Feeling bullied, should we pull out?

[DobbieFreeElf]

I’ve come here to get some opinions from people removed from the situation.

We had an offer accepted on a house in September, the house fits our, very specific, needs and although we would like to improve it over the years (new kitchen, bathrooms, maybe extension) we would be planning this to be a home for 20 years.

The house is an adjoining paddock, a couple of acres, which is ideal as I have always had horses (prior to kids) and when the little people are bigger I would like to get another.

We were all set to exchange on the Monday before Xmas when our solicitor calls to say that the sellers want to impose an Overage clause (also called uplift/ clawback) on the land. In essence this means that if planning permission is granted on the land we must pay a percentage of the increase in value to the sellers. We felt completely blindsided as we had never even heard of this before that date.

Aside from potentially building a couple of stables in the future we have absolutely no plans to develop the land. (Why would we, we love the house because it is rural).

I can’t decide if we should cut our losses and walk away now.

Now the seller is threatening to put the house back on the market next Monday. We feel backed into a corner and bullied.

Initially we were dead set against the overage (especially as it was dropped on us at the 11th hour) but having had time to look around at what else is on the market (nothing that meets our needs), thinking about the 15k extra we will have to pay on another property (as it’s doubtful there would be a house we would complete on before the SD holiday ends), the £2k+ we’ve already spent on conveyancing, searches, surveys, inspections etc. and many other factors we had decided that we would be open to the overage (as long as we negotiate terms that we are ok with)

Are we stupid, should we walk away, is this fate giving a massive warning sign...

I would be fine with this as long as the terms were clearly defined. In fact I would take great pleasure in buying it and then sitting on it and preventing the greedy buggers ever getting a single penny.

OP, the purpose of overage is to provide additional money to the landowner if they sell at a date A but there is a reasonable known prospect of the land being valued more at a date B, but I wouldn't say it's reasonable to set the latter at 40 years. Is it even reasonable for them to request that? Certainly not so late in the day, they're trying it on. I assume you've had the valuation, are you paying what the land is worth now or over the odds?

I would pull out, personally.

Overage wouldn’t put me off unless I planned to develop it? Get the exclusion for agricultural buildings , negotiate on the terms and shorten it, then go for it. Lots of overage on land in SW if people feel there’s a chance it would be developed. Can completely see why. But yes, irritating.

I would probably walk away. You may never need to pay for it but may make the property difficult to sell.

This x 1000. They have done this to you as they think they have you over a barrel so close to exchange. If they could sell it easily with a 40 year overage clause they would have been upfront about it from the start.

I would say I am checking it out with my solicitor and won't agree until I am certain. Call their bluff - if they relist they relist. Twats.

As there is no planning on the land and no certainty you would get it if you did try to, I don't think it reduces the value of it (which begs the question of how they would justify double the value of it). As you are not planning to develop and are going to stay long term I'd buy it.

I tend to agree with @2bazookas, it could be a bluff. That was sort of what I meant, but didn't put it as succinctly.

They've been spending money on solicitors and removal costs too. Surely they don't want to lose it all. No guarantees though.

The EA sounds like an arse, though they are not unique in that. They could be complicit in this. It certainly wouldn't surprise me as I've known them try a fair few things over the years, including telling my DD1 (25 and buying her first property) that to secure the property she was offering on she first had to pay THEM a large and non-returnable deposit. We advised her that that wasn't the usual procedure and she walked away.

They'll never sell with a 40 year overage clause.

I would deliberately drag this out for as long as possible, just keep telling them your solicitor is on holiday, Christmas backlog, etc, etc, for as long as you can, and then eventually tell them to go fuck themselves.

@DameCelia

Although to overage clauses are standard (I've drafted more than my fair share over the years) the length is not standard.

I would agree with that

Around here they tend to be up to 25 years on a sliding scale with a very hefty fee for development within 5 years.

Although people can be very creative. We were interested in a cottage for development but the behind was a landlocked field which had a clause. The house was semi detached and derelict and basically to get access it would have to have been demolished. In the end it sold very cheaply as it was all too complicated.

It was built on, they managed to get a public footpath moved for access and built a new detached house solely on the garden of the old house - not the plot which became their garden, the original house became a sort of archway with a flat above. I believe it went to court and the original owners lost their claim and only the field was in the overage and it was now a massive garden.

The problem with these types of clauses is you never know what's around the corner. Without wanting to be the voice of doom but you might have to sell due to unforeseen circumstances, illness or redundancy, accidents, one if you might die, something may happen with the dc etc. 40 years is a very long time to have something on the house that may affect the value or saleability. If you needed to sell quickly you might have problems with the clause etc.

Oh and don't trust the estate agent. If they'd had multiple offers far exceeding yours they'd have taken them. The EA is talking shit. My dh used to work with EA and he's always said never trust what they say

It sounds like this was their plan from the start as few buyers would have agreed a purchase in the first place with such a clause. I would offer 10 years and it expires in their deaths or walk away.

@HotSince63

They'll never sell with a 40 year overage clause.

I would deliberately drag this out for as long as possible, just keep telling them your solicitor is on holiday, Christmas backlog, etc, etc, for as long as you can, and then eventually tell them to go fuck themselves.

Without wanting to be the voice of doom but you might have to sell due to unforeseen circumstances, illness or redundancy, accidents, one if you might die, something may happen with the dc etc. 40 years is a very long time to have something on the house that may affect the value or saleability. If you needed to sell quickly you might have problems with the clause etc. This from @lilylongjohn is really worth thinking about.

Horrible, nasty, greedy boomers! Hate when some behave like this and give the whole generation a bad name. Leeching off the young by exploiting property wealth they haven't earned fair and square.

I'd walk away, send them a letter telling them you're doing so because they are greedy bastards and then start parking outside whenever they live. There is perfect overlap between people who are greedy about property and people who hate others parking outside their house.

I would walk away as you may find it difficult to sell with a weird clause affecting it.

I'm so sorry OP, this is awful to go through. This is what I hate about the UK housing market. There shouldn't be any opportunities to Lee changing the goal posts. What is agreed should be final.

@Grobagsforever

Horrible, nasty, greedy boomers! Hate when some behave like this and give the whole generation a bad name. Leeching off the young by exploiting property wealth they haven't earned fair and square.

I'd walk away, send them a letter telling them you're doing so because they are greedy bastards and then start parking outside whenever they live. There is perfect overlap between people who are greedy about property and people who hate others parking outside their house.

I take it you aren't a solicitor if you give ridiculous "advice" like that.

I think it was just a joke. I laughed about parking outside their house!

I would call their bluff on principle. They're clearly greedy fuckers.

Tell them no.

Your solicitor sounds pretty poor to be telling you to negotiate through the agent. This is a pretty technical provision which most buyers will have no experience of, and which your solicitor, as a professional, should have a vast array of options and suggestions for how to move around it. The fact that they want to charge you an extra £1k for handling a clause that they're not prepared to give you advice on the negotiation of is diabolical.
I agree with whoever upthread suggested that there should be a reduction in price at the outset to compensate for their claws remaining in the property longer term, and also to reflect your higher costs and their appalling "forgetfulness" in raising this so late.
If you are inclined to stay in the conversation, I would get your solicitor to remember they're the professional and come up with a written counterproposal for reduced price, sliding scale, shorter timescale and very limited development situations which trigger the overage, and which should go to their solicitor as well as the estate agent.
Agree also with whoever said you shouldn't rush yourself in putting it together.

I would walk away.

The paddock is on a separate title deeds so it is only in regards to the land and not the house or gardens but the fact it is there and available to buy together makes the house and garden so much more sellable and increases the price as a result.

You’ll probably always feel bitter about it if you go ahead.

I assume if the paddock is a separate deed then it is agricultural, amenity or equestrian land. It's really hard to develop as would need change of use (unlike if it were at the end of your garden). If you don't think you'll want to develop it I would probably proceed but agree with PP to try to negotiate a reduction to 20 years.

Pull out... they are scum

Oxfordwillsaveusbyfebruary I don't have as much experience as you, having only bought the four in places such as Somerset, Shropshire, Cheshire and now the Scottish Borders, but none of them had an overage clause. So while an overage clause might be common, it's not the standard when buying a rural property or paddock/field and if the OP is really uncomfortable with this, she doesn't have to accept it. It might be very common in an area with lots of development going on and planned for the future but again, not the standard.

If you're in any of the Home Counties it's fairly standard on land but 40 years is not a standard term. As infuriating as it is I'd counter with a sliding scale. The house is only worth as much as it is because of the land.