Advice on legal issues associated with land transfer

[Wren]

Dear PPUKers I would appreciate it if someone could please put my mind at rest on something.
We are transferring some land to back to another party that was apparently included in our original land registry entry by mistake. We are doing them a favour by being efficient and cooperative. However my concern is that we are not left with any problems at the end of it.
We asked that the transfer document correctly state that we own the boundary wall between us and the field we are transferring back.
In return, as it were, the other party told our solicitors to also put a clause to state that we will maintain and repair the wall to their 'reasonable satisfaction'. I grumbled about this to our solicitors as although the original contract did include this covenant the land registry document at the time did not. Our solicitors (who seem more interested in collecting their fee than anything else) said that it is usual to state who is responsible for maintaining the wall in the transfer document. Does any one know - are they right? And is the wording ('to their reasonable satisfaction') OK?
I want the answer to be yes so I can just sign it and get on with the rest of my life....

 

[worms]

although the original contract did include this covenant the land registry document at the time did not.

I can claim no legal background whatsoever and I know England is a strange country in legal terms, but...

Surely a contract is a contract and the land registry is simply a governmental record of who owns what? If you signed a contract saying you would maintain the wall, surely it stands?

 

[middi]

It appears to be a reasonable request for you to maintain YOUR wall . Also if the wall is higher that 1.2 metres, falls over and kills someone you could be sued, probably, for manslauter anyway, agreement or no agreement.
If YOUR wall is only 18 inches high, and badly kept, and a stone or brick falls on someone's toe you can still be sued for damages, agreement or no agreement .

The way I see it you have nothing to loose if you sign the agreement.

AS to be maintained " to satisfaction". A wall is a wall, usually bricks ( or stone ) and mortar ( if applicable). Nothing to worry about. ( unless you want a dilapidated wall that can fall over and injure someone)

If you are still concerned tell the other party that they can have the wall and you can then demand the same maintainance rights from them. As you should.

Middi

 

[Wren]

That was fast - two replies already! Thank you.
It is a dry stone wall. Was in a very bad state of repair, but my other half has put alot of work into repairing it. He is now an expert dry stone waller. Very happy to repair it (which is implied by ownership anyway), it is that phrase about to their reasonable satisfaction that worried me slightly.

 

[middi]

If it helps take a picture and keep records of maintainance carried out in case of problems.
I personally think that it is not such a big issue for you refusing to sign

Middi

 

[Lime]

I maintain my fences and walls to my satisfaction, not my neighbours.
If they don't approve of their condition they can take legal advice if they want to.
The phase "to their reasonable satisfaction" gives your neighbour/s a stick to beat you with.
I think it is a totally unreasonable addition and is an attempt to maintain control of the wall when they don't own it ... and probably wished they did.

Additionally, I'd wish to insert the right of access to their side of the wall to maintain it!

 

[middi]

Lime's suggestion regarding access to their side of the wall for maintainance is a very good and relevant point. If they refuse they will be shooting themselves in the foot.

Middi

 

[Juju]

I agree with others - try to get the phrase 'to their reasonable satisfaction' taken out. It sounds like a nightmare. Not sure what alternative phrase could be used though - maybe 'safe and secure'?

We're responsible for a 4ft high dry stone wall on one side stopping our garden falling into the neighbour's (ie our land is 4ft higher than them). Just after we moved in they told us it had fallen down in one section (to be fair we didn't know it existed cos there's a big fence on top of it on our side). Anyway, we spent about £400 paying for new stone and extensive repairs - it looked fab. We fell out a bit with the neighbours over it (long story but our builder trashed some of their plants when laying his stone out) and I don't have access to it easily and I can see from the house that they've let all the weeds and ivy grow back. I know it's our responsibility to maintain it but it wouldn't hurt them to do some weeding (the neighbour is a keen gardener so it wouldn't hurt her now and again - although technically she doesn't own the land she is allowed to use it by our immediate neighbour who loathes gardening). Actually now I think about it maybe I'll arrange to go in there in the Spring and completely clear the weeds. Sometimes I think we need to spend more time clearing stuff from our neighbours' gardens than our own! (problem with ivy growing up our house from our other neighbour's garden - easier to maintain though as we have a right of way and the tenant and the landlord just said yeah go in the garden whenever you like).
Juju

 

[chuckey]

We had a similar problem when we were buying our cottage in Yorkshire. It was included within the boundary of the adjacent farm, even though they had never owned it. When we pointed this out to our Solicitor, he had a word with the farmers Solicitor and they sent of a mutually agreed document to the land registry. No words about walls at all. The rule is the last person to touch a wall has the maintenance responsibility. The bottom 20' or so of our wall was about 12" high with a tree growing out of it. The farmer had just slung some stock fencing across the opening. Being the perfectionists we are :lol: , we decided that this was not quite in keeping with the garden so we paid some local lads to rebuild it.
Frank

 

[Penners]

I agree with others - try to get the phrase 'to their reasonable satisfaction' taken out.

I agree too. That phrase introduces an element of considerable subjectivity into the contract, which - as Lime has said above - could become a stick to beat you with.

If they insist on qualifying the extent to which you should maintain the wall, maybe you could substitute something like "in a safe and serviceable condition". In my amateur and non-legal view, this constrains you to ensure that the wall will do its job and won't collapse on anyone (which, as its owners, are probably your legal duty anyway), but removes some of the aesthetic implications of the original phrase.

But if you can get away without any qualifying phrase at all, so much the better.

But I repeat - I ain't no lawyer!

 

[worms]

That phrase introduces an element of considerable subjectivity into the contract... But I repeat - I ain't no lawyer!

I suspect that if you were a lawyer you would appreciate that introducing subjectivity and banishing certainty was your very raison d'etre and the stuff on which all your future employment was based!

 

[Penners]

Cynic!