Grass Verge

Yorkie1

The house owner has essentially been granted a right of way across the land in front of his house to the highway, and - possibly - required to construct the driveway to a certain standard if it crosses services / involves a dropped kerb.

This does not equate to being given the ownership of the land.

Sparx

I think I understand the OP's post, there is a street similar to me nearby with the layout if it is how I understand.

Does the below image (taken from Google Maps Streetview) look similar to what you are asking about?

These houses use the drive on the outskirts on the house (which are on a public footpath) as a 'second drive' so to speak, then the main road is right from where the camera is.

If yes then the land belongs to the council or whoever still. By obtaining planning permission to construct a driveway doesn't make the land yours.

browneyedbazzi

Permission to put in a dropped kerb and authorised vehicle access is just that - permission for works to be done. It does not change the ownership of the land. The land is highway (highway doesn't just mean 'road' as many people seem to think, but includes pavements and often verges). The owners of the property that will benefit from the vehicle access pay for the work but they do not own it and can not own it - the nature of highway means that it is owned by the public and everyone has a right of access to and over it. This is not changed by a vehicle access to a property being put in. The boundary shown on the deeds remain the correct boundary regardless of if someone has paid for a vehicle access to be created.

I really don't understand why there would be a need for indemnity insurance and tbh think your solicitor must be pretty rubbish to be querying this - have they never handled conveyancing for a property with a drive before??

joe427

Thanks again for all the responses, I've drawn up a small plan to help see this situation better:



Boundary is in red, the footpaths are only used by the houses (most walk across the grass or up the "driveway" which is a bit of an annoyance). As above the distance from the main road to the front garden is approx 52foot, so quite a long cross over.

The indemnity is being considered to protect myself from the council turning up and putting it back as a grass verge or using the land for something else. Not that it should happen, but this is why I'm seeking opinion on here to get a better idea of the situation. I'm a first time buyer, so not come across this before.

TBagpuss

On that basis, it looks as though the homeowner owns the garden. hey don't own the tarmacked area and there is no reason why people shouldn't walk on it as opposed to on the grass, if they want. There's probably also no reason why anyone else shouldn't park on it, if they want to.

I don't think you would find any insurance - unless the paving was done without permission, in which case you might be able to get insurance against the costs of being required to put it back.

princeofpounds

OK, that makes it much clearer. I think what is concerning the solicitor is actually the second footpath and the size of the verge; it is not clear that then driveway is merely part of a public highway.

It is also anomalous that this is the only house with the verge replaced by the driveway. I do understand now why the solicitor has raised the issue.

Much will depend on the circumstances surrounding the construction of the driveway. If the council gave permission, or if it has been there long enough, then an easement will have been established either explicitly or implicitly. If this is the case then you don't need to worry.

The vendor should be able to substantiate these things. If they can't then I can understand why the solicitor is looking at an indemnity. If the council is upset that there shouldn't be a driveway there then they may use it as a ransom strip.

Don't approach the council to ask if you are looking at indemnity, because then you won't be covered!

Planning permission is simply not relevant here; it merely approves plans relative to planning policy, it does not give a legal right to implement those plans, and says nothing about ownership.

Permission to drop a kerb however might be relevant (this is not the same as planning permission, and it implies permission to drive over the land).

joe427

princeofpounds wrote: »

OK, that makes it much clearer. I think what is concerning the solicitor is actually the second footpath and the size of the verge; it is not clear that then driveway is merely part of a public highway.

It is also anomalous that this is the only house with the verge replaced by the driveway. I do understand now why the solicitor has raised the issue.

Much will depend on the circumstances surrounding the construction of the driveway. If the council gave permission, or if it has been there long enough, then an easement will have been established either explicitly or implicitly. If this is the case then you don't need to worry.

The vendor should be able to substantiate these things. If they can't then I can understand why the solicitor is looking at an indemnity. If the council is upset that there shouldn't be a driveway there then they may use it as a ransom strip.

Don't approach the council to ask if you are looking at indemnity, because then you won't be covered!

Planning permission is simply not relevant here; it merely approves plans relative to planning policy, it does not give a legal right to implement those plans, and says nothing about ownership.

Permission to drop a kerb however might be relevant (this is not the same as planning permission, and it implies permission to drive over the land).

Great thanks. There are other properties on the road which have had driveways put in over the grass verges. I have a good mind to go knocking on a few to ask them about their driveways on the weekend.

I think that the owner should have some type of easement as you said above, this would explain the access and ability to build a driveway on that piece of land. However the owner does not hold any documentation of any sort, and I believe now the owner's solicitors are on the case with the land registry querying the land ownership. They do have a drop kerb at the end of the driveway which is entry to the main road.

If there is some kind of easement in place, should they hold documentation for it? If not, then who would have a copy of this? I presume the local council again? Because of the indemnity being suggested, I can no longer seek the councils help, as you have also said above.

Cheers

princeofpounds

Easements don't always have documentation. Plenty are implied, or acquired through extensive use etc.

A record of a dropped kerb & driveway acceptance would probably satisfy your solicitor, for example, as it would imply that the council was happy for the land to be used as a driveway (otherwise why else drop the kerb?).

I doubt there is anything dodgy going on here, but it's really up to the vendor to prove or buy the indeminity (which will probably cost peanuts anyway in the scheme of things)

patricia..xx

Just to clarify, as your picture isn't clear, but the owners don't park on the driveway do they? I was assuming they drove across it and parked on their own land, but your pic shows just a garden.

If you are driving across it to park on your own land I cannot see it is any different to every other driveway in the country. If you are parking on this "drive" that doesn't belong to you I can imagine there are far more issues

System

patricia..xx wrote: »

If you are parking on this "drive" that doesn't belong to you I can imagine there are far more issues

Good point. If there is no drive within the house boundaries then I doubt the dropped kerb would be legit.

Normally when it leads to a drive then a legit dropped kerb would normally have a condition that you are not allowed to park on the verge and pavement crossover