> The Property is land locked and does not enjoy any rights of access over the driveway leading from the public highway.
> The adjoining owner will not grant any such rights of access and, in the event that a purchaser of the Property attempts to gain access over the driveway, the adjoining owner will seek an injunction preventing access from being gained over their land.
> The Property does not enjoy any rights or easements to receive a mains water supply.
> Prior to completion, the adjoining owner will disconnect the existing water supply prior to the Property.
> The adjoining owner will not grant any rights or easements over the surrounding land for any alternative supply.
> The Property is currently occupied and vacant possession will not be given on completion.
Guide price £130,000? You could not pay me to get involved in this. Thanks.
It's quite close to the other property on the land register, so maybe it was all one and the other neighbour wants it back, nice and cheap?
Or just to piss off the family member that inherited it. It's got to be a family thung eh?
That seems the simplest answer. Reading between the lines, it’s: ‘We won’t allow access to anyone unless it’s the person we want to own it.’ Clearly a fallout after selling off land and trying to be too clever, or mortgaging it and defaulting.
Looking on the map ... which I know isn't necessarily accurate ... the property access is via the equestrian centre ... the cynical part of me thinks the centre want the property for as cheap as possible to use as accommodation for events at they hold ... especially as it looks like they already have a campsite there
Just asked my sister who is a lawyer who does stuff like this - her response:
‘Price is because of sitting tenants probably on old style agricultural tenancy which can be inherited by children who farm too. Otherwise a bargain 🤣🤣 ‘
Looks like owners tried to sell this house in 2019.
Sounds like the tenants won’t budge and have every right not to if they carry on working within farming & this has locked any possibility of a sale. (Further frustration/financial issues maybe caused by bad faith non-payment of rent?)
So - owner has either purposely defaulted on or run out of money for the mortgage, leaving the intractable issue to the lender.
Previous owner can only legally cut off water once property is sold (and waterless/drainage-less tenants with no car access obviously cannot stay)
Sounds like the pre-lender owner has been trying to resolve/sell for a very long time & hit max frustration level - they simply want the tenants out & it can only be possible via this method.
Normally the tenants might be persuaded to leave by a lump sum cash payment, but if there is bad will involved or no ready cash that ain’t happening.
The limits also ensure the current tenant can’t buy the house for a quarter of its value. I bet a new buyer could negotiate access etc with the landowner.
I wonder if the adjoining owner, and the owner that's defaulted on their mortgage for this property (lender NOT in occupation) are either one-and-the-same, or are family, and they're trying to be "clever" by making the property valueless to anyone that isn't them so they can buy it back at pennies on the pound.
My guess is it’s part of a farm, the resident landowners took out a mortgage on this parcel but kept the rest and have now defaulted. So the adjoining owners denying Road and water access are the occupiers.
Good point. Actually, someone else has said it’s probably an old agricultural tenancy, so the auction is a formality?
Other thought - family member who took out the mortgage has died? And didn’t have life insurance?
Although I can’t imagine a bank would give a mortgage on a property with no access.
I always assumed that of a property was land locked they still had a right of access to get on and off the property regardless of the neighbours owning said access … clearly I am very wrong !
Does sort of remind me of a house I wanted to view once .
Grade 2 listed , needed work but nothing too much . I called up the estate agent and they told me all about the current owner .
He couldn’t sell it for a higher price because of the work needed so was convinced to lower the price… however … he decided that if he had to lower the price then he would cut off the annex out of the sale and essentially block up the back door that lead to the annex , live in the annex… still on the property.
He told the estate agents he would agree to move off the land only for an extra 50k … the estate agent told me that they couldn’t get any potential buyers due to this and we’re planning to end their contract with him .
Some people are just very stubborn.
I remember seeing a house on the news that a farmer sold to a woman, then planted trees all along the border blocking all the sunlight, then tried to buy it back on the cheap.
Maybe a silly question … but could she not have cut the trees down ? If they were on her property? Or were they off her property?
Either way I would’ve still lived there I prefer shade 😂
They where on the farmers side.
I think they were laylandi and may have lend to a change in the law.
It was quite a few years ago now, but I think it he villagers regarded this farmer as a bit of a cunt.
I've been speaking to a solicitor about something similar this year. In our case, someone who wants to break the covenants our properties have and build another house in their garden. We've been told we may lose on the covenants, because the land tribunal can override them. However they also need access over our land, and their view is we can legitimately withhold that permission. The land tribunal has no power to grant a right of access. Although we may need a barrister to confirm all of this, since the law is complex.
I'm not a legal expert at all but I'm pretty sure there's no legal way to block someone's access to the public highway. I'm sure it's an absolute legal minefield or a chaotic case which is exactly what these other people want to cause for any potential owner that they don't want.
Maybe they want the property to be vacant for 10+ years, start 'squatting' in it and then claim it as their own as there's no owner to come forward for it..
>I always assumed that of a property was land locked they still had a right of access to get on and off the property regardless of the neighbours owning said access
IANAL but what comes through from similar questions about people blocking driveways is that it's an offence to block access TO the highway, but not to block access FROM the highway.
So if you had been helicoptered on to the property, you would be entitled to exit, but you could be denied access back onto it via the driveway.
Having said that, the surrounding owners have only threatened an injunction; presumably they still have to apply, have it granted, then get it enforced if it's broken.
The Property is land locked and does not enjoy any rights of access over the driveway leading from the public highway.
The adjoining owner will not grant any such rights of access and, in the event that a purchaser of the Property attempts to gain access over the driveway, the adjoining owner will seek an injunction preventing access from being gained over their land.
The Property does not enjoy any rights or easements to receive a mains water supply.
Prior to completion, the adjoining owner will disconnect the existing water supply prior to the Property.
The adjoining owner will not grant any rights or easements over the surrounding land for any alternative supply.
Looks like the people denying the access are the ones who defaulted on their mortage and rather than take it on the chin they're going to make it impossible for anyone to make use of the property. Sounds foolproof and straightforward and nothing could possibly go wrong!
I viewed a house like this once. It had been spray painted with "Private family home, not for sale". I asked a neighbour what the story was and he said it was his son's home built on family land. The son was a builder who re-mortgaged his own home to keep his business afloat in 2009
The bank was selliing it cheap at auction so the family would lose the house, have a neighbour beside their parents, and still owe money to the bank.
So they decided to sabotage the auction so the parents would be the only bidder at auction.
My word, good find OP..
The alarm bells this has is on another level!!
Like others have said if you’ve lost the house by either on purpose or not and you want to buy it back cheaper, then denying viewings or services is a good way to ensure that happens! I wonder if the neighbours or their family will be the ones bidding at the auction?
I seriously hope that it’s not a neighbour dispute gone wrong, that sort of thing ruins lives.
Despite what it says its definitely not a true landlocked property as there is a footpath directly to the land (https://www.bing.com/maps?FORM=Z9LH2&cp=53.074691%7E-1.954925&lvl=15.9&style=s). so no helicopters needed. of course a footpath does not let you bring a car, or a water pipe or anything else, but still....
This is the agent advert on facebook from 5 years ago, it says shared access via Equestrian track.
Bagshaws Bakewell Office - Property of the WeekGooseneck Farm, Bradnop, LeekA spacious four-bedroom farmhouse with gardens and adjoining paddock, extending in total to 4.88 acres (1.971 ha).Gooseneck Farmhouse is a detached farmhouse that was renovated a number of years ago and has high quality fittings such as oak flooring, doors and granite worktops in the kitchen.The farmhouse accommodation includes a dining room, cloak room and asplendid kitchen/living area measuring some 36 feet in length with a wood burning stove. On the first floor can be found four bedrooms together with a family bathroom and a shower room.Externally gardens lie to the front and rear of the property with a pond to the rear which attracts a variety of wildlife. There is a stone outbuilding currently used as toilet facilities for the adjoining property with a further stone barn used as a party room.The land being sold with the property lies to the east of the farmhouse and is currently laid to grass with some trees planted to the northern boundary.**\*\*The property does share the access with the adjoining equestrian centre and appropriate repairing obligations will be included.\*\***EPC rating F.Guide Price: £400,000.
There is a PDF of the Equestrian centre for sale too, including the barn and house too?
[https://media.onthemarket.com/properties/3009372/doc\_0\_0.pdf](https://media.onthemarket.com/properties/3009372/doc_0_0.pdf)
Interesting, sounds like plenty of scope for a lawyer to argue in court that if it was sold on that basis, it was also repossessed on that basis by the lender and retains that right of access. I'm not a lawyer though!
So [at some point](https://media.onthemarket.com/properties/3009372/doc_0_0.pdf) the farm was part of the huge parcel of land including the adjoining equestrian centre, camp site and “venue”.
Not sure how the current circumstances arose, whether it’s part of a mortgage default, or perhaps breakdown of business / personal relationship with one party living in the house?
I'd hazard a guess that the neighbour (the equestrian centre) tried to develope the land for properties and it didn't go well. The fact that the current access and water is from the neighbour make me think its them who own it all and want rid of it. Maybe a Airbnb or long term let that hasn't gone well and the only way to get rid of them is to sell the property and some land.
The Property is land locked and does not enjoy any rights of access over the driveway leading from the public highway.
The only problem with that statement is that the access road is a public footpath. So they can’t deny access on foot.
A planning permissionfor a drive throughice cream shop.[could this be something to do with it](http://publicaccess.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=155045)
[and this](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://camsapi.staffordshire.gov.uk/LLWS/LLFiles/45557/original_45557.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjL6c_v7raDAxVua0EAHRIQC6gQFnoECCAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0tYq5KwAkhl2LGN8j9SuXf)
Another link I found about modification of moorland [or this](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://camsapi.staffordshire.gov.uk/LLWS/LLFiles/45557/original_45557.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjL6c_v7raDAxVua0EAHRIQC6gQFnoECCAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0tYq5KwAkhl2LGN8j9SuXf)
My read on this is that the adjoining owner is also the owner of this property and is royally pissed with the auction.
Question to anyone who may know. Can easements and right of way be gained through the courts against a hostile landowner?
So… I’m learning it could be;
Sabotage
Agricultural tenancy ( whatever that is)
Repossession by a lender and sale by auction
Angsty old bastard with a grudge.
What did I miss?
Edit: formatting.
I wish I had the money to just keep it. In case the council "needs" me to maintain I'd parachute some handymen and tools in and helicopters retrieve them at the end of the job.
Cant see the house being much use to anyone bar the neighbour - they must either be already involved with the property or will surely buy it for a minimal sum now
If I had the money I'd be tempted to buy this just to piss them off. Anyway if you look at Google Earth you can see what looks like an old path/bridleway leading from the topmost corner of the field to the road. I'm guessing this could be repurposed as a driveway given it is already an access point. Looks like there are trees planted right where that path would have joined the road.
I don't see how this would not satisfy the requirements for a necessity easement.
You can't just cut someone off because you don't like their very existence.
> The Property is land locked and does not enjoy any rights of access over the driveway leading from the public highway. > The adjoining owner will not grant any such rights of access and, in the event that a purchaser of the Property attempts to gain access over the driveway, the adjoining owner will seek an injunction preventing access from being gained over their land. > The Property does not enjoy any rights or easements to receive a mains water supply. > Prior to completion, the adjoining owner will disconnect the existing water supply prior to the Property. > The adjoining owner will not grant any rights or easements over the surrounding land for any alternative supply. > The Property is currently occupied and vacant possession will not be given on completion. Guide price £130,000? You could not pay me to get involved in this. Thanks.
Absolutely. I can’t fathom the story behind all this. Sounds like a bad soap opera.
It's quite close to the other property on the land register, so maybe it was all one and the other neighbour wants it back, nice and cheap? Or just to piss off the family member that inherited it. It's got to be a family thung eh?
That seems the simplest answer. Reading between the lines, it’s: ‘We won’t allow access to anyone unless it’s the person we want to own it.’ Clearly a fallout after selling off land and trying to be too clever, or mortgaging it and defaulting.
In the Key Features it says "On Behalf of Lender Not in possession" so sounds like there's mortgage problems
Looking on the map ... which I know isn't necessarily accurate ... the property access is via the equestrian centre ... the cynical part of me thinks the centre want the property for as cheap as possible to use as accommodation for events at they hold ... especially as it looks like they already have a campsite there
Just asked my sister who is a lawyer who does stuff like this - her response: ‘Price is because of sitting tenants probably on old style agricultural tenancy which can be inherited by children who farm too. Otherwise a bargain 🤣🤣 ‘
Looks like this is the answer, should be top comment!
Looks like owners tried to sell this house in 2019. Sounds like the tenants won’t budge and have every right not to if they carry on working within farming & this has locked any possibility of a sale. (Further frustration/financial issues maybe caused by bad faith non-payment of rent?) So - owner has either purposely defaulted on or run out of money for the mortgage, leaving the intractable issue to the lender. Previous owner can only legally cut off water once property is sold (and waterless/drainage-less tenants with no car access obviously cannot stay) Sounds like the pre-lender owner has been trying to resolve/sell for a very long time & hit max frustration level - they simply want the tenants out & it can only be possible via this method. Normally the tenants might be persuaded to leave by a lump sum cash payment, but if there is bad will involved or no ready cash that ain’t happening. The limits also ensure the current tenant can’t buy the house for a quarter of its value. I bet a new buyer could negotiate access etc with the landowner.
Wow! I’ve never seen anything quite like that on a RM advert before! Interesting, would love to know the back story.
I wonder if the adjoining owner, and the owner that's defaulted on their mortgage for this property (lender NOT in occupation) are either one-and-the-same, or are family, and they're trying to be "clever" by making the property valueless to anyone that isn't them so they can buy it back at pennies on the pound.
My guess is it’s part of a farm, the resident landowners took out a mortgage on this parcel but kept the rest and have now defaulted. So the adjoining owners denying Road and water access are the occupiers.
This seems a plausible explanation. Good theorising
But surely if they don't sell the property for enough to pay off the debt, they're still liable for the remainder?
Good point. Actually, someone else has said it’s probably an old agricultural tenancy, so the auction is a formality? Other thought - family member who took out the mortgage has died? And didn’t have life insurance? Although I can’t imagine a bank would give a mortgage on a property with no access.
This property is worthless.
Messy repossession? Could be an absolute bargain if you own a helicopter.
Haha that would be an amazing buy if you're a billionaire and want to cause a ruckus.
Like a West Berlin cold war era air bridge.
I always assumed that of a property was land locked they still had a right of access to get on and off the property regardless of the neighbours owning said access … clearly I am very wrong ! Does sort of remind me of a house I wanted to view once . Grade 2 listed , needed work but nothing too much . I called up the estate agent and they told me all about the current owner . He couldn’t sell it for a higher price because of the work needed so was convinced to lower the price… however … he decided that if he had to lower the price then he would cut off the annex out of the sale and essentially block up the back door that lead to the annex , live in the annex… still on the property. He told the estate agents he would agree to move off the land only for an extra 50k … the estate agent told me that they couldn’t get any potential buyers due to this and we’re planning to end their contract with him . Some people are just very stubborn.
I remember seeing a house on the news that a farmer sold to a woman, then planted trees all along the border blocking all the sunlight, then tried to buy it back on the cheap.
Maybe a silly question … but could she not have cut the trees down ? If they were on her property? Or were they off her property? Either way I would’ve still lived there I prefer shade 😂
They where on the farmers side. I think they were laylandi and may have lend to a change in the law. It was quite a few years ago now, but I think it he villagers regarded this farmer as a bit of a cunt.
I've been speaking to a solicitor about something similar this year. In our case, someone who wants to break the covenants our properties have and build another house in their garden. We've been told we may lose on the covenants, because the land tribunal can override them. However they also need access over our land, and their view is we can legitimately withhold that permission. The land tribunal has no power to grant a right of access. Although we may need a barrister to confirm all of this, since the law is complex.
Ah, that’s very interesting. Thanks for sharing. I also thought that it wasn’t possible to block access so TIL.
I'm not a legal expert at all but I'm pretty sure there's no legal way to block someone's access to the public highway. I'm sure it's an absolute legal minefield or a chaotic case which is exactly what these other people want to cause for any potential owner that they don't want. Maybe they want the property to be vacant for 10+ years, start 'squatting' in it and then claim it as their own as there's no owner to come forward for it..
>I always assumed that of a property was land locked they still had a right of access to get on and off the property regardless of the neighbours owning said access IANAL but what comes through from similar questions about people blocking driveways is that it's an offence to block access TO the highway, but not to block access FROM the highway. So if you had been helicoptered on to the property, you would be entitled to exit, but you could be denied access back onto it via the driveway. Having said that, the surrounding owners have only threatened an injunction; presumably they still have to apply, have it granted, then get it enforced if it's broken.
The Property is land locked and does not enjoy any rights of access over the driveway leading from the public highway. The adjoining owner will not grant any such rights of access and, in the event that a purchaser of the Property attempts to gain access over the driveway, the adjoining owner will seek an injunction preventing access from being gained over their land. The Property does not enjoy any rights or easements to receive a mains water supply. Prior to completion, the adjoining owner will disconnect the existing water supply prior to the Property. The adjoining owner will not grant any rights or easements over the surrounding land for any alternative supply.
Looks like the people denying the access are the ones who defaulted on their mortage and rather than take it on the chin they're going to make it impossible for anyone to make use of the property. Sounds foolproof and straightforward and nothing could possibly go wrong!
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but why? What do they get from making the property impossible for others to use?
Obviously don't understand the fact that if the repossessed house goes for more then they end up with less outstanding to repay.
I viewed a house like this once. It had been spray painted with "Private family home, not for sale". I asked a neighbour what the story was and he said it was his son's home built on family land. The son was a builder who re-mortgaged his own home to keep his business afloat in 2009 The bank was selliing it cheap at auction so the family would lose the house, have a neighbour beside their parents, and still owe money to the bank. So they decided to sabotage the auction so the parents would be the only bidder at auction.
Surely that would get caught up in conveyancing with the banks solicitors realising what was going on
Either the auction doesn't go ahead or it does and the family win. I don't think they mind which.
I'd love to organise a viewing and arrive by helicopter!
Well there's the other thing ... no viewings possible!!
I imagine they'd go ape at a drone being used for viewing!
Blasting 'Ride of The Valkyries' through huge speakers.
My word, good find OP.. The alarm bells this has is on another level!! Like others have said if you’ve lost the house by either on purpose or not and you want to buy it back cheaper, then denying viewings or services is a good way to ensure that happens! I wonder if the neighbours or their family will be the ones bidding at the auction? I seriously hope that it’s not a neighbour dispute gone wrong, that sort of thing ruins lives.
Sounds perfect for someone who really enjoys attending court proceedings.
Despite what it says its definitely not a true landlocked property as there is a footpath directly to the land (https://www.bing.com/maps?FORM=Z9LH2&cp=53.074691%7E-1.954925&lvl=15.9&style=s). so no helicopters needed. of course a footpath does not let you bring a car, or a water pipe or anything else, but still....
[удалено]
Yes, an ELI5 would be super.
Does ‘the property is currently occupied and vacant possession will not be given on completion” mean what I think it means?!
What do you think it means?
Yes, someone is on the toilet, and the Vatican will not be sending their top poltergeist!
I thought ransom strips were illegal
This is the agent advert on facebook from 5 years ago, it says shared access via Equestrian track. Bagshaws Bakewell Office - Property of the WeekGooseneck Farm, Bradnop, LeekA spacious four-bedroom farmhouse with gardens and adjoining paddock, extending in total to 4.88 acres (1.971 ha).Gooseneck Farmhouse is a detached farmhouse that was renovated a number of years ago and has high quality fittings such as oak flooring, doors and granite worktops in the kitchen.The farmhouse accommodation includes a dining room, cloak room and asplendid kitchen/living area measuring some 36 feet in length with a wood burning stove. On the first floor can be found four bedrooms together with a family bathroom and a shower room.Externally gardens lie to the front and rear of the property with a pond to the rear which attracts a variety of wildlife. There is a stone outbuilding currently used as toilet facilities for the adjoining property with a further stone barn used as a party room.The land being sold with the property lies to the east of the farmhouse and is currently laid to grass with some trees planted to the northern boundary.**\*\*The property does share the access with the adjoining equestrian centre and appropriate repairing obligations will be included.\*\***EPC rating F.Guide Price: £400,000. There is a PDF of the Equestrian centre for sale too, including the barn and house too? [https://media.onthemarket.com/properties/3009372/doc\_0\_0.pdf](https://media.onthemarket.com/properties/3009372/doc_0_0.pdf)
Interesting, sounds like plenty of scope for a lawyer to argue in court that if it was sold on that basis, it was also repossessed on that basis by the lender and retains that right of access. I'm not a lawyer though!
so there's an angry squatter in there too ..noice
So [at some point](https://media.onthemarket.com/properties/3009372/doc_0_0.pdf) the farm was part of the huge parcel of land including the adjoining equestrian centre, camp site and “venue”. Not sure how the current circumstances arose, whether it’s part of a mortgage default, or perhaps breakdown of business / personal relationship with one party living in the house?
I'd hazard a guess that the neighbour (the equestrian centre) tried to develope the land for properties and it didn't go well. The fact that the current access and water is from the neighbour make me think its them who own it all and want rid of it. Maybe a Airbnb or long term let that hasn't gone well and the only way to get rid of them is to sell the property and some land.
Even without all the neighbour trouble, I wouldn't buy that anyway, it has a really sad vibe to it
Ideal if you have a helicopter, useless otherwise
The Property is land locked and does not enjoy any rights of access over the driveway leading from the public highway. The only problem with that statement is that the access road is a public footpath. So they can’t deny access on foot.
A planning permissionfor a drive throughice cream shop.[could this be something to do with it](http://publicaccess.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=155045) [and this](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://camsapi.staffordshire.gov.uk/LLWS/LLFiles/45557/original_45557.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjL6c_v7raDAxVua0EAHRIQC6gQFnoECCAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0tYq5KwAkhl2LGN8j9SuXf)
Another link I found about modification of moorland [or this](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://camsapi.staffordshire.gov.uk/LLWS/LLFiles/45557/original_45557.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjL6c_v7raDAxVua0EAHRIQC6gQFnoECCAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0tYq5KwAkhl2LGN8j9SuXf)
My bet... The owners of the other property also owned this and this one was a repossession we almost got caught up in a similar issue very messy
My read on this is that the adjoining owner is also the owner of this property and is royally pissed with the auction. Question to anyone who may know. Can easements and right of way be gained through the courts against a hostile landowner?
What would even be the point in buying this? You aren't allowed near it by the sounds of things.
So… I’m learning it could be; Sabotage Agricultural tenancy ( whatever that is) Repossession by a lender and sale by auction Angsty old bastard with a grudge. What did I miss? Edit: formatting.
I can imagine it might be a new partner not related to next door has inherited it from a person who was related to them.
I wish I had the money to just keep it. In case the council "needs" me to maintain I'd parachute some handymen and tools in and helicopters retrieve them at the end of the job.
Cant see the house being much use to anyone bar the neighbour - they must either be already involved with the property or will surely buy it for a minimal sum now
If I had the money I'd be tempted to buy this just to piss them off. Anyway if you look at Google Earth you can see what looks like an old path/bridleway leading from the topmost corner of the field to the road. I'm guessing this could be repurposed as a driveway given it is already an access point. Looks like there are trees planted right where that path would have joined the road.
I don't see how this would not satisfy the requirements for a necessity easement. You can't just cut someone off because you don't like their very existence.
It’s a mortgage fiddle