New House - But someone else has shooting rights!
Discussion
5 months into a house purchase, and possibly days from exchange, and we have just been given the paperwork that you'd expect you saw before you even offered! Anyway, couple of issues that might be irrelevant or might not - solicitor is shrugging them off but I thought I would gather opinion from randoms on the Internet.
First one is that in 1954 the little old lady that used to own some of the land we are buying (along with a further six or 7 acres that is no longer part of the property) sold the house but retained the shooting rights for her and a couple of people that were co-executors, with her, of her dead husbands estate. And importantly, those rights to pass down to their children, grandchildren, etc.
So theoretically, somebody has the right to come onto our land to trap and shoot animals (it doesn't apply to all of our land because some of what we are buying is sourced from elsewhere) - now there is no indication in recent years that this right has ever been exercised. In fact there may not be anybody alive to exercise it-or if they are, they might not be aware of a 70-year-old bit of paperwork giving them rights to something that might be on the other side of the world from where they now live! Also, the land which applies to is basically a small area of Meadow and Woodland behind our house which is more wild garden than countryside. It is also fenced on all boundaries because we border fields with livestock. So I'm not sure how people would gain access and I'm not sure they'd want to. So no big deal?
And what I'm mad at, another parcel of land we are buying has covenants on it but the paperwork has been lost so no one knows what they are. Our solicitor has suggested, and other side has agreed, to an indemnity policy. Again, no big deal or possible disaster? The land is currently agricultural/woodland and we have no intention of doing anything with it other than that.
It is basically going to be for our animals and the woodland to walk on so it's not like we want to put up a carpark or something!
Big issues or non-issues?
First one is that in 1954 the little old lady that used to own some of the land we are buying (along with a further six or 7 acres that is no longer part of the property) sold the house but retained the shooting rights for her and a couple of people that were co-executors, with her, of her dead husbands estate. And importantly, those rights to pass down to their children, grandchildren, etc.
So theoretically, somebody has the right to come onto our land to trap and shoot animals (it doesn't apply to all of our land because some of what we are buying is sourced from elsewhere) - now there is no indication in recent years that this right has ever been exercised. In fact there may not be anybody alive to exercise it-or if they are, they might not be aware of a 70-year-old bit of paperwork giving them rights to something that might be on the other side of the world from where they now live! Also, the land which applies to is basically a small area of Meadow and Woodland behind our house which is more wild garden than countryside. It is also fenced on all boundaries because we border fields with livestock. So I'm not sure how people would gain access and I'm not sure they'd want to. So no big deal?
And what I'm mad at, another parcel of land we are buying has covenants on it but the paperwork has been lost so no one knows what they are. Our solicitor has suggested, and other side has agreed, to an indemnity policy. Again, no big deal or possible disaster? The land is currently agricultural/woodland and we have no intention of doing anything with it other than that.
It is basically going to be for our animals and the woodland to walk on so it's not like we want to put up a carpark or something!
Big issues or non-issues?
Do you intend to exercise the sporting rights for the land?
If not and the sporting rights belong to someone who potentially has no idea they have the sporting rights then no big deal.
Anyone who would exercise the sporting rights would have to comply with the general licenses and wild game seasons anyway. No one is going to come onto the land and shoot at your livestock or pets. Not legally anyway.
Is the land part of or adjacent to a larger estate on which shooting activities are held?
Worst case is that the sporting rights are leased to the adjacent estates and are used as a part of the wider shooting area. Even if this is the case it's unlikely that there is any actual shooting due to proximity to properties. You may get a few people with dogs walk through and flush out any game birds that may be on the land. At the most this would be one or two days per week from October 1st to January 31st.
You could always approach the owners of the sporting rights and offer to purchase them. Unless your on prime Scottish Highlands, a grouse moor or are a part of a wider shooting estate then they'll likely be exchanged for relative pennies.
IME those subject to the above are often treated quite well by the estates 'keeper' and it's not uncommon to be offered free shot game, a bottle of something at Christmas etc. They'll want to keep you onside for ongoing access to the land.
They may also, with consent of the owner, tend the land to ensure it remains favourable habitat for game and that it can be easily access during the season. Think access styles in fencing, cutting rides through brush etc. Also pest control which is a plus if you intend to keep fowl on your land.
If not and the sporting rights belong to someone who potentially has no idea they have the sporting rights then no big deal.
Anyone who would exercise the sporting rights would have to comply with the general licenses and wild game seasons anyway. No one is going to come onto the land and shoot at your livestock or pets. Not legally anyway.
Is the land part of or adjacent to a larger estate on which shooting activities are held?
Worst case is that the sporting rights are leased to the adjacent estates and are used as a part of the wider shooting area. Even if this is the case it's unlikely that there is any actual shooting due to proximity to properties. You may get a few people with dogs walk through and flush out any game birds that may be on the land. At the most this would be one or two days per week from October 1st to January 31st.
You could always approach the owners of the sporting rights and offer to purchase them. Unless your on prime Scottish Highlands, a grouse moor or are a part of a wider shooting estate then they'll likely be exchanged for relative pennies.
IME those subject to the above are often treated quite well by the estates 'keeper' and it's not uncommon to be offered free shot game, a bottle of something at Christmas etc. They'll want to keep you onside for ongoing access to the land.
They may also, with consent of the owner, tend the land to ensure it remains favourable habitat for game and that it can be easily access during the season. Think access styles in fencing, cutting rides through brush etc. Also pest control which is a plus if you intend to keep fowl on your land.
Edited by dci on Thursday 17th October 11:26
Just bear in mind that indemnity policy will have a clause to say you can't investigate what these covenants are or you will void the policy. They don't want you digging and possibly causing them to have to pay out. I'm not really sure how that leaves you. I suppose you carry on as normal and if someone points out, and has proof, that what you have done breaches the covenant then the policy will cover it.
But you can't know what that is!
But you can't know what that is!
Shooting rights: check the paperwork and if it’s limited to the original owner and descendants and NOT attached ti the land itself, then you can investigate if any such descendants are still around and if not then it’s a non issue. If the right is attached to the land then it’s a judgement you’ll have to take about the likelihood of any trapping happening. Shooting is probably less of an issue as they would be required to ensure no pellets fell beyond the boundary, and if there’s any chance of you being in adjacent land then it would be a non starter.
Covenants can only be enforced by the named beneficiary. Again if they’re not identifiable/around then it shouldn’t be a practical issue. An indemnity policy is probably the way forward, but really you need to determine the likelihood of the covenant being enforced.
It’s not unusual for land to come with historic peccadilloes, the key thing is to understand/investigate them to see if they are purely historic or actually possible to cause you issues.
Covenants can only be enforced by the named beneficiary. Again if they’re not identifiable/around then it shouldn’t be a practical issue. An indemnity policy is probably the way forward, but really you need to determine the likelihood of the covenant being enforced.
It’s not unusual for land to come with historic peccadilloes, the key thing is to understand/investigate them to see if they are purely historic or actually possible to cause you issues.
ok - sounds fine. It would be almost impossible to shoot much on the 4 acres it applies to without pellets falling on either our house or the other 6 acres we own that doesn't have those rights. And there won't be any game to shoot as the land is all going to be either wild meadow/woods that my dogs will roam freely around or for our animals (wife wants goats, chickens, 2 alpacas and a couple of pigs called Maveric and Goose) No geese though, ironically.
dci said:
Anyone who would exercise the sporting rights would have to comply with the general licenses and wild game seasons anyway. No one is going to come onto the land and shoot at your livestock or pets. Not legally anyway.
Would they have the right to roll up and lamp rabbits, say?otolith said:
Would they have the right to roll up and lamp rabbits, say?
Theoretically yes but the chances of being in a position to own sporting rights and also be into working sight hounds are slim. Two very different parts of society. Would depend on the wording of the rights. They may apply to sporting quarry only (gamebirds, wildfowl, deer etc). Pest control may well be the responsibility of the landowner and rabbits would likely fall into pest rather than game.
dci said:
Theoretically yes but the chances of being in a position to own sporting rights and also be into working sight hounds are slim. Two very different parts of society.
Would depend on the wording of the rights. They may apply to sporting quarry only (gamebirds, wildfowl, deer etc). Pest control may well be the responsibility of the landowner and rabbits would likely fall into pest rather than game.
In 1954 when the rights were retained, absolutely, but we're two or three generations removed from the original holder, I'd be concerned that they could belong to anyone now.Would depend on the wording of the rights. They may apply to sporting quarry only (gamebirds, wildfowl, deer etc). Pest control may well be the responsibility of the landowner and rabbits would likely fall into pest rather than game.
I do think it's unlikely that whoever is entitled to them knows or cares, though.
otolith said:
In 1954 when the rights were retained, absolutely, but we're two or three generations removed from the original holder, I'd be concerned that they could belong to anyone now.
I do think it's unlikely that whoever is entitled to them knows or cares, though.
The rights almost certainly don’t pass down to all of the children and should have been dealt with properly by the executor of the lady’s estate. The bigger issue for anyone turning up is going to be, if challenged, is not whether the rights once existed but proving that they are the holder of the rights (i.e. exactly how they were inherited or transferred). If they can’t prove it, armed trespass is a serious business…I do think it's unlikely that whoever is entitled to them knows or cares, though.
Shooting rights are great, you could dig a pond out and probably charge 5k a year for a duck shoot? Or run a very very small pheasant shoot? But if there's nothing organised or to shoot at, there's absolutely zero issue for you. I would try and retain the rights and take it as a plus, it's worth something to someone when you come to sell.
Mark Lewis said:
ok - sounds fine. It would be almost impossible to shoot much on the 4 acres it applies to without pellets falling on either our house or the other 6 acres we own that doesn't have those rights. And there won't be any game to shoot as the land is all going to be either wild meadow/woods that my dogs will roam freely around or for our animals (wife wants goats, chickens, 2 alpacas and a couple of pigs called Maveric and Goose) No geese though, ironically.
You could get some pigeons in the woods I assume. I did know a wood nearby where I used to work where we given some obscure legal right to shoot there (ie employees) very rarely done but it did happen when some found out about it.
Fatboy said:
borcy said:
.
I did know a wood nearby where I used to work where we given some obscure legal right to shoot there (ie employees) very rarely done but it did happen when some found out about it.
You were allowed to shoot the employees? I did know a wood nearby where I used to work where we given some obscure legal right to shoot there (ie employees) very rarely done but it did happen when some found out about it.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff