Estoppel land ownership dispute over leasehold property

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Law cruncher - Thank you for you analysis of the legal position.
    The detriment claimed is quite small - the cost of JCB levelling a bank and building a 13m long 2m high block wall. I enjoyed your red herring reference.

    Love the license explanation, but do leaseholders have the ability to grant an interest that would qualify to be overriding per LRA 2002 sch3?

    We have the property back on the market, and had many months ago, and in periodic stages made them aware of their responsibility towards costs on an baseless claim.
    We’ve no interest in issuing legal proceedings, we only want to sell and move on.

    But, having offered both the land and then the detriment what’s else can they be wanting?

    Comment


      #17
      The OP says that Mr X was a tenant in 2009 and that the agreement with the neighbours was between 2013 and 2016. If those dates are correct then Mr X was a tenant when the agreement was made. I also cannot see anything which says that the agreement was made on a sale by Mr X.

      Comment


        #18
        Had a copy of the Lease T&C in the post today. There’s clearly a restriction about allowing others into occupation and sales etc.

        where to go from here.....

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by helpmenot View Post
          Had a copy of the Lease T&C in the post today. There’s clearly a restriction about allowing others into occupation and sales etc
          That does not change anything I have said because any interest or right granted must end with the lease. However, it is something to wave at the neighbours' solicitors.

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by helpmenot View Post
            Love the license explanation, but do leaseholders have the ability to grant an interest that would qualify to be overriding per LRA 2002 sch3?
            Yes, but only in respect of their leasehold interest.

            Comment


              #21
              Thank you LawCruncher, I will indeed give the paperwork a wave and see if that makes them back down.

              Comment


                #22
                Found some interesting info today. Immediately before becoming a leaseholder Mr X had a mortgage on the property (since 1985)
                Would this too limit his ability to grant an interest in land?

                Comment


                  #23
                  Sort of. The basic position is that if a borrower grants a right to a third party it binds both parties but not the lender unless he consents. In the absence of consent the lender can sell free of the right granted. That has to be the case otherwise the security could be prejudiced. If the mortgage is redeemed then the right becomes absolute.

                  The position is different from where the right is granted by a tenant because a tenant cannot grant a right which outlives his tenancy.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post

                    That does not change anything I have said because any interest or right granted must end with the lease. However, it is something to wave at the neighbours' solicitors.
                    Well that didn’t work. Where to go from here?

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Are you in correspondence with the neighbours' solicitors?

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Yes, however I’ve received no responses in nearly a month.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          In that case can you please expand on what you mean by "Well that didn’t work"?

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Yes of course.
                            I sent the solicitor an email highlighting that Mr X was unable to ‘gift’ the land as a leaseholder as per his clients claim.
                            That the ‘overriding interest’ they claim does not bind us simply because they were in occupation on the day of our purchase as to qualify the interest must be proprietary.
                            And also stated that estoppel has no relevance as Mr X was not the owner.

                            In response to this I received a “My clients position has not changed”

                            I hope this is the info you’re looking for and thank you for all your help.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Here's a possible solution:

                              · You move the fence back to where it was when you bought.

                              · You and your husband transfer the land the other side of the fence to you (or your husband). Make sure the plan on the transfer is accurate.

                              · That will take the land out of the title of the house and no buyer will think the fence is in the wrong place.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                LC's possible solution should be fun!

                                Not only is it going to cost (legal costs, Land Registry fees, etc, but also the op may have a mortgage so (presumably) would need consent to alter the title plan.. The mortgagee might wonder why the extent of the property had been changed (without consent in the first place.

                                The more we hear about this tale the more I think the way the op went about things was wrong. What should've happened in my view is that when the prospective buyer of the op's property queried the difference, the op should have contacted the neighbour to ascertain the reason. Instead the op erected a fence whereupon the matter has escalated.

                                Another solution would be to remove the fence. If and when a new buyer of the op's property queries the difference on the title plan, the op can say the title plan is wrong (and cite the Land Registry statement on boundary accuracy). The plan could be amended when the op's lawyer is dealing with the conveyancing.

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X