Should we proceed with this sale? Would you?

[silverthorn2151]

motco said:

It is also a Potton timberframe house according to the details - that's controversial for some. My gut feeling is to wave it goodbye difficult though that might seem.

Why do you think its controversial?

[NickCW]

Realistically you won't know what will happen until planning goes in, and is denied or approved which could takes months/years. Even if the developer seems nice now he may just want you on side - you already mentioned he wanted you to sign over the access..

You could be worrying about this for years before finding out what happens, and it could turn out to be a worst case scenario - then what?

I would also hasten caution at the garage not being on your land either..

Life's to short to worry for years, I would walk away and accept its cheaper for a reason.

[motco]

silverthorn2151 said:

motco said:

It is also a Potton timberframe house according to the details - that's controversial for some. My gut feeling is to wave it goodbye difficult though that might seem.

Why do you think its controversial?

Actually, I said controversial for some. I considered buying one a few years ago but it had oak stanchions planted in the middle of a couple of rooms and it was on a difficult site for me anyway, but I was also told by someone that lenders can be chary about them and fire insurance could be a problem. Purely apocryphal I know, but it may just add to the reasons for avoiding this one.

[m3jappa]

I don't 'think' lenders are difficult or insurance etc, they are just a timber framed house, the same as big developers knock out all the time. These ones just have part of the timber frame showing.

I will say almost every potton I've looked at (only pictures and floorplans apart from this one). Do have the beams in silly places, some are ridiculous with them being in front of bath tubs or in the middle of rooms. The only silly beam in this place is IMO the one in the dining room which I have spoken with potton about and they have told me that it's failed straightforward to put a steel in it's place and lots of customers have done this (guess I'm not the only one who thinks it's silly).
The beams were always a dark colour, this place has the light orangey colour which isn't as bad as the pictures show. However again potton now use a sort of smoked colour which looks great, they told me this can be done to existing houses but couldn't indicate cost. They also have their show home with a painted white stair case, architrave, skirting and doors which looks much much better.

Anyway. I spoke to the solicitor today and even before I've handed a penny over she really doesn't like the sound of it all. She has basically said what you've all said. I have said we will proceed based on her findings. I know what the a sewer will be but for the sake of around £300 I'm willing to spend that in the hope she can turn round and say something along the lines of:
The land is no longer commercial
The access is fine and we can do a deal with the developer by signing over access to the side if he gives ownership to the entrance.
The indemnity is fine.

But of course I know that's a long shot so am back looking again at the tiny amount of houses available which are overpriced, neglected and appear to all have bizarre issues (saw one I thought looked alright, found it's next to a hand car wash, or some new builds which looks great, over look a golf course but the golf course has planning for a hotel in the line of sight of the view you will get, and the view they are defining as a selling point.

[ThunderGuts]

To my amateur mind, him wanting you to sign over access would ring the big red alarm bell.

[V8RX7]

I tend to find that if I have to write a list or ask others then it isn't the right purchase.

When you find the house that you can't wait to give them your money - that's the right one.

[Hainey]

Jappa in all your posts you come across as a sensible down to earth lad.

This thread is an aberration for you. You come across like someone looking for reassurance it'll be alright.

I'm not that guy. I'd be running away from this one already.

This house will only make you happy twice. The day you buy it and the day you sell it.

[briang9]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZlDZPYzfm4

don't mean to be flippant..however the fact you posted this thread clearly means you have concerns...walk away, other houses with fewer issues will turn up..we spent nearly two years finding our current house whilst renting, which ended up with us moving three times in that period, it seemed an age of uncertainty then, but now after over 13 years in this house we made the right decision

Edited by briang9 on Thursday 8th December 01:05

[mjb1]

Am I right in thinking that the property has two vehicular routes of access - the front drive which passes over unknown/unadopted section between your boundary and the highway (with the triangle between his driveway and the dog leg bit of yours owned by him)? And also you get a right of way over his driveway, going around behind yours and into the bottom of your back garden, somewhere near the garage? If so, that ROW to the rear of your house is going to dictate how he can layout the development, and is a potential bargaining chip to the owner of the house.

However, the most anyone can say is that what is going to happen with the neighbouring development is all up the air. It's likely that they will get planning for residential eventually (as they always seem to), the big question is just a case of how many, and how they will affect you/that existing house. For me, the stress of the uncertainty would put me off just as much as what would actually end up being there. You've also got to consider the disruption of living next to a building site for some time - they might crack on with it and get the whole lot built in 6 months, or they might work slower/do one at a time, and it could go on for a couple of years.

[mikeiow]

V8RX7 said:

I tend to find that if I have to write a list or ask others then it isn't the right purchase.

When you find the house that you can't wait to give them your money - that's the right one.

Funny: the times we have moved, I have ALWAYS written a list! Same with job changes (not that I have had many!)
I create scoring systems to try to remove some of the emotion from what is inevitably an emotional decision.....I feel it has worked so far

I agree that this sounds like one to walk from. Too many unknowns.....

[m3jappa]

I have a fairly big update on this, and it's good!

I went into the estate agents today to express our concerns and to say that unless there's something big going on then we have no choice but to pull out. I sat down with them and showed them all the deeds showing the neighbour owning access etc. they agreed it's a huge problem.

They then call me later on to say the vendor is in with a 1" thick booklet which is the indemnity she has taken out.
The bottom line is (and obviously a solicitor has to check this) that the indemnity is covering the complete strip of land to the side of the house.
After 10 years it can be claimed. 8 has already passed. She's under the impression that because she took this out 8 years ago no one else can do the same and as such while it's not legally yours today It will be.

Note below the deeds do not show the new house outline but the original bungalow which was replaced with the potton house.

Here's the neighbours plot which appears to show him owning the entrance



Here's the vendors plot



Here's the plot which the indemnity covers



There is a note which says that the blue bit is owned by the neighbour. So I am unsure on how this piece can ever be claimed, however even if it can't be claimed it's not a big deal. More of a big deal is his deeds showing he owns the whole drive entrance and him then legally challenging the indemnity. Again a solicitor needs to tell me if these scenarios can happen.


Which leaves the elephant in the room being how I'm now scared about commercial use. Someone said 'imagine the worst thing that can be there and would you be happy'

Well that's now the only thing I can think of.

Logically the following surely applies:
If you live in a rural area or even an area which has some green open space you run the risk of anything from travellers to a Burger King being put there. As such I could rule out any home with green around it. You could only possibly look at estate locations or very very well developed and established areas. No one would live in the country.

For me personally I know I can screen that whole plot with something like large bamboos. So unless it was something extreme there it wouldn't really matter. However it's not me but the future buyer. This isn't our forever home.

I have said to the vendor I'll continue to consider what to do. I need to find out if I can determine if it is still commercial land (it's been unused for over ten years I think).

I also mentioned to the vendor and estate agent that would there be a way we can draw up a contract between myself and the developer which says first refusal to sell the land must go to me for it's market value. (I'd have to find a way of getting the money granted) but it's just an idea currently.

I know it's easy to say find another house but we have almost bizarre criteria.
Nice looking
space to park my van and trailer
Space to keep my two mini diggers
Space for my tools.
Within 10-15 minutes of south woodham ferrers because both parents live there and my buisness is establised there.
Somewhere with a chance of increasing value by improving the property.
In an area where my young child has options of good schools.

I assure you after hours of trawling rightmove for the last 6 months there has been no more than 5 houses.
One sold for 60k over asking within a week because it's probably one of the top ten houses locally.
The other was right at the lowest end of budget and wasn't ideal but I liked it, this sold before it even went to market.
The other one is about 20mins away, but was underpinned a few years back, they have no insurance and is basically another legal nightmare.
The other one backs onto a river. Is almost perfect but it's down a road with loads of old crap mixed in with luxuary homes. The extensive work carried out looked like it had been budged badly as the floor looked uneven! It's also about 20 mins in the wrong direction and is awkward to get to for family.
Final house is this one.

I'm hoping that some sort of agreement about the land can be reached. The developer looked gutted when I said we might not go ahead. He can see I'm more reasonable than the vendors ex husband.....

[m3jappa]

It also might be in his interest to make an agreement because we own right of access on his land to the side.

[dmsims]

"Adverse possession means that the owner of the property has only possessory title. This means that they have claimed ownership of some land but did not have necessary evidence to satisfy the land registry that they were the true owners. To receive possessory title they must have occupied the land for at least the last 12 years but until a further 12 years have elapsed it is possible someone with a better claim could take the land from them. This is why indemnity insurance is necessary for anyone purchasing the land. It will cover the purchaser against any financial losses suffered in the event that someone attempts to claim the land from them, including the costs involved in defending a claim."

Run

[worsy]

I think you are mad to consider this property. Far too much risk for me.

[TooLateForAName]

In the current environment I'd not get hung up on the idea of is it commercail land or housing land - that can all be changed. and increasingly is changed to suit developers.

Look as if the developer could put in a access road to the other sde of your house? or even make a loop road around your property?

The indemnity thing - check the conditions - does it only apply to the current vendor? Is it in effect an insurance policy? You are not going to get to claim ownership of someone elses land.

Why isnt your solicitor dealing with this? Really I'd want the vendor to sort out the boundary up front.

[dmsims]

to the OP

apologies if you have already done this: go and have a chat with a few local agents outlining your requirements etc

We bought a house in Maldon this way without it out ever being on the open market

[m3jappa]

The thing is I'm assuming it's adverse possession of unregistered land, no one actually owns it, looking at this new paperwork from the vendor the only bit he actually owns is the blue bit on that updated outline, which coincidently is the initial triangle we wanted, but can live without.

We haven't yet fully instructed a solicitor, I was about to when I realised all these issues. I have spoken to one and she basically said this is bad.

However with this new information I will be paying some money to determine exactly what the indemnity covers, is it transferable, what happens in future etc etc so we don't have issues later.

Surely if I can eliminate all risk before we proceed there is no risk, the only risk is that the developer may build a few houses, which I am actually keen on. It would raise the value of this one.

IMO it's in the developers interest to sign some kind of legal agreement. If he doesn't then this won't happen as like mentioned too much risk.
The developer spoke to the vendor earlier and said there's no way he's selling the land for commercial, he only wants houses, he will keep applying until he gets it and so on, however he's reluctant to sign anything. Well if that's the case then we can't proceed.

Here's the lowdown from my pov.

We sign an agreement which states:
No commercial use while he owns it.
We won't oppose anything as long as it's 5 or less houses.
We get first refusal to purchase at market value if and only if he decides to sell.
We give up the side access road.

The benefit to us is we know it won't be a yard or a KFC. We will be able to use this when we sell to show commercial use is not going to happen, only a max of 5 houses, however if we sell in ten years and nothing is built and he still owns it it's clear that it will always have nothing there.

The benefit to him is
He gets his road and can now develop in a way which doesn't have to include it
He gets a neighbour who is amenable to new building and won't oppose it, and will welcome it.
He gets a new owner who will properly finish off and add value to the house which will lift the potential values of his.
He gets an almost guaranteed sale if and when he ever decides to sell.

If that all takes place if can't see how it isn't good for us all. I assure you if we don't buy the place this woman is going to give him hell, she's not rich but she's not short of a few quid and after speaking with her won't take any st, be it in a legal or not way.

[mjb1]

Here's my interpretation of it:



Neighbour unquestionably owns the bit in blue, nothing to contest there. Red square at the front (bordering onto the road) is probably unadopted or part of the public highway. Beyond the line of the ditch is almost certainly public highway verge. I doubt there's any risk of the neighbour doing anything of significance with it (beyond possibly tarmacing it and making it part of their entrance), and it wouldn't block your driveway access anyway. Try downloading qgis desktop and the land registry's inspire index polygons (overlay it with google earth layer if that helps). It may show you where they think the public highway extends to.

The long red strip behind the blue bit is the biggest concern. The vendor (or possibly a previous owner) seems to have aquired it by putting the fence too far over. The indemnity probably covers their legal costs against fighting the neighbour over rightful ownership. The indemnity insurance may well be based on the fact that the neighbour is unaware of when the exact boundary is, and that some of his land has been poached. I hope you haven't pointed out to him something that he didn't already know?

I can't see the neighbour making a big case out of it because it has very little effect on them. But they could in theory. Worst case is you'd have to get the fence moved and give up that strip of land. But it looks like you still have your driveway and sufficient vehicular access for anything smaller than an HGV?

m3jappa said:

Here's the neighbours plot which appears to show him owning the entrance

What's the significance of the pink shaded area here?

[m3jappa]

Nice reply mjb1! I do appreciate people's opinion.

You are basically correct with your drawing.

The fence has been that way since before the current house was built. This can be shown via some photos I found of one of the previous planning applications. The reason it's such a nasty looking fence is because it was a fencing company there who literally put what they had in.

The pink bit is meant to be blue and it denotes the access the vendor has via the developers land.

The bit at he front IMO should be verge and if I did own it then it would be put back to verge as it looks horrendous.

I'm not sure if something has been bought to his attention but I'm not bothered anyway. We will only go ahead if all of this information can be made into what would be safe for us. Although I do believe that in that area of the plan all he owns is the bit up to the fence. As far as his deeds are concerned it shows ownership up to that line.
The original deeds we have which show the old bungalow are flakey, however it can be seen that the new property was built further over, giving little doubt that at least the driveway is ok (it appears that way to me anyway.)

[mjb1]

m3jappa said:

The pink bit is meant to be blue and it denotes the access the vendor has via the developers land.

But why would the vendor need/want a right of way over the neighbouring access lane?? Also, is that the vendor's garage showing outside of the plot? Or was that an another building (now demolished by the looks of it)? I think you said at one point that it was suggestion the garage was built outside of the plot, on the neighbours land?