mine works subsiding in 1960 forming the lake. Across the main road is the other nature reserve; the area being developed as a nature reserve after the mining closure.

I don't think the freeholder has done any mining in the area. They have not owned the freeholds for very long.

Regarding the mining clause. Its the line that states that they don't have to support/prop up the ground both vertically and horizontally that caused me to think more into it (not the actual mining).

Mining searches have reviled that there are 3 coal seams under the small estate. The old mine works being about 300 yards away.

I am just thinking along the lines that if something did happen (worst case) that it would be better to not own the land. Then the freeholder is responsible, if that makes sense.

TroubledTarts

Depends how risky averse you are as a person, sounds like for your peace of mind stay leasehold.

user1977

Then the freeholder is responsible, if that makes sense.

Why would it make sense that they would be responsible? Is there something in your lease which makes your freeholder liable to you for such damage, even though the minerals owner isn't liable to the freeholder?

toga38

user1977 I was only thinking along the lines that they would own the land that was mined, and as such be responsible for any damage.

user1977

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82097025#Comment_82097025

Not quite sure what you mean there - they would have to suffer any damage caused to the (surface) land which they own, they wouldn't be responsible to you as leaseholder to remedy the damage (unless your lease says otherwise). So this point doesn't really make a difference to whether or not it's a good idea for you to buy the freehold - the risk of damage by mining is already your problem (to the extent it's a risk at all and not covered by other compensation schemes or insurance).