Who’s rights?

[Ffermer Bach]

I think I would be inclined to insist the sellers obtain full occupancy of the land (and indemnify you against any claims), then buy, if they refuse to do that, walk away and find somewhere else to buy. It's their problem to sort out, not yours (unless that is factored into the price!).

 

[teslacoils]

should I try talking to the farmers directly? To gauge their views? Maybe they’ll be understanding knowing a welsh family is wanting to move back to the area? Or am I being optimistic? If they haven’t paid rent could they still claim tenancy? Apparently one has been grazing the land since before 1986 and was paying rent up until 20 years ago

Absolutely not. Don't make this personal. It is not and should not be your problem.

 

[Married 2 The Mob]

Absolutely not. Don't make this personal. It is not and should not be your problem.

Agree with this! Don't put ideas in the neighbours heads either.

 

[ISCO]

Wrong. Plenty of unploughed grassland/rough is AHA

OP...if your solicitor isn't bringing this to your close attention......double cripes

Wrong I mean to claim an AHA through simply possessing it I think cultivating is required as ther were a range of grazing agreements back in the day that were used to avoid AHA tenancy on grazing. Obviously if expressly let on an AHA then it can be grazing land.

 

[Cymruambyth]

Absolutely not. Don't make this personal. It is not and should not be your problem.

Forget AHA or FBT, they can claim "occupancy" in the same way a squatter can. Best speak to the neighbours and get something in writing.

Even if they haven’t had exclusive use of the land?

 

[britt]

Even if they haven’t had exclusive use of the land?

Yes. The same as claiming a right of way or access if use has been uncontested for long enough. It's also the same for sporting rights.
It may be different in Wales.

 

[Cymruambyth]

I should probably say the seller (elderly couples daughter) has very recently put her name down as the tenant with RPW. Does this make a difference? Assuming the farmers have been made aware of this as they would have been claiming the money for the land? The seller has basically said it will be up to the buyer to sort out the land. She has put her name down as the tenant and as far as she’s concerned this will cease on point of sale? She doesn’t see the issue

 

[Roger Perry]

I should probably say the seller (elderly couples daughter) has very recently put her name down as the tenant with RPW. Does this make a difference? Assuming the farmers have been made aware of this as they would have been claiming the money for the land? The seller has basically said it will be up to the buyer to sort out the land. She has put her name down as the tenant and as far as she’s concerned this will cease on point of sale? She doesn’t see the issue

If the seller cannot offer free title to the land what is the point, please do not let your enthusiasm to own a bit of real estate blind you to what could be a lot of heartache.
Your first phone call should be to a well qualified real estate attorney, good luck.

 

[Goweresque]

I should probably say the seller (elderly couples daughter) has very recently put her name down as the tenant with RPW. Does this make a difference? Assuming the farmers have been made aware of this as they would have been claiming the money for the land? The seller has basically said it will be up to the buyer to sort out the land. She has put her name down as the tenant and as far as she’s concerned this will cease on point of sale? She doesn’t see the issue

Either the vendors are selling with vacant possession or they aren't. If they are, then you can sue them if someone claims a tenancy (or some other dispute over ownership), and if they aren't then the price needs to reflect this known legal issue. They appear to be attempting to offload a huge pile of legal trouble onto you, which should be their problem to sort out before they sell, or take the hit on what they can get for the property. Paying top dollar for the property and taking on a legal fight over ownership/tenancies is not on, and you'd be a fool to even consider it.

The fact the daughter may have been claiming any farm subsidies on the land in recent years doesn't make any difference to the legal matter at hand - has the neighbour been in possession of the land for over 20 years, and are they going to claim either an AHA tenancy or even possibly adverse possession? Who has had the agricultural subsidies in the last few years has no impact on that question at all. Its all about physical possession and use of the land over the last 30-40 years.

 

[Dry Rot]

I should probably say the seller (elderly couples daughter) has very recently put her name down as the tenant with RPW. Does this make a difference? Assuming the farmers have been made aware of this as they would have been claiming the money for the land? The seller has basically said it will be up to the buyer to sort out the land. She has put her name down as the tenant and as far as she’s concerned this will cease on point of sale? She doesn’t see the issue

If the occupier is not paying rent, where's the tenancy? If you have been informed that she is claiming she is the tenant, get a lawyer/land agent quick as the situation may change if she can show that you/owners have acceoted her as the tenant. In the past, it was not unusual for rent to be a nominal amount (e.g. a 'pepper corn', £1, whatever...if asked). Just looking after the land has monetary value and could be argued that it's in lieu of rent. Payment of rent is evidence of a tenancy.

 

[ISCO]

You really do need a good agent and solicitor who understand agricultural law. Explain your concerns and let them sort it out. They should now the enquiries to raise.
When they have reached an opinion they will give you written advice as to any risks involved. If their advice is that there is no problem and the contract states vacant possession then go ahead, if they are wrong you have 3 parties to sue.
If they have concerns ask the seller to rectify and if they will not walk away.
I would want the seller to obtain a signed deed from the occupiers relinquishing all claims to any tenancy or rights of adverse possession.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

Forget AHA or FBT, they can claim "occupancy" in the same way a squatter can. Best speak to the neighbours and get something in writing.

Which isn't the buyers problem if it's being sold with vacant possession.

 

[Still Farming]

Prior 1985?

 

[Kidds]

@Cymruambyth You apparently joined the forum in order to ask your question. Assuming you are not a long time lurker you possibly don't have any idea about the people answering.
Can I just say the people that have given you advice are well versed in such matters and you need to take on board what they have said.
Basically you need to engage with a good solicitor on your behalf and you need to purchase with vacant possession. Anything other than that is foolish and will likely result in disaster.
The two farmers might be nice and just move off after having free roam for 20 odd years and the owner now claims to be the tenant so that's OK is naivety on an extraordinary level.
I wish you the best of luck but you do need to listen to the excellent advice you have been given.

​

​

 

[BRB John]

Oh boy so many red flags!
OP is heading straight towards a living nightmare. Thankfully TFF is here too try and speak some sense into them.
You need to speak to the farmers involved and figure out their intentions.

 

[Goweresque]

You need to speak to the farmers involved and figure out their intentions.

I wouldn't. For 2 reasons a) its likely to put ideas in their heads if they don't have them already, and b) it would be best coming from the daughter of the person(s) who were their neighbours for many years. They might be prepared to withdraw gracefully on the behalf of a relative of someone who had done them a favour for many years, a newcomer (whether Welsh or not) will not be given the same leeway.

I'd guess the vendor has already spoken to the neighbours and knows which way the wind is blowing, and its not good news. Hence the attempt to hustle the OP into buying it without the issue being sorted properly.

 

[BRB John]

I wouldn't. For 2 reasons a) its likely to put ideas in their heads if they don't have them already, and b) it would be best coming from the daughter of the person(s) who were their neighbours for many years. They might be prepared to withdraw gracefully on the behalf of a relative of someone who had done them a favour for many years, a newcomer (whether Welsh or not) will not be given the same leeway.

I'd guess the vendor has already spoken to the neighbours and knows which way the wind is blowing, and its not good news. Hence the attempt to hustle the OP into buying it without the issue being sorted properly.

No way is it good news.
What kind of "good" neighbours just let their livestock roam another neighbours farm without paying a rent or being in regular contact with the elderly couple....

 

[neilo]

I should probably say the seller (elderly couples daughter) has very recently put her name down as the tenant with RPW. Does this make a difference? Assuming the farmers have been made aware of this as they would have been claiming the money for the land? The seller has basically said it will be up to the buyer to sort out the land. She has put her name down as the tenant and as far as she’s concerned this will cease on point of sale? She doesn’t see the issue

Alarm bells should be ringing!

 

[teslacoils]

I should probably say the seller (elderly couples daughter) has very recently put her name down as the tenant with RPW. Does this make a difference? Assuming the farmers have been made aware of this as they would have been claiming the money for the land? The seller has basically said it will be up to the buyer to sort out the land. She has put her name down as the tenant and as far as she’s concerned this will cease on point of sale? She doesn’t see the issue

Who chose your solicitor? Have you bought a home before?

Your solicitor should tell you if it's an issue. You should not be speaking to the vendor, or these occupiers. Your getting emotionally attached which is not wise. You don't want to get saddled with a disaster.

 

[betweenthelines]

The farmers could turn round and say they have paid a nominal rent-or made payment in kind-to the now deceased owners over the last few years. Might even be true.