To buy this house (picture included)

[OverdueMover]

Name changed for this...

We are in the process of buying a house. The survey, back yesterday, highlighted a problem, but how much of a problem is it - would it put you off altogether?

The current owner built a car port, the roof of which is overhanging his neighbours boundary. It's been there for 9 years and, according to him they are fine with it and let him keep his bins on what is technically their property.

In the attached picture I have added red lines to show the boundary - the posts of the car port are within the boundary of the house we are buying, the yellow shows the overhanging roof, the pink shows the next door neighbour's property.

Planning permission shows (in both the diagram and the description) that the car port will have a 1.4m gap between the neighbour's boundary and the edge of the car port. If it matched the planning permission you could not fit a car into it. The seller says the car port was 'signed off' after being built.

I personally doubt this, yet the neighbours don't seem to have complained about the arrangement in over 9 years.

We love the house but I fear opening this can of worms (e.g. by visiting the neighbours or speaking directly to planning) because I am worried it will lead to the sale falling through...

Has your solicitor checked for any neighbour disputes?

You may have the mortgage offer but it is dependent on your solicitor signing the certificate of title. Google 'cml handbook' and select your lender and parts 1 &2. What are their requirements for flying freehold and properties with boundary issues?

Solicitors act for both buyer and lender in most transactions, there is a duty of care for both clients. I would have to report the situation to most lenders and I think most would have extra requirements, from indemnity insurance to refusing to lend.

Although the flying freehold definition isn't quite correct as you can't really 'occupy' a car port. However the principle is the same, most conveyancers would rather report it to the lender so any issues later on aren't claimable on their firms insurance.

I also don't think this is an issue. He hasn't built the car port on the boundary, it's just the roof. The land under it still remains the neighbours. Worst case is some twat buys the house and says oh I don't like the fact our land is sheltered by your car port roof. Likely no one would give a shit.

An indemnity policy and I'd not think twice about this.

Btw, how are solicitors meant to check for neighbour disputes? All we can do is ask the seller.

Couldnt it come up in council searches? Depends on the dispute of course, but we were questioned about having one because our neighbour had a noise abetment order against them (we didn’t know anything about it)
I guess boundary disputes etc would also come up?

However I agree I think people have the wrong idea about whether neighbourhood disputes can be tracked, ie how would a solicitor know if your neighbour had been arresting for punching you or something?

Guess the problem is if neighbour decides at some point to want to extend up to or very close to the boundary. I’m fairly sure that legally you can make someone remove something which is overhanging their property. Flying freeholds are an exception and doesn’t count here as there isn’t a recognised/registered flying freehold.

Sounds like they weren't given planning permission for what they wanted to build. So they built it anyway.

I would assume the 1.4m gap was imposed for reasons such as leaving room for access to make repairs, possibly because of something like drainage access. Or just not being able to build right up to the boundary line. Which they did (and some).

Tbo I would be very wary. What other work have they done? Anything else lurking?

Boundary disputes are a classic. I wouldn't touch with a barge pole unless legally correct. Which it is not. If either needs to be demolished. Possibly replaced by the consented structure. Or needs retrospective planning.

The issue with trying to buy the land is that it might make Indemnity Insurance hard to get if the owner refuses to sell - because you have flagged up to the owner that there is an issue, thus making future action more likely.

The ownership of the land and the overhanging roof and gutter would quickly be an issue if the current or future owner decided on a covered side return as a back entrance to the garden, for example. (having pulled down the hedge)

The planning permission and ownership are not the same thing. The time allowed for the council to enforce planning permission could lapse and there could still be an issue over ownership / usage of the land.

It all depends on how important to you the car port is.

If it could be pulled down and you still love the house it is no issue whatsoever.

Theloftmonster: thank you, yes I will have to see what our conveyancer says re the mortgage

After discussing it further with DH we’ve decided that we would be happy to live in the house without the carport. In fact as we would rather have secure bike storage (we’ve never had a garage or carport before so quite used to that re the car) so taking it down might well be the simplest solution.

I can’t see anyone next door ever making a covered walkway with 80cm of land though, (or an extension for that matter - after you’ve built the wall, done the plastering etc you’d end up with maybe 50 extra cm inside at a push - no one does that surely)?

Re other work it all looks to be exactly as stated in the plans, I checked very carefully once I realised the carport was amiss!

The 1.4m gap was not imposed in the sense that it was in the plans submitted, not added as a condition, but it could have been suggest by a planner at the pre application advice stage I guess?

The seller has stated no neighbour disputes - I think we would have to sue if this turned out to be false (I believe sellers are legally required to provide honest information about disputes in particular) but isn’t this always a risk with any house purchase?

The seller has stated no neighbour disputes - I think we would have to sue if this turned out to be false (I believe sellers are legally required to provide honest information about disputes in particular) but isn’t this always a risk with any house purchase?

Yes it's always a risk, but with most houses there's no reason to suspect any reason for a dispute, where here there very much is - and there's also a precedent in that the neighbours have already objected to (compliant) issues

And the "other work" may look as if it's as stated in the plans, but have you had a full structural survey? Also do you have a proper solicitor dealing with this, or just a sausage-factory conveyancing firm?

Haven't read the full thread, but an alternate option might be to approach the neighbour and buy that small strip of land from them. Then it would always be yours.

Local authority searches do not have any information about neighbour disputes or boundary problems. I can't see any possible way to research problem neighbours. I would have thought only the local council or police would have that information and they couldn't pass any information on because of GDPR. Local knowledge is really the only way to know about issues. This is why a lovely family house, significantly lower priced than similar houses in the area, finally sold after sitting on the market for ages. The out of town buyers didn't know about the paedophile brothers living three doors up the road, it was common knowledge to all the locals.