BACK TO THE CLAYS

[2shots]

JUST HAD A PHONE CALL TO SAY MY OLD FARMER MATE HAS

SOLD HIS FARM BUILDINGS FOR HOUSE CONVERSIONS, AND THE NEW

OWNERS DONT WANT ANY ACTIVITIES THAT DISTURB THIER PEACE,

WHICH UNFORTUNATELY INCLUDES OUR SHOOTING AND MADE HIM

SIGN A (COVENANT) OR SOMETHING??, HES ALLOWED TO USE A GAS GUN

ONLY FROM NOW ON DURING DAYTIME ONLY AND ONLY AT 2 HOUR

INTERVALS, SO ITS BACK TO THE CLAY PIGEONS AND A LOT OF DOOR

KNOCKING, WE CAN STILL CONTROL VERMIN BUT NO GUNS OR SHOOTING

AS THE NEW OWNERS DONT WANT IT, BUT WHEN SOMEONE PAYS HALF A

MILLION FOR YOUR RUNDOWNS I SUPPOSE YOU DONT ARGUE. ITS BEEN

A REALLY REALLY BAD 18 MONTHS

[Hunter]

Welcome to the club.. you arent alone

[Dr W]

That's crazy, he should have held out that pest control was part of running a farm and if they wanted to be in the countryside then they needed to get used to it.

[Taff Mason]

don't worry mate, when the rabbits are digging up their lawns an pigeons crapping all over their patio furniture they'll be begging for you to come back

Edited May 7, 2008 by Taff Mason

[Axe]

That's crazy, he should have held out that pest control was part of running a farm and if they wanted to be in the countryside then they needed to get used to it.

 

And turn down £500,000? you must be kidding.

[2shots]

That's crazy, he should have held out that pest control was part of running a farm and if they wanted to be in the countryside then they needed to get used to it.

 

And turn down £500,000? you must be kidding.

 

I KNOW WE MAY HAVE LOST THE SHOOTING BUT I WOULDNT HAVE TURNED THIS DOWN EITHER

BUT THERES A CATCH,WEVE

JUST FOUND OUT THAT THE MONEY WE PAID FOR THE SHOOTING RIGHTS OVER 15 YEARS AGO

COULD STILL BE A LEGAL CONTRACT, AS MY MATE JUST FOUND THE PAPERWORK STATING WE BOUGHT THE RIGHTS,

WHAT DO YOU THINK? WORTH THE HASSLE???.OR WOULD WE BE PEEING INTO THE WIND,MY

MATES OFF TO THE SOLICITORS NOW.

[russuk]

So you own the shooting rights on the land?

[2shots]

:good:BOUGHT FROM AN AD IN SHOOTING TIMES IN 1993

[Dr W]

That's crazy, he should have held out that pest control was part of running a farm and if they wanted to be in the countryside then they needed to get used to it.

 

And turn down £500,000? you must be kidding.

 

I'm sure if someone was willing to pay then so would another

[2shots]

well its definitely gone :look: the shooting rights were an agreement

made by his brother who died in 2001 and went with him,weve been shooting

the pigeons and rabbits since then just out of friendship.Were still allowed

on the land with ferrets etc,and after speaking to IAN the farmer this

morning hes talking to the new owner to try to lift the covenant on shooting

the vermin but only at certain times, well fingers crossed.Thats both our

shoots gone to the money in the last few months. :look:

[Taff Mason]

usually a covanant says something like '' cannot use the land for the shooting of game or vermin at times that would cause a annoyance to the occupier'' soy you may still get some shooting.

[Harnser]

Land can be sold without the new owner having the sporting rights . Or sporting rights can be bought without owning the land .

This happend a few years ago to somebody that i know who bought 1000 acres to farm. But the sporting rights had been retaind by the vendor .This all turned sour when the shooters fell out with the new owner over the siting of cover crops and release pens . It all ended when the new owner had to buy the sporting rights seperately from the original vendor . The whole issue caused a lot of grief for all concerned . Harnser .

[2shots]

Land can be sold without the new owner having the sporting rights . Or sporting rights can be bought without owning the land .

This happend a few years ago to somebody that i know who bought 1000 acres to farm. But the sporting rights had been retaind by the vendor .This all turned sour when the shooters fell out with the new owner over the siting of cover crops and release pens . It all ended when the new owner had to buy the sporting rights seperately from the original vendor . The whole issue caused a lot of grief for all concerned . Harnser .

 

WERE JUST GOING TO PLAY THE WAITING GAME NOW AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS,

IANS REALLY A MATE AND I DONT WANT TO UPSET THE APPLE CART,GOING TO

SEE GRAHAM THE NEW MAN AT THE WEEKEND FOR A CHAT SO FINGERS CROSSED. :look:

[Harnser]

Land can be sold without the new owner having the sporting rights . Or sporting rights can be bought without owning the land .

This happend a few years ago to somebody that i know who bought 1000 acres to farm. But the sporting rights had been retaind by the vendor .This all turned sour when the shooters fell out with the new owner over the siting of cover crops and release pens . It all ended when the new owner had to buy the sporting rights seperately from the original vendor . The whole issue caused a lot of grief for all concerned . Harnser .

 

WERE JUST GOING TO PLAY THE WAITING GAME NOW AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS,

IANS REALLY A MATE AND I DONT WANT TO UPSET THE APPLE CART,GOING TO

SEE GRAHAM THE NEW MAN AT THE WEEKEND FOR A CHAT SO FINGERS CROSSED. :look:

 

Good luck , let us know how you got on . Harnser .

[2shots]

WILL DO :look:

[cubix]

"Land can be sold without the new owner having the sporting rights . Or sporting rights can be bought without owning the land . "

 

Not true - I have had some recent experience of this and have taken specific legal advice regarding that exact point - if you own the land, you own the beasts on it and you have to right to take them how you choose , its part and parcel of what owning land is about. It's like owning a car but not being allowed to sit in it. Or buying a house but not being able to sit down in it.

 

When you see adverts for shooting rights for sale, what is for sale is in fact a lease.

 

It is possible for land to be sold with a covenant which stipulates certain activites which cant be done - e.g. rallying, clay pigeon shooting. But if someone else has claimed to have retained to right to shoot, then in fact they are still enjoying the benefit of owning the land, without actually owning it - which doesn't make sense. You can't have your cake and eat it.

 

The other issues of '' cannot use the land for the shooting of game or vermin at times that would cause a annoyance to the occupier'' - that's written in statute anyway.

 

2shots - your farmer might be trying to delicately get out of a tricky situation, if he agreed to the covenant for 500k to get rid of the land then it's no skin off his nose, he still got the cash, even if the covenant is legally indefensible. In fact what has probably happened is that he has had to say that there is no shooting leased off to anyone which will be a burden on the buyer and he doesnt want you to kick off about it - because he sold you the lease originally.

 

That's my opinion, not my advice!

[2shots]

Hi cubix meeting them at the weekend so will be testing the water

then ,see what happens :look:

[Harnser]

"Land can be sold without the new owner having the sporting rights . Or sporting rights can be bought without owning the land . "

 

Not true - I have had some recent experience of this and have taken specific legal advice regarding that exact point - if you own the land, you own the beasts on it and you have to right to take them how you choose , its part and parcel of what owning land is about. It's like owning a car but not being allowed to sit in it. Or buying a house but not being able to sit down in it.

 

When you see adverts for shooting rights for sale, what is for sale is in fact a lease.

 

It is possible for land to be sold with a covenant which stipulates certain activites which cant be done - e.g. rallying, clay pigeon shooting. But if someone else has claimed to have retained to right to shoot, then in fact they are still enjoying the benefit of owning the land, without actually owning it - which doesn't make sense. You can't have your cake and eat it.

 

The other issues of '' cannot use the land for the shooting of game or vermin at times that would cause a annoyance to the occupier'' - that's written in statute anyway.

 

2shots - your farmer might be trying to delicately get out of a tricky situation, if he agreed to the covenant for 500k to get rid of the land then it's no skin off his nose, he still got the cash, even if the covenant is legally indefensible. In fact what has probably happened is that he has had to say that there is no shooting leased off to anyone which will be a burden on the buyer and he doesnt want you to kick off about it - because he sold you the lease originally.

 

That's my opinion, not my advice!

 

cubix ,

What you are saying is proberbly true . What i am saying is that when my friend bought the land the sporting rights were not included in the sale . They may have been retaind by way of a lease ,covenant or what ever .The fact was he could not get rid of the sporting tennants for two years after he bought the land . Believe me he sought legal advise and it cost him money . He eventually had to buy back the shooting rights to get rid of the shooting tennant . This happend about 20 years ago ,maybe the law has changed since then . Harnser .

[cubix]

Your bud may have even asked for the arrangement with you to be carried on, but I suppose if you bought a chunk of land you'd want a fresh start and choose who shoots, yourself.

 

Best move might be to offer a bit of a bribe for a year's shooting/offer to take them out shooting? plus you're solving the new owners Pest control Act problem.

 

My first act would be to hand him my SGC/FAC/BASC insurance as I said hello. And I'd go alone.

 

If nothing came of it my last act would be to ask - 'Hypothetically, what would you want a person to do in order to shoot here'?

 

Let us know how you get on, interesting test case on how deal with a new land owner. Good luck!

[cubix]

Hi Harnser

 

I think we crossed posts.

 

What you say often happens, and has just happened to a good friend of mine up here. Bought a big farmhouse with a few acres, wasn't interested in the shooting and didnt really tell his solicitor to scrutinise a condition from the farmer who sold him it which was along the lines of 'I keep the shooting' when it was brought to his attention.

 

When he went back and looked at it, the terms of sale were actually 'I sell you this, and you lease back the shooting to me until I die'.

 

Perfectly legal to do and if my mate sells the place on the new owner can say to the farmer 'gerrof my land', in which case the farmer goes to my friend and does him for breach of contract, not the new owner. It compells my mate to put that condition into any subsequent sale to cover his own back - very clever from the farmer.

 

There is the overriding principle that my freind owns the animals and shooting rights, he can tell the farmer to get stuffed, but the farmer could be entiteld to claim back some compensation - he can't force my friend to let him shoot.

 

The farmer has followed his solicitors advice - ask for as much as you can and see if they give you it and see if you can getaway with it. In practice his most realistic option is to compensate him for the loss of the lease e.g. buy it back, like your friend had to.

 

I think this is why shoots are increasingly sold a day/few days at a time - if you let it out on a long term lease you are opening yourself up to things like adverse possession claims and breach of contract, esp if money has changed hands. and if you are sued it wont just be for the unused lease money back, it will be for 2ndary damages as well, and costs.

 

If you really want the shooting with no hassle - then a minimum is to take a long lease on some land, rather than buy it outright.

 

The complexity is frightening when you get into it.

 

Its also funny when you consider ALL property is theft! and we only get to do stuff on our land by the good graces of the Queen.

 

Best. etc

[Harnser]

Hi Harnser

 

I think we crossed posts.

 

What you say often happens, and has just happened to a good friend of mine up here. Bought a big farmhouse with a few acres, wasn't interested in the shooting and didnt really tell his solicitor to scrutinise a condition from the farmer who sold him it which was along the lines of 'I keep the shooting' when it was brought to his attention.

 

When he went back and looked at it, the terms of sale were actually 'I sell you this, and you lease back the shooting to me until I die'.

 

Perfectly legal to do and if my mate sells the place on the new owner can say to the farmer 'gerrof my land', in which case the farmer goes to my friend and does him for breach of contract, not the new owner. It compells my mate to put that condition into any subsequent sale to cover his own back - very clever from the farmer.

 

There is the overriding principle that my freind owns the animals and shooting rights, he can tell the farmer to get stuffed, but the farmer could be entiteld to claim back some compensation - he can't force my friend to let him shoot.

 

The farmer has followed his solicitors advice - ask for as much as you can and see if they give you it and see if you can getaway with it. In practice his most realistic option is to compensate him for the loss of the lease e.g. buy it back, like your friend had to.

 

I think this is why shoots are increasingly sold a day/few days at a time - if you let it out on a long term lease you are opening yourself up to things like adverse possession claims and breach of contract, esp if money has changed hands. and if you are sued it wont just be for the unused lease money back, it will be for 2ndary damages as well, and costs.

 

If you really want the shooting with no hassle - then a minimum is to take a long lease on some land, rather than buy it outright.

 

The complexity is frightening when you get into it.

 

Its also funny when you consider ALL property is theft! and we only get to do stuff on our land by the good graces of the Queen.

 

Best. etc

 

Thanks for that cubix , I now understand what you are saying . It takes a while for the penny to drop .After all i am only a simple little country boy ,well not that little ,but yes simple . I can also play the age card as well . All the best Harnser .

[2shots]

Well heres the update we lost the land today and my mate

accepted £1500 compensation off Ian the farmer £750 each,the new

owner of the buildings wont even allow the vermin control as his wife

does not agree with it,Ian tried his best but has to respect thier wishes.

When my mate rang he told me that the woman was screaming like a

lunatic and had to be calmed down by her husband,so not to cause any

bother my mate swapped the paperwork for the cash. Ian is trying to

get us some shooting sorted from mates ,so we wait and see,and it

was him that handed the cash over. The new bloke ripped the papers up

in front of everyone to calm his wife down.He reckons by the look on

Ians face he regrets the sale anyway as hes had nothing but grief since.

Makes you wonder why some people want to live in the middle of nowhere

when they dont understand the lifestyle and arent bothered about finding out,

profit maybe

[2shots]

Forgot to mention steve my mate whos 6 foot 6 got a slipper chucked at

him when she stood in a cow **** when throwing a tantrum,he says he couldnt

keep his laugh in and had to walk away. wish Id been there I would

have chucked it back