Access rights - legal interpretation

G_M

Perhaps a legal bod (Richard?) could comment on whether the following means right of vehicular access is granted, or whether foot access only is granted. ie does the "on foot only" apply to roads AND paths, or paths only?

The Purchasor has... "Full and free right of way (in common with......) at all times and for all purposes over and along the roadways and on foot only over the footpaths of the Development shown coloured brown.....but only so far as is necessary to give access to and from XXX Road....."

The Plan does not distinguish between road and footpaths - it is all brown.

Pretty sure I know the answer but a 2nd/3rd opinion would help resolve a dispute!

DVardysShadow

G_M wrote: »

Perhaps a legal bod (Richard?) could comment on whether the following means right of vehicular access is granted, or whether foot access only is granted. ie does the "on foot only" apply to roads AND paths, or paths only?

The Purchasor has... "Full and free right of way (in common with......) at all times and for all purposes over and along the roadways and on foot only over the footpaths of the Development shown coloured brown.....but only so far as is necessary to give access to and from XXX Road....."

The Plan does not distinguish between road and footpaths - it is all brown.

Pretty sure I know the answer but a 2nd/3rd opinion would help resolve a dispute!

The argument is over where the highlighted 'only' binds.

I read it as:

"Full and free right of way (in common with......) at all times and for all purposes
[ [over and along the roadways]
and
[ [on foot only] over the footpaths of the Development shown coloured brown]
.....]
but only so far as is necessary to give access to and from XXX Road....."

Yorkie1

I agree with DVS's interpretation. The difficulty is with the plan as it doesn't distinguish roads from footpaths ...

Is this definitely the original plan? Could there be one which is better?

G_M

The Plan I have is an Official Copy sent from the Land Registry.

westv

I'm not an expert. I'm not even particularly knowledgeable about all this but the way I read

"Full and free right of way (in common with......) at all times and for all purposes over and along the roadways and on foot only over the footpaths of the Development shown coloured brown.....but only so far as is necessary to give access to and from XXX"

Is that the purchaser has right of way at all times by car or by foot but only by foot over the footpaths.

Ulfar

I agree basically they can drive on the roads, but can't drive on the footpaths. Which would be common sense otherwise what are the roads purpose.

Yorkie1

We all agree (I think) about the interpretation. The difficulty is in its application, as the document states that only foot traffic may pass over footpaths i.e. the brown areas, whereas in fact the map shows both roads and footpaths in brown - hence on strict interpretation of the map, traffic may not pass over the 'roads' because they are coloured brown on the map and are thus categorised as 'footpaths' according to the document.

I don't know how this practical inconsistency would be resolved in reality, I'm afraid.

poppysarah

Is it a new build estate?

Does that mean no dropped kerbs ever?

G_M

poppysarah wrote: »

Is it a new build estate?

Does that mean no dropped kerbs ever?

It's a 1970s development. There is a 'road' (cobbled cul de sac) with NO pavements running down between the houses (so you open your front door and step straight onto the 'road' [/footpath?].

At the far end, and halfway down, there are footpaths off to adjoining public roads.

My own view as most have said is that owners can drive down the road.

Watch this space for supplementary (and more complex) question in a week or so regarding enforcement of maintenance charges, including feasibility/practicality of installing a locked access gate to the road with keys issued to those owners who pay their maintenance charge but not to those who don't.........

tyllwyd

I'd have said that that it is saying that the official roads and footpaths are coloured brown, and access over the footpaths is by foot only. I don't think there is a problem.

My interpretation :

"Full and free right of way (in common with......) at all times and for all purposes
[ [over and along the roadways]
and
[ [on foot only over the footpaths]

of the Development shown coloured brown]
.....]
but only so far as is necessary to give access to and from XXX Road....."

Although the plan doesn't distinguish between roads and footpaths, it sounds as if it is obvious in practice. Just because a road doesn't have a pavement doesn't make it a footpath - and there is nothing to stop you walking on a road if you want to.

DVardysShadow

tyllwyd wrote: »

My interpretation :
....

So where does your 'only' bind?

• [on foot B]only[/B] over the footpaths
• on foot [B]only[/B over the footpaths]

As you have it, it is ambiguous - to the extent that it looks like the first one - ie you cannot proceed on foot down a road which you otherwise have rights to.