Right of Way Indemnity Insurance

House_seller_2008

We are in the process of selling our house and have been asked to pay for an insurance indemnity policy with a premium of over £150 to cover against the right of way access to the rear of the property being adopted by the local council.

This is not the main access to the property, it is simply a dirt track at the back to enable access to our rear garage. The front roadway and main access is council maintained already.

The right of way at the back of the property leads nowhere, it is a dead end, but is shared by neighbours and we are responsible for our own portion.

We cannot understand what risk we are covering against as we can see no reason for the right of way to be adopted, although our solicitors say that it is technically possible, but feel compelled to pay for the policy to prevent the house sale falling through, as advised by our solicitors and the estate agents.

Has anybody successfully argued against such an indemnity policy, or should we just pay up?

Richard_Webster

The ability to park a car in the garage off the rear access will have some effect on the value of the property. If the garage could not be used because the access was prevented then the proeprty would potentially lose value. Therefore to me it makes sense for the buyer's solicitors to want an indemnity policy in case the access is prevented or obstructed by someone claiming to be able to do so.

I am assuming that although you have used the access there isn't anything in your deeds/Land Registry entries giving you aright to do so. If there is such a right, then i can't really understand why they are bothering.

House_seller_2008

Thanks for your reply.

We have a registered right of way/easement to the rear access. We own a section of this along with our neighbours.

We have been asked to purchase the indemnity policy to protect against making up or adoption of the right of way.

Even if the right of way could be removed I cannot see that the house value would be reduced by enough to worry a lender. There are other houses in the area without such access. The values of those properties are not significantly different to ours.

We also cannot see a situation occurring where enough, if any, of our neighbours would pay a lot of money to have the right of way bought up to highway standards. Many people do not bother with the rear access as they have drives to the front of the house, as do we.

It seems that a knee jerk reaction from our buyers solicitors/lender to wording is adding unnecessary cost. It may only be a small part of the cost of selling a house but multiplied across all house sales there must be a large amount of being wasted by a lot of people on such insurance.

vicstar82

Ha tell me about it! We have had to fork out for 3 of the things! All of which my solicitor has deemed completely unneccessary- but in todays current market we felt it was easier and quicker to pay up! Thats a £1000 quid gone!!

Richard_Webster

That is a new one!

There are thousands of rear access ways such as OP mentions. I have never heard of anyone thinking there was a risk of the Highway Authority adopting one.

Some of the very basically concreted/tarmaced rear access ways in Eastleigh (houses built c 1900 for railway workers) have been adopted, but that was done by the old Eastleigh Borough Council pre 1974 as the most convenient way of delaing with them.

More recently since Hampshire County Council took over Highway responsibilities they have had minimum standards for width etc, and these rear accessways don't comply, so they are not eligible now for adoption. OP may well find that his local Highway Authority have a similar policy. Unless there is real fear based upon other cases locally, that the Council will charge for adopting the access way, I really think this is a load of....