Paul Herber wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 01:34:38 -0000, Rob Morley
wrote:

In article
The3rd Earl Of Derby wrote:
Roly wrote:
A friend of mine is trying to discover exactly when her house was
built.

The deeds don't help as it originally was a local authority house
and the deeds only start when it was sold to the private sector.

It's obvious that it was built somewhere around 1945-1950

Is there a simple way to date the house more accurately ? than
that ?

You could try this...problem is most of the answers you might not
know?

I tried it and the house I'm in is almost to the date it gave me,
due to not knowing some of the questions.

http://www.bricksandbrass.co.uk/houseage/ageform.htm


I tried my 1931 house and it thought it was late Victorian.

Ditto for my 1963 house, 1880 was the most probable date.

I think it only does houses of a distinct period? ;-)

63 was not a good year for houses.

--?
Sir Benjamin Middlethwaite

"Roly" wrote in message
om...
Brian Sharrock wrote:

BTW; did the original poster not see/read/get sight of the title
papers when the house was conveyed?

I am the OP .

In that posting I mentioned that the house was originally a council
house and the earliest date mentioned is when it was transferred to
private owbership in the 1980s.


I was asking a genuine question and not attempting
to be dismissive; however, if it was built by 'the Council'
it will have been on land purchesed by the Council - perhaps
it was previously a farm- and that conveyance should be
on a title deed.

There is no mention of any date between when the house was built
shortly
after the war and when it was transfered to private ownership in the
1980s.

The property will have been built using public
monies and there _must_ be a minutes of the Council Meeting
allocating the monies(budget) and awarding the contract
to build.

As far as the deeds are concerned, you might imagine that the house
didn't exist before the 80s.

Somehow the Council must have generated 'parcels' of
land to convey the property [BTW, one doesn't legally
buy 'the house' but merely the land and 'the heridament' (sp?)
which happens to be thereupon]. The title will normally
display the 'big picture' of the estate and the actual land conveyed
'marked in red on the attached' with a textual description.

I suspect that your question could be answered by badgering your
Council officers - the minutes of meetings are in the public domain
(it's your money they're spending) - go and ask to see them.
[The planning department may have records of council houses
being built].
BTW, my own house was built in a 'village' - then (politically)
it was absorbed into a 'town' which itself was absorbed into
a 'district's. Each successive level of administration somehow
'lost' the previous organisation's records. The builder has
long since deceased and his office records/plans has disappeared.
So I can understand if you feel the above is a 'counsel of
perfection'.

--

Brian

In article , Brian Sharrock
wrote:

BTW; did the original poster not see/read/get sight of the title papers
when the house was conveyed?

The title deeds don't always provide the information you need since
they're mainly concerned with the land the house stands on.

The deeds for our house show a plot of land changing hands in 1931. The
owner subsequently built a house on it (in 1938 according to an elderly
neighbour) and then sold part of the land with the house on it in 1946.
The action of building the house didn't involve any requirement for any
deeds.

--
Mike Clarke

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

The deeds are normally at the solicitor's office when you go in to sign
for things before buying. He/she should really explain anything unusual in
them - and you could examine them then if required. And there's no reason
why you shouldn't be given (and pay) for a copy if you want one. But of
course this wasn't easy before photocopiers.

If you're buying a house now you shouldn't need to pay for a copy, if
the deeds exist you should be entitled to keep them. Digital copies of
all relevant documents are (supposed to be) recorded by the Land
Registry for all land sales since October 2003 and the original deeds
are theoretically no longer needed after registration. When we bought
our house our solicitor gave us all of them (the "pre-registration"
documents) with the remark that they were now potentially obsolete but
could be invaluable in the event of any future dispute. She didn't have
a very high opinion of thoroughness of the Land Registries records.

--
Mike Clarke

The message .com
from contains these words:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/mapsheet.asp seems to have a similar
set of OS maps.

Thanks for the links. My house is in an awkward place close (300 yards)
to the corner of a map so I need to look at 4 sheets to view my
particular locality. Anyway it was there in 1852.

--
Roger Chapman

Roger wrote:
The message .com
from contains these words:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/mapsheet.asp seems to have a similar
set of OS maps.

Thanks for the links. My house is in an awkward place close (300
yards) to the corner of a map so I need to look at 4 sheets to view my
particular locality. Anyway it was there in 1852.

I think that was when the map was drawn up? ;-)

--?
Sir Benjamin Middlethwaite

In article ,
Mike Clarke writes:

If you're buying a house now you shouldn't need to pay for a copy, if
the deeds exist you should be entitled to keep them. Digital copies of
all relevant documents are (supposed to be) recorded by the Land
Registry for all land sales since October 2003 and the original deeds

I thought registration was mandatory since 1970-something.
It certainly was by 1986.

are theoretically no longer needed after registration. When we bought
our house our solicitor gave us all of them (the "pre-registration"
documents) with the remark that they were now potentially obsolete but
could be invaluable in the event of any future dispute. She didn't have

Some mortgage companies have been posting deeds back over
the last year, as they are no longer of any legal interest
to the building societies in the case of registered properties,
and safe storage in fireproof facilities costs them a lot.
I asked for mine back, and the Woolwich were only too happy
to oblige -- no fee.

a very high opinion of thoroughness of the Land Registries records.

The Land Registry records are always correct, in that what
they say cannot be questioned/corrected. If they make a
mistake, you can sue them for your loss, but you can't have
the records "corrected". This happened to a friend of mine
who bought a new house on a housing estate. When they got
their copy of the land registry entry, it showed their garden
as belonging to next door. This was a mistake, but it could
not be "corrected". Fortunately, their neighbour was willing
to sell them the garden for a token £1. They then sued the
Land Registry for the legal fees for the transfer. Had the
neighbour not cooperated, they would have had to sue the
Land Registry for the loss in value of the property.

There was also a case where someone house sitting sold the
house before the owners returned. The Land Registry had made
insufficient checks to establish the sitter was the owner.
However, the sale could not be "corrected" -- the original
owners had to sue the Land Registry for the value of their
house, and the new owners could not be forced to give it up.

--
Andrew Gabriel

In article . net,
Paul Herber wrote:
I tried my 1931 house and it thought it was late Victorian.

Ditto for my 1963 house, 1880 was the most probable date.

I'd say you both entered data incorrectly.

--
*I pretend to work. - they pretend to pay me.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The message
from (Andrew Gabriel) contains these words:

Mike Clarke writes:

If you're buying a house now you shouldn't need to pay for a copy, if
the deeds exist you should be entitled to keep them. Digital copies of
all relevant documents are (supposed to be) recorded by the Land
Registry for all land sales since October 2003 and the original deeds

I thought registration was mandatory since 1970-something.
It certainly was by 1986.

It depends where you are. According to the Land Registry registration on
purchase has only been compulsory in NE Essex since 1990.

--
Roger Chapman

Rob Morley wrote:


Ask her neighbours or the council.


This was the first course of action and was also what led to the
question being asked.

There are two near-neighbours who each claim to have been the first to
move into that steet. Obviously they're getting a bit old and maybe
their memories aren't all they might be, but the problem is that theu
each

Roly wrote:

This was the first course of action and was also what led to the
question being asked.

There are two near-neighbours who each claim to have been the first to
move into that steet. Obviously they're getting a bit old and maybe
their memories aren't all they might be, but the problem is that theu
each

I don't know what happened there, my message got truncated and garbled.

As I was saying ...
This was the first course of action and was also what led to the
question being asked.

There are two near-neighbours who each claim to have been the first to
move into that street. Obviously they're getting a bit old and maybe
their memories aren't all they might be, but the problem is that they
each tell different versions of when that was.

In article ,
Roly wrote:
Rob Morley wrote:


Ask her neighbours or the council.


This was the first course of action and was also what led to the
question being asked.

There are two near-neighbours who each claim to have been the first to
move into that steet. Obviously they're getting a bit old and maybe
their memories aren't all they might be, but the problem is that theu
each

So check each against the local newspaper which should be archived at your
local library. Look for the weekly paper rather than daily!

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

There was also a case where someone house sitting sold the
house before the owners returned. The Land Registry had made
insufficient checks to establish the sitter was the owner.
However, the sale could not be "corrected" -- the original
owners had to sue the Land Registry for the value of their
house, and the new owners could not be forced to give it up.

That is something I did not realise... Scary!

It does seem to fly in the face of the usual laws concerning the sale of
stolen property though (i.e. it is the buyer who gets stitched up and
not the original owner).

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
Roly wrote:
Rob Morley wrote:


Ask her neighbours or the council.


This was the first course of action and was also what led to the
question being asked.

There are two near-neighbours who each claim to have been the first
to move into that steet. Obviously they're getting a bit old and
maybe their memories aren't all they might be, but the problem is
that theu each

So check each against the local newspaper which should be archived at
your local library. Look for the weekly paper rather than daily!

It might be I'm up late, but check what in the papers?

--?
Sir Benjamin Middlethwaite

In article ,
The3rd Earl Of Derby wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
Roly wrote:
Rob Morley wrote:


Ask her neighbours or the council.


This was the first course of action and was also what led to the
question being asked.

There are two near-neighbours who each claim to have been the first
to move into that steet. Obviously they're getting a bit old and
maybe their memories aren't all they might be, but the problem is
that theu each

So check each against the local newspaper which should be archived at
your local library. Look for the weekly paper rather than daily!

It might be I'm up late, but check what in the papers?

Get the story from each neighbour. Look for news items that confirm their
stories. At best of course it could be news of the first people moving into -
or houses being pulled down if one moved from somewhere that was then
demolished. At worst it might be first mentions of the addresses in BMD
mentions. Details vary far too much according to circumstances but it should
be possible to confirm one account rather than another in this way.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . net,
Paul Herber wrote:
I tried my 1931 house and it thought it was late Victorian.

Ditto for my 1963 house, 1880 was the most probable date.

I'd say you both entered data incorrectly.


So fill it in properly for me and see what the result is.

In article
Roly wrote:
Roly wrote:

This was the first course of action and was also what led to the
question being asked.

There are two near-neighbours who each claim to have been the first to
move into that steet. Obviously they're getting a bit old and maybe
their memories aren't all they might be, but the problem is that theu
each

I don't know what happened there, my message got truncated and garbled.

As I was saying ...
This was the first course of action and was also what led to the
question being asked.

There are two near-neighbours who each claim to have been the first to
move into that street. Obviously they're getting a bit old and maybe
their memories aren't all they might be, but the problem is that they
each tell different versions of when that was.


You might narrow it down if you can tie them down to traceable events
like rationing, who won the FA Cup etc. which they might recall more
easily than the date :-)

http://www.fortunecity.co.uk/melting.../330/time.html

http://www.thefa.com/TheFACup/TheFACup/History/

Roly wrote:
A friend of mine is trying to discover exactly when her house was
built.

The deeds don't help as it originally was a local authority house and
the deeds only start when it was sold to the private sector.

It's obvious that it was built somewhere around 1945-1950

Is there a simple way to date the house more accurately ? than that ?

I believe this is a good site?
http://www.ancestry.co.uk/landing/uk..._xid=21538&o_l
id=21538&offerid=0%3a723%3a0
--?
Sir Benjamin Middlethwaite

In article , John
Rumm wrote:

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

There was also a case where someone house sitting sold the
house before the owners returned. The Land Registry had made
insufficient checks to establish the sitter was the owner.
However, the sale could not be "corrected" -- the original
owners had to sue the Land Registry for the value of their
house, and the new owners could not be forced to give it up.

That is something I did not realise... Scary!

I suppose it depends on the nature of the "error". When we bought the
house a year ago our solicitor unearthed a covenant in an old 1946 sale
agreement which had never found it's way into the LR records. Unlike
most covenants this one was to our advantage and she was able to get it
added to the records, probably only because it didn't conflict with
anything already there.

--
Mike Clarke

In article ,
Rob Morley wrote:
In article
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . net,
Paul Herber wrote:
I tried my 1931 house and it thought it was late Victorian.

Ditto for my 1963 house, 1880 was the most probable date.

I'd say you both entered data incorrectly.


So fill it in properly for me and see what the result is.

It depends on understanding the terms used for various features. Unless,
of course, your house was built by the construction department at Pine
wood Studios.

--
*He who dies with the most toys is, nonetheless, dead.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rob Morley wrote:
In article
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . net,
Paul Herber wrote:
I tried my 1931 house and it thought it was late Victorian.

Ditto for my 1963 house, 1880 was the most probable date.

I'd say you both entered data incorrectly.


So fill it in properly for me and see what the result is.

It depends on understanding the terms used for various features. Unless,
of course, your house was built by the construction department at Pine
wood Studios.


From your previous post it appeared that you already knew all about my
house - have you filled the form in for me yet?

Rob Morley wrote:
In article
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rob Morley wrote:
In article
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . net,
Paul Herber wrote:
I tried my 1931 house and it thought it was late Victorian.

Ditto for my 1963 house, 1880 was the most probable date.

I'd say you both entered data incorrectly.


So fill it in properly for me and see what the result is.

It depends on understanding the terms used for various features.
Unless, of course, your house was built by the construction
department at Pine wood Studios.


From your previous post it appeared that you already knew all about my
house - have you filled the form in for me yet?

Post a pic of the frontage, and I will ;-)

--
Sir Benjamin Middlethwaite

In article
The3rd Earl Of Derby wrote:
Rob Morley wrote:
In article
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rob Morley wrote:
In article
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . net,
Paul Herber wrote:
I tried my 1931 house and it thought it was late Victorian.

Ditto for my 1963 house, 1880 was the most probable date.

I'd say you both entered data incorrectly.


So fill it in properly for me and see what the result is.

It depends on understanding the terms used for various features.
Unless, of course, your house was built by the construction
department at Pine wood Studios.


From your previous post it appeared that you already knew all about my
house - have you filled the form in for me yet?

Post a pic of the frontage, and I will ;-)

I don't have to - Dave already knows that I did it wrong, so he must
know what the correct answers are.