Advice needed on right of access please

shopaholictiedtheknot

Hi there, I was hoping for some advice in relation to a house we are in the process of buying, it is a rural property and we are happy with every aspect of it except that there is no legal right of access, the current owners have been there for twenty years and the other house (it is a semi detached) have lived there for 25 years and they have both been using the track which is a mile long and runs on common land owned by the Duchy of Lancaster(this is the only access available) upon googling we found that the Duchy have in June this year caused a lot of financial heartache for the residents of Goathland - see article http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/10514553.Goathland_villagers_in_revolt_against_the_Queen/

and we are obviously very concerned in case they do the same to us - we have been advised by our solicitor that the best way to proceed - if we do- is to take out a title indemnity policy but we understand that if we do that it will only give us financial recompense and it would not prevent the landlords from denying us access if they so choose in the future - are we correct in this assumption?

I guess my main question is should we proceed with the purchase or would this be foolish - all opinions and advice welcome, we are just devastated to think we may have to give up what would be our dream home

moneyistooshorttomention

My very first thought was "Maybe they can prevent car access...but what about other forms of vehicular access?" Have they prevented absolutely ANY form of vehicular access (scooters, motorbikes, mobility scooters (they'd have problems doing that because of Disability Discrimination laws possibly??), skateboards (I jest....but you get the principle I am making here....).

Of course, you could possibly circumvent anything they lay down by playing silly b's with the form of transport, but a mile might be deemed a long way to walk by any of your visitors not possessing "unusual" forms of transport.

rpc

Seller sorts it or walk away!

After that period of time, a right of way might well be established or if the owners have installed a gate, adverse possession might even be possible.

In any case, I would stay away unless the sellers can give you a right of access. It might cost you a few each year, but I wouldn't think about buying without that being clarified and fixed.

martinthebandit

rpc wrote: »

Seller sorts it or walk away!

After that period of time, a right of way might well be established or if the owners have installed a gate, adverse possession might even be possible.

In any case, I would stay away unless the sellers can give you a right of access. It might cost you a few each year, but I wouldn't think about buying without that being clarified and fixed.

+1 for the above, you only have to read about the sorts of problems that people have had over access and how much it has cost them to get it sorted to realise you are potentially buying yourself into a whole world of grief.

G_M

I hope you are using a decent solicitor, and not a cheap online conveyancing firm that can follow all the standard steps in a house purchase but has no experience when it comes to out-of-the-ordinary points of law......

shopaholictiedtheknot

Thanks everyone, we still haven't heard from the solicitor with the results of the local search but we have decided that unless there does prove to be a right of access we are not proceeding with the purchase, our solicitor is a well established 'real' firm with a good reputation - we learned our lesson when we used an online conveyancing firm to sell our house in April!

On a brighter note we are viewing a house later this afternoon...

shopaholictiedtheknot

Just found this old thread and thought I would update, we bought the house (1 year ago this month), the owners took out an indemnity insurance policy which stays with the house, in the event of anyone restricting access it would pay out the charges levied for traversing the land to get home or the full purchase price of our house in the event they prevented access. It also covers any legal fees we might need. Just thought this might help anyone else in a similar situation

eddddy

shopaholictiedtheknot wrote: »

...or the full purchase price of our house in the event they prevented access...

Just out of interest... is cover limited to the purchase price you paid, or the market value when access is prevented?

It would be annoying if access was prevented in, say, 10 years time - but you only got back the price you paid in 2014. (Unless you can increase the cover periodically.)

moneyistooshorttomention

Hope all goes well with you in this house.

Just as well to have that insurance cover though, hopefully, it wouldn't ever be necessary.

I have been reading recently re "right of necessity" to use ROWs, as in if people were going to be stranded as virtual prisoners in their own home because they needed to use the ROW to get off their property, but ROW-owner was trying to prevent them doing so, that they would just claim its a "right of necessity" (which it would be, because anyone in that house would literally have to be able to leave that house via the ROW in order not to be a prisoner in effect). Apparently, the Courts in the past felt that the "right of necessity" would be sufficiently served by people being able to literally walk in and out of the access route to their house, but more recent Case Law seems to be tending towards the view that its also "necessary" to be able to use a car on a ROW, as well as "Shanks' pony".

Obviously, a land law specialist would be the person to see in the event of any problems of ROW-owners not knowing about the "easement of necessity" provisions, but "belt and braces" of insurance cover is a good idea indeed.