Unauthorised work discovered at last minute

[Flyfisher]

Our solicitor found two of those when we bought this house. One concerned a two-foot wide strip between the road (owned by the Council) and our drive. £200 for an insurance against the owner of the strip turning up. I would bet the problem was caused by the thickness of a red line on some former deeds (now lost).

The other related to a kink in the garden fence and who owned the little kinky bit. I told him to forget it, he protested, I told him again in writing, and he dropped it.

A potential 'ransom strip' ? very wise to get insurance against that possibility.

I'd join you in your bet about the problem being caused by inaccurate drawings on deeds. Up to 1958 our property was a single title but during the 60s it was carved up many times and lots of bits sold off. Our remaining bit was spread over 4 titles, all adjacent yet the new 'internal' boundaries must have been drawn by a child with a very fat crayon and when we had things registered there were two strips that we appeared not to own, including the entrance to the house. It took us (well, Mrs FF, to be fair - I think she's now on first name terms with half of the relevant Land Registry office!) a few years to trawl through four boxes of deeds and conveyances and convince LR that nobody else owned these patches and for them to amend the titles to make them properly adjacent. This culminated in a very nice chap from Ordnance Survey coming out with a super-duper GPS gizmo accurate to about 2cm to remap the four titles. Fortunately the only confusion was with the 'internal' boundaries but it's so easy to see how boundary disputes between neighbours can arise.

 

[ipsographic]

Normally, unless they were a cash buyer, this isn't true - the client is the mortgage company, and the solicitor is just covering their rear with the mortgage company as if something turned up in future that devalued the property

Would this mean that a cash buyer would be a bit more vulnerable?

 

[Penners]

Would this mean that a cash buyer would be a bit more vulnerable?

Not so long as the solicitor applies the same rules and principles to handling the purchase, regardless of who the client is. The principle should surely be that the solicitor advises, the client decides.

 

[CliffordPope]

It's an interesting drift from the OP's original problem, which seems to be solved with an indemnity policy, which apparently is available.

But what is indemnity insurance, eg in the case of the ransom strip, actually covering? The risk that the real owner will turn up and refuse to sell for less than a million pounds? The risk that a subsequent drain-layer may exercise his right to have the house demolished so that he can lay his drain?
The risk that the OP will be fined for contravening the listed building regulations, refuse to pay and be sent to prison?

There must be a limit to the indemnity value? And if the potential cost is open-ended, there is not really complete peace of mind.

 

[steveb]

Would this mean that a cash buyer would be a bit more vulnerable?

I think Penners would be right - the solicitor should offer exactly the same advice, but the cash buyer is in a position to say "I accept your advice but choose to take on the risk of not following it".
I would assume the solicitor would formalise it with a piece of paper that the client signs that basically says "I advised you to do x, you decided not to, any negative consequences are your own fault" to cover the solicitor's backside.

 

[Penners]

Just so.

 

[88v8]

When we bought this place, there was a disparity between the plans and the garden. The seller wrote us a letter saying that this was how it had always been, which we subsequently found was not true, they had appropriated a chunk of an adjacent field and then cheekily asked the farmer to fence it to keep his livestock out of the garden, which he did. I took the view that it now belongs to us by reason of adverse possession, so did not insist that the deeds be amended.
There is also ambiguity, due to thick red line syndrome, about who owns the embankment betwixt us and the road. In some places it suits me to regard it as 'ours'.
Flexibility is a great thing.

Ivor

 

[ipsographic]

Still haven't got a reply from our solicitor, despite constantly chasing :x

 

[Penners]

That's conveyancing solicitors for you. In my experience you shouldn't have any qualms about making a bl**dy nuisance of yourself until you get an answer. If you pester them enough they'll usually bring you to the top of the pile, just to get you out of their hair.

 

[ipsographic]

Argh, can't get insurance!

 

[Keith Bowman]

Unless I have completely misunderstood the situation, the worst case is that you have to re-instate a window in place of a door and, though theoretically possible, even that is an unlikely outcome. The cost of that must surely be in hundreds rather than thousands - a relatively minor sum in comparison with the whole cost of buying a house and moving in? I'm sure you can find bigger things to worry about if you try!
Edited to add: presumably the new door is not the only entrance?

 

[88v8]

Like I said, knock a bit off the price and don't worry. Solicitor+molehill = mountain....

Ivor

 

[Flyfisher]

Argh, can't get insurance!

. . . in which case I agree with Keith & Ivor above.

The worst case is not particularly bad in the grand scheme of things, even if it does happen, and doesn't seem like the sort of thing that should jeopardise the sale.

 

[Penners]

Solicitor+molehill = mountain....

:lol: :lol:

 

[ipsographic]

It's not so much the door that we're concerned about now, it's whether they have changed anything else.

We need to get the windows replaced, and as they are aluminium 20 century things, we were going to ask the CO what we would be allowed to put in, so not sure if we'd get a visit.

But, I think we could argue a good case for keeping the door, and there doesn't appear to be anything else change, so maybe it's not so bad.

 

[davidbrac]

don't forget planning they will want to inspect and issue a 'letter of comfort" this costs and if they aren't happy can give a time limit for the alteration to be put back

 

[88v8]

don't forget planning they will want to inspect and issue a 'letter of comfort" this costs and if they aren't happy can give a time limit for the alteration to be put back

:? How will Planning get involved unless someone tells them?
And I'm sure that neither buyer nor seller will do so.
It would be a deterrent to unauthorised alterations if they had the manpower to inspect every listed building annually, but it ain't so.

Ivor

 

[Ebenezer]

If you are planning on getting an indemnity policy don't make any contact with the council regarding the issue as this will invalidate the policy.

 

[Ebenezer]

pointing out to our neighbour that they were the client and should be instructing their solicitor according to their wishes,.

Normally, unless they were a cash buyer, this isn't true - the client is the mortgage company, and the solicitor is just covering their rear with the mortgage company . . .

Interesting point, I hadn't thought of that side of things . . . but wouldn't that give rise to a conflict of interest? can a solicitor act for two parties in the same transaction?

The client is both the buyer and the mortgage provider. The solictor will act on behalf of both parties. If a conflict of interest arises the solicitor must immediately cease to act for either party.