Party Wall Agreement

MattDamien

Registered User
Messages
3
Hello
My neighbour and I agreed and signed a party-wall agreement so that he could build his extension, and so that I could eventually use this wall, if I wanted to extend.
He is now selling.
How does this affect things with the new owner?
Will the new owner be bound by this agreement also? It doesnt mention change of ownership in the agreement
Thanks
Matt
 
So does that mean that the agreement dies with the sale?

Unless there's something like a wayleave registered against the property itself, a third party can not be forced to honour an agreement they had no part in. That would open huge potential for issues in property transfer. Imagine if I could sign an agreement to let a neighbour take over most of my garden, I then sell my house and the purchaser later gets landed with this...
 
Unless there's something like a wayleave registered against the property itself, a third party can not be forced to honour an agreement they had no part in. That would open huge potential for issues in property transfer. Imagine if I could sign an agreement to let a neighbour take over most of my garden, I then sell my house and the purchaser later gets landed with this...
Yes they can be so bound. I draft agreements all the time that follow an asset. That’s why I have suggested that the agreement to be given to the solicitor. He or she will be able to work out whether this is drafted in that way.
 
Yes they can be so bound. I draft agreements all the time that follow an asset. That’s why I have suggested that the agreement to be given to the solicitor. He or she will be able to work out whether this is drafted in that way.

That's interesting. How would someone purchasing property protect themselves against such agreements?
 
They include a warranty in the purchase agreement that no such agreements exist. It’s one of the standard boilerplate clauses that very few people read
 
They include a warranty in the purchase agreement that no such agreements exist. It’s one of the standard boilerplate clauses that very few people read

So how does the OP guarantee that such a disclosure is included in the contract? If they approach the new purchaser down the line, what is the legal basis for enforcement of an agreement they were not party to, and is not registered against the property?

When I purchased my current property, there was cable TV lines running along the front of the house. My solicitor confirmed that there was no leave registered relating to them, and as a result the cable company's right of access to enter my property died with the transfer of ownership.

Edit: Case where a claim based on agreement formed by a previous owner was not found to carry over to new owners.
 
Last edited:
Presumably he is on good terms with the neighbour, and if so would just simply remind him or her to give it to his solicitor. If he is not on good terms with his neighbour he would look up the agency had managing the sale, find out the solicitors instructed on the sale and write to them.

Alternatively, as has been suggested, he could attempt to register the agreement in relation to the property perhaps.
 
Yeah, I'm just looking at it from the other party's POV. Adding such an agreement to a property sale contract might affect some buyers willingness to proceed or how they value the property.

Now the other party is selling it's probably too late to start registering the agreement. It should be done at the time, but many people won't want to take on the costs involved, even though it might save them lots of grief down the line.
 
Thanks for your advice and contributions.
The agreement has a clause saying "It is further agreed that both parties to this agreement, their successors on title and assigns can use the first-floor party wall for the purposes of building a first-floor extension onto either property" - so, does then mean that I should be in the clear, making sure his solicitor is given the signed document before any sale is agreed?
 
Unless the agreement was registered against the title, the successors clause is unenforceable.
 
Back
Top