The Property is land locked and does not enjoy any rights of access over the driveway leading from the public highway.
The adjoining owner will not grant any such rights of access and, in the event that a purchaser of the Property attempts to gain access over the driveway, the adjoining owner will seek an injunction preventing access from being gained over their land.
The Property does not enjoy any rights or easements to receive a mains water supply.
Prior to completion, the adjoining owner will disconnect the existing water supply prior to the Property.
Can only assume that all previous transactions were done by a local conveyancer called Gerald who relied entirely on old boys school connections rather than any actual legal knowledge or skill.
Suspect neighbour is the defaulting mortgagor and bank is selling. Bank didn’t check that anyone could actually access the property they they took as collateral. Oops.
I suspect that the adjoining owner is related to the owner and is joining in screwing the bank on behalf of the their relative. Even crossed my mind the owner and adjoining owner are effectively one and the same and it’s a farmer who’s got into financial problems and the house was originally in common ownership with the rest of the farm hence no rights were previously needed.
How does that work, Sailo? What’s to stop someone simply parcelling off a strip of their land, making the property worthless, and buying it back for a song?
Suspect that's right Sails . Could even be the case that it's the adjacent owner that is living in the house. Good luck even serving an eviction notice on them.
Crypto one would hope that the bank and/or its solicitors would not be negligent enough to give a loan in those circumstances, since it is mainly the bank getting screwed here. I think normally banks insist on easements and independent access to mains water etc before paying out the mortgage.
This property was posted on Reddit too and the consensus there seems to be the same as what Sails said.
What’s to stop someone simply parcelling off a strip of their land, making the property worthless, and buying it back for a song? Do
If it’s not fraud (I.e. the borrower lied), then the lender should have done DD to check their collateral is actually worth something. As sails points out it’s more likely to be a relative who defaulted than the person who holds all the restrictive covenants because if it’s the same person the bank would be able to claim
I suspect the bank should have taken security over the hold land holding rather than just the house although that will be the majority of the value. It’s like the fact our farm overdraft used to be secured against my parents’ house rather than the farmland as it’s worth more and easier to sell.
isn’t it difficult 2 get a resi mortgage 4 farmland parts of a farm or something? limited no. of acres they will accept as part of the mortgaged home
also, r resi loans limited recourse? i would have thought the lender has the borrower on the hook above the house value, so less likely the neighbour is also the borrower - mayb a rel7ive instead
Also if the owner of this plot and the adjacent land are the same person and this plot is up fir auction for a loan default then they will go after what thethey don't recover here from the adjacent land. At that point I think easements and water supplies and vacant possession would be very easy to obtain.
But that only works if the same person owns the land and they are being defaulted by a lender.
Depends how much they owe. If they just borrowed 60% of the value of the house the bank probably still gets its money as someone will figure that in time they can do a deal with the neighbour.
Barry, if the right of way/water supply have previously been exercised with the permission of the neighbouring owner (relative or not), an easement by prescription or the doctrine of lost modern grant generally wouldn’t arise as to get an implied easement, this needs to have been used for 20 years without force, secrecy or the permission of the owner of the land over which the right is being exercised.
There is a Latin maxim describing this which I can never remember.
Next door is an equestrian centre and campsite. A new owner could exercise their rights to visit the land (if not the property) by landing a helicopter there.
And do it as much as permitted; i think 28 times a year without registering for special permission.
I suspect once a few horses have spontaneously aborted, gymkhanas have been ruined, and campers have demanded refunds due to the noise, the neighbours might be keener to grant reasonable access rights.
Yes the kind of person who buys a landlocked house full of squatters with no utilities for 100k at auction is exactly the same person who Has access to a private helicopter 28 times a year.
It’ll be next door who buy it - and they, as sails says, are probably connected to the owner. The bank presumably are suing their lawyers in the meantime
The conveyancer was the owner's lover. He has a new job representing the lender but hasn't managed to obtain possession. An issue concerning an occupier's waiver. He's suing his old firm for negligence.
0
1
Currently occupied by biker gang ?
0
0
Currently occupied by Flesh Eating Pigs.
0
0
How did they manage to get a mortgage on it previously?
2
0
It sounds gr8.
0
1
... helicopter pad?
0
0
Adjoining owner sounds like a cock.
Can only assume that all previous transactions were done by a local conveyancer called Gerald who relied entirely on old boys school connections rather than any actual legal knowledge or skill.
W...T...A...F...?
(then again, I'm not a conveyancer, thank Allah)
1
0
I think Sails handled the original conveyance.
2
0
None of that is why the price is low.
"Convenient for Stoke on Trent."
3
0
Properties near Stoke on Trent are actually more valuable if there is no access.
0
0
Heh.
0
1
Adjoining owner wants if for tuppence I suspect.
0
0
If that’s what they’ve engineered, fair play to them
Either way I suspect the sale is more about crystallizing the quantum on the negligence claim from the lender to their conveyancer
0
0
or wants megabucks to grant new easements
0
0
I have been at receiving end of this bully behviour. Not as bad as this example, but I did have to get creative with a solution.
0
0
Suspect neighbour is the defaulting mortgagor and bank is selling. Bank didn’t check that anyone could actually access the property they they took as collateral. Oops.
0
1
I suspect that the adjoining owner is related to the owner and is joining in screwing the bank on behalf of the their relative. Even crossed my mind the owner and adjoining owner are effectively one and the same and it’s a farmer who’s got into financial problems and the house was originally in common ownership with the rest of the farm hence no rights were previously needed.
0
0
Basically a case of foreclose on my loan and I’ll fvck you by making sure you get nothing for the house.
0
0
Yep- beat you by 1 min sailor man (but you said it better)
0
0
How does that work, Sailo? What’s to stop someone simply parcelling off a strip of their land, making the property worthless, and buying it back for a song?
0
1
Suspect that's right Sails . Could even be the case that it's the adjacent owner that is living in the house. Good luck even serving an eviction notice on them.
0
0
Crypto one would hope that the bank and/or its solicitors would not be negligent enough to give a loan in those circumstances, since it is mainly the bank getting screwed here. I think normally banks insist on easements and independent access to mains water etc before paying out the mortgage.
This property was posted on Reddit too and the consensus there seems to be the same as what Sails said.
0
0
If it’s not fraud (I.e. the borrower lied), then the lender should have done DD to check their collateral is actually worth something. As sails points out it’s more likely to be a relative who defaulted than the person who holds all the restrictive covenants because if it’s the same person the bank would be able to claim
0
0
Ah cheers. That makes sense.
0
1
I suspect the bank should have taken security over the hold land holding rather than just the house although that will be the majority of the value. It’s like the fact our farm overdraft used to be secured against my parents’ house rather than the farmland as it’s worth more and easier to sell.
0
0
isn’t it difficult 2 get a resi mortgage 4 farmland parts of a farm or something? limited no. of acres they will accept as part of the mortgaged home
also, r resi loans limited recourse? i would have thought the lender has the borrower on the hook above the house value, so less likely the neighbour is also the borrower - mayb a rel7ive instead
0
0
I doubt it's a relative. If it were, an easement would surely have arisen by now? More likely one and the same owner, which would explain no easement?
0
0
Might not be a resi mortgage, could just be a secured loan.
0
0
Also if the owner of this plot and the adjacent land are the same person and this plot is up fir auction for a loan default then they will go after what thethey don't recover here from the adjacent land. At that point I think easements and water supplies and vacant possession would be very easy to obtain.
But that only works if the same person owns the land and they are being defaulted by a lender.
0
1
Depends how much they owe. If they just borrowed 60% of the value of the house the bank probably still gets its money as someone will figure that in time they can do a deal with the neighbour.
0
0
Barry, if the right of way/water supply have previously been exercised with the permission of the neighbouring owner (relative or not), an easement by prescription or the doctrine of lost modern grant generally wouldn’t arise as to get an implied easement, this needs to have been used for 20 years without force, secrecy or the permission of the owner of the land over which the right is being exercised.
There is a Latin maxim describing this which I can never remember.
0
1
Next door is an equestrian centre and campsite. A new owner could exercise their rights to visit the land (if not the property) by landing a helicopter there.
And do it as much as permitted; i think 28 times a year without registering for special permission.
I suspect once a few horses have spontaneously aborted, gymkhanas have been ruined, and campers have demanded refunds due to the noise, the neighbours might be keener to grant reasonable access rights.
0
0
Yes the kind of person who buys a landlocked house full of squatters with no utilities for 100k at auction is exactly the same person who Has access to a private helicopter 28 times a year.
0
0
They could buy a Trebuchet to use for access.
0
0
They could dig a tunnel. They're all the rage in 2023/24.
0
0
It’ll be next door who buy it - and they, as sails says, are probably connected to the owner. The bank presumably are suing their lawyers in the meantime
0
1
The conveyancer was the owner's lover. He has a new job representing the lender but hasn't managed to obtain possession. An issue concerning an occupier's waiver. He's suing his old firm for negligence.
Join the discussion