House for sale but garden includes 3rd party land

bemak

Hi all, 

So a house in Kerry came up for sale recently and we're interested. However, I had a look at the land registry map and it turns out that about a third of the garden is owned by a third party. The party in question appears to be a construction company that must have gone bust as I can't find any record of them online. I put this to the Estate Agent and he said that the current owners have always included the bit of land as part of their garden. I checked OSI and aerial imagery from 1995 would confirm that this was the case then at least. It is currently used as garden space and if it was cut out of th pr

To further complicate matters, the property went for retention for a wastewater treatment unit last year, and as is the case with any planning application, they outlined their "full holding" and included this part of the garden as being under their ownership. 

So my questions are:

If we were successful in purchasing the property - would have any grounds to claim the additional garden space as ours given the amount of time that it's been maintained and 'absorbed' by the current owners?

Does the fact that the current owner included the additional land outside of their ownership as part of the recent planning application invalidate that application?

Should I insist that the EA make this very clear in the listing as it's not evident at the moment. Last thing I want is to potentially be outbid by someone who in a few months time pulls out after they find out the situation with the garden?

Peregrinus

The solicitor who will act for you in this purchase will advise. He'll have fuller information than you have given us here. Almost certainly the contract of sale (which the vendors will draw up) will outline the situation regarding this bit of the garden, and will specify what title the vendors can offer, and you can then make a decision with the benefit of your solicitor's advice whether the situation over the title affects the amount you are willing to pay for the property.

bemak

Thanks for your advice. I've asked a solicitor to take a few on it. We'll see what she says and decide then on what way to proceed. I think we're interested either way. Will just decide on how much we offer

nuac

Mod
As suggested by Peregrinus
You could be buying into a title action. That could be a traumatic and expensive process, especially along the West coast. Think of " The Field".
Take your solicitor's advice.
Subject to that leaving this open for now

bemak

Not looking for direction on here, just some info on what might be involved. Don't even know what a title action entails. Thanks - will look into it.

L1011

You will find this difficult if not impossible to mortgage should you need one

bemak

L1011 wrote:

You will find this difficult if not impossible to mortgage should you need one

Do you think so? The title if the property is unaffected. It's as if the current owner decided not to have a boundary wall essentially blurring the boundary between both properties. It would be easy to pit up a fence and define the boundary

Glass fused light

If you would be happy to loose that section of the garden or be willing to go to court to keep it.

technically if it was owned by a company and the company is not properly disolved the assets could have transfer to the state so it's 30(?) years for adverse possession.

The planning application is only element, you can't develop property you don't own or have permission for so if any if the waste water treatment is discharging into this section a new owner could result in your property being inhabitable due to no working sinks and toilets, so you need to get a survey of what was done.

Metric Tensor

The planning permission is "questionable" if any of the works or the red site boundary are in this extra bit of land.

If this extra land was merely included in the blue line that outlines "Lands under control of the applicant" it might not be so large an issue although still a grey area.

If your solicitor is doing their job correctly they will ask for a "cert of identity" from the vendor. This should show the discrepancy in boundaries in a formal way.

You can't get a mortgage on land you don't own and the bank shouldn't give you a mortgage for a property who's planning permission is not completely within the site you are mortgaging (this is what the cert of identity is for).

Make the vendor sort it out. It's their mess - let them fix it. Provided the building, effluent treatment and all related items are within the site that excludes the dodgy portion a planning retention on a revised site boundary seems appropriate. They can then sell you what they actually own and the awkward bit can be ignored.

bemak

Ya to be fair they are only selling the bit they own. They're not making any suggestion that they own the other bit. It's not made very clear though especially by the agent who included images of the extra bit in the listing

Glass fused light

bemak wrote: »

Ya to be fair they are only selling the bit they own. They're not making any suggestion that they own the other bit. It's not made very clear though especially by the agent who included images of the extra bit in the listing

To be fair to the agent, they are acting under the instruction of the vendor. If they are ok with the images the vendor is making the suggestion.

STB.

bemak wrote: »

Hi all,

So a house in Kerry came up for sale recently and we're interested. However, I had a look at the land registry map and it turns out that about a third of the garden is owned by a third party. The party in question appears to be a construction company that must have gone bust as I can't find any record of them online. I put this to the Estate Agent and he said that the current owners have always included the bit of land as part of their garden.

The thing about estate agents Mod deletionthey have nothing to sell that they own themselves.

If the folio doesnt reflect the apparent extra landholding get your solicitor to get their solicitor to sort it out before the sale goes through. Did the PRA have an adverse possession application ? Your solicitor will suss it out.

Samuel T. Cogley

bemak wrote: »

Do you think so? The title if the property is unaffected. It's as if the current owner decided not to have a boundary wall essentially blurring the boundary between both properties. It would be easy to pit up a fence and define the boundary

I had a similar issue on a much smaller scale. Mortgage was no problem as long as the valuation of the property is not adversely effected to the point of diminishing the bank's security. I stress this was in my situation ONLY.

JustLen

STB. wrote: »

Fairly broad and sweeping statement to make.

Some estate agents are terrible Mod deletion. However so do some teachers, priests, polititians and solicitors.

Some of them are excellent and operate with the highest of integrity at all times.

Samuel T. Cogley

JustLen wrote: »

Fairly broad and sweeping statement to make.

Mod deletion
.

Some of them are excellent and operate with the highest of integrity at all times.

All times until they go out of business. :pac:

KP81

It’s be fairly common for land registry maps to include boundary errors. Happened to us buying. We held some money back until error was fixed. Took about 3-4 months. Other party was around to play ball with though and boundary was not disputed.

JustLen

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

All times until they go out of business. :pac:

My view is a good estate agent doesn't need to be underhanded in order to get the result.

If they need to resort to dodgy tactics they are ****e at what they do.

STB.

JustLen wrote: »

Fairly broad and sweeping statement to make.



Some of them are excellent and operate with the highest of integrity at all times.

Stop would you.

I'm on the floor laughing

JustLen

STB. wrote: »

Stop would you.

I'm on the floor laughing

Stop what? Making factual statements?

Cut out the bar stool talk. Anyone with half a brain would accept what I said as a fair comment.

Your suggestion to the OP was to "get your solicitor to get their solicitor to sort it out"

OP - The vendor most likely is unwilling or unable to sort out the planning due to time or costs.

Approach this as if the extra land is not included and take it as a bonus if you are able to enjoy the use of it.

The estate agent isn't working for you and doesn't have your best interest at heart. He/she is working for the vendor.

Therefore have a conversation with your solicitor - if it seems messy walk away.

STB.

JustLen wrote: »

Stop what? Making factual statements?

Cut out the bar stool talk. Anyone with half a brain would accept what I said as a fair comment.

Stop with the comedy ? Hey if you dont have a sense of humour just say so.

Mod deletion - off topic remarks

JustLen wrote: »

Your suggestion to the OP was to "get your solicitor to get their solicitor to sort it out"

OP - The vendor most likely is unwilling or unable to sort out the planning due to time or costs.

First dont selectively quote me. What I said after that is "Did the PRA have an adverse possession application ? Your solicitor will suss it out". The reason for that is after 12 years if there is any doubt about its ownership then its something the vendor needs to sort out. Its no good for the new buyer as they wont have the right to apply for adverse possesion. It is one of the questions that the OP asked.

Secondly, my suggestion is based on personal experience having been in a quite similar situation.

I dont know where you are basing your theory as to why the vendor has not sorted out the title to what they are trying to sell.

Having been through this OP get your solicitor to get their solicitor to get the folio in order or you'll have trouble to deal with down the road.

Widdensushi

Can you meet the terms of the waste management without the extra land?

JustLen

STB. wrote: »

Stop with the comedy ? Hey if you dont have a sense of humour just say so.

I'll cut out nothing.



My suggestion is based on personal experience having been in a quite similar situation.

I dont know where you are basing your theory as to why the vendor has not sorted out the title to what they are trying to sell.

Having been through this OP get your solicitor to get their solicitor to get the folio in order or you'll have trouble to deal with down the road.

Your experience is based on one instance therefore it's unreasonable to tar all with the same brush.

Mod deletion off topic remarks



Im basing my theory on the evidence available which is that as far back as 1995 the boundary was unclear. I did say 'most likely'.

This is a fair assumption to make based on the info available.

Their solicitor isn't going to sort out anything unless he is paid to by the vendor.

Mod deletion - off topic remarks.

My advice still stands. Discuss with the solicitor, if there is signs the issues will be messy than walk away.

Its better to walk away now than 3-12 months down the line (worst case scenario)

If solicitor is happy than fire away. Bid with your head and try not to become attached to the property. Have a final number in your head and walk away.

Dont take anything the estate agent says as true unless verified by your solicitor.

STB.

JustLen wrote: »

Your experience is based on one instance therefore it's unreasonable to tar all with the same brush.

/Mod deletion /.

Im basing my theory on the evidence available which is that as far back as 1995 the boundary was unclear. I did say 'most likely'.

This is a fair assumption to make based on the info available.

Their solicitor isn't going to sort out anything unless he is paid to by the vendor.

By the way I have a great sense of humour. If your butt hurt because you got done over by a crap estate agent in the past - complaining on the internet won't fix it. Neither will making assumptions about me.

My advice still stands. Discuss with the solicitor, if there is signs the issues will be messy than walk away.

Its better to walk away now than 3-12 months down the line (worst case scenario)

If solicitor is happy than fire away. Bid with your head and try not to become attached to the property. Have a final number in your head and walk away.

Dont take anything the estate agent says as true unless verified by your solicitor.

You are the one making the assumptions. I know full well how to deal with estate agents and not based on one instance. Butt hurt ? I'm too clever for that sunshine.

/Mod deletion. Let's be polite to each other./. If the OP's solicitor does not raise it as an issue with the vendor's solicitor to sort out as part of the sale, then the OP will not have the same rights to adverse possession as the vendor if he allows it go.

JustLen

STB. wrote: »

You are the one making the assumptions. I know full well how to deal with estate agents and not based on one instance. Butt hurt ? I'm too clever for that sunshine.

/Mod deletion/. If the OP's solicitor does not raise it as an issue with the vendor's solicitor to sort out as part of the sale, then the OP will not have the same rights to adverse possession as the vendor if he allows it go.

As can be seen from quotes above you have gone back and ninja edited your post after I replied.

Not wasting my time arguing with you - if you can prove your statement about all estate agents being liars go ahead. You have a perception that is incorrect and you cant back it up.

To simplify my rant for you - /Mod deletion/.

I assume you aren't a solicitor and to that end my advice still stands.

Discuss with solicitor - if messy walk away. move on to the next one.

STB.

JustLen wrote: »

As can be seen from quotes above you have gone back and ninja edited your post after I replied.

I ninja edited nothing. I did expand on my reply to address your too many assumptions. You just jumped on it too quickly.

JustLen wrote: »

Not wasting my time arguing with you

See you so. Stay in touch yeah.

JustLen

STB. wrote: »

You are the one making the assumptions. I know full well how to deal with estate agents and not based on one instance. Butt hurt ? I'm too clever for that sunshine.

/Mod deletion / If the OP's solicitor does not raise it as an issue with the vendor's solicitor to sort out as part of the sale, then the OP will not have the same rights to adverse possession as the vendor if he allows it go.

STB. wrote: »

I ninja edited nothing. I did expand on my reply to address your too many assumptions. You just jumped on it too quickly.



See you so. Stay in touch yeah.

No you hang up.

L1011

bemak wrote: »

Do you think so? The title if the property is unaffected. It's as if the current owner decided not to have a boundary wall essentially blurring the boundary between both properties. It would be easy to pit up a fence and define the boundary

The valuation would have to be on what is on the maps and would need to still meet LTV, multiples etc. If you were looking for an exemption on either I doubt they'd even consider it. And they may still consider the title not sufficiently marketable even if they do value on the land on the maps.

nuac

Mod
JustLen and STB, pls stay on topic. No insults to the honourable profession of estate agents, nor to each other

Glass fused light

First step should be a trip into the council planning office, careful inquiries around the local area as to the character you are dealing with and about the type of work which was done on the house and by whom could be the cheeper option.

It an older house.
It's garden was expanded into someone else's property.
The owners carried out work with no planning permission.
They applied for retention with fudged maps.
They have fudged the images for the house sale.

What else have you not spotted.

bemak

Widdensushi wrote: »

Can you meet the terms of the waste management without the extra land?

yes