Title Plan Rights of Way Clarification

G_M

specialboy wrote: »

Knock on the neighbours door and talk to them, tell them that you are thinking of buying the house and if you do then they won't be able to use the yard anymore, gauge there reaction. They realise that they can only park there while its empty and stop doing it once you move in.

Hmmm... not sure that will get OP off on the right foot with his prospective new neighbours. Rubbing them up the wrong way before he even moves in!

Land_Registry

The title plan does not show the legal boundary but it will show the general boundaries as registered under that specific title. The legal boundary is in many cases an 'invisible line' so it is important to understand that the title plan will enable you to understand who owns what within a given title but it does not say that the fence, wall, hedge or ditch in place is the legal boundary as structures such as these are easily moved and replaced. Our online guidance explains this for you.

So if the 'yard' is not included in either registered title have you checked to see if it is registered or not and if it is in whose ownership
If the neighbour claims to own it then presumably he/she can provide proof of that ownership?

As far as the right of way over the brown tinting is concerned the right was reserved by the 2001 Transfer and against the land against which it is now noted and which included the land hatched black on the Transfer plan. The plan you have added shows hatching but I think you have added that for your own post so I assume there is also a Transfer plan?

When the Transfer was completed and registered a corresponding entry would have been made on the benefiting title, namely that owned by (1) Joe Bloggs. I assume that is different from the neighbour's property/title though as you mention no corresponding entry exists.

The right itself seems quite clear in that there is a right of way but not in a vehicle. In my experience if the right related to a right to park then it would say so.

evilsheep

Land_Registry_representative wrote: »

The title plan does not show the legal boundary but it will show the general boundaries as registered under that specific title. The legal boundary is in many cases an 'invisible line' so it is important to understand that the title plan will enable you to understand who owns what within a given title but it does not say that the fence, wall, hedge or ditch in place is the legal boundary as structures such as these are easily moved and replaced. Our online guidance explains this for you.

There's no wall, or hedge as it's just a patch of concrete between the house and the road. It's only about 7 feet wide at the widest point of the triangle.

So if the 'yard' is not included in either registered title have you checked to see if it is registered or not and if it is in whose ownership
If the neighbour claims to own it then presumably he/she can provide proof of that ownership?

We've now spoken with the neighbour, who says he doesn't own the yard (not sure whether he fibbed to the other neighbour who told us that he did, or whether that neighbour got the wrong end of the stick ...). He just said that we couldn't park our car there as he needed to access his garden gate. Odd, because he is currently parking HIS car there (he knows the house is empty and will move it straight away when the house is sold). The yard is the hatched area in the first image (within the red line).

As far as the right of way over the brown tinting is concerned the right was reserved by the 2001 Transfer and against the land against which it is now noted and which included the land hatched black on the Transfer plan. The plan you have added shows hatching but I think you have added that for your own post so I assume there is also a Transfer plan?

The brown right of way is between the neighbour's house and the house the other side from 'ours'. The image hatching is exactly as it is on the Land Registry documents (not added by me).

When the Transfer was completed and registered a corresponding entry would have been made on the benefiting title, namely that owned by (1) Joe Bloggs. I assume that is different from the neighbour's property/title though as you mention no corresponding entry exists.

I have no idea who the Joe Bloggs is. I thought perhaps he was the previous owner of No.2 (the neighbouring property) but as you can see, their register doesn't include this yard. Unless of course, the yard did previously belong to No.2, and was at some point sold to No.1.

The right itself seems quite clear in that there is a right of way but not in a vehicle. In my experience if the right related to a right to park then it would say so.

So is the right of way (over the hatched area) for anyone at all? It doesn't specify that it's a right of way for No.2 in order to enable them to access their garden gate and outhouse, but that would make sense. I hope it doesn't mean that anyone at all can walk over the yard!

I'm probably making this needlessly confusing, but it would be very good to know precisely what access and rights are granted over this land in order to support our offer price, and to start off on the right foot with the neighbour (who also has told us that we can't put pot plants, or any sort of fence up surrounding the yard, even if it wouldn't block his access ...)

dell12

Personally I wouldn't buy it. It would have to be an amazing one off house for me to consider it.

Even if the current neighbours are nice what happens if they move and someone awkward moves in? It seems like a large potential source of conflict. Remember you'll have to disclose any disputes when selling.

Land_Registry

evilsheep - I think there is an element of making it 'needlessly confusing' and I think the referral to hatching re the yard and the reserved right of way plus the size of the plans meaning it is difficult to see how each title relates to the other causes this.

If you have looked at the register and title plan for both No 1 and No 2 then it may be worth checking what other land/property is registered as well as that will help identify who has the benefit of any rights. As you suggest it is likely to be land/property once owned by Joe Bloggs.

I think you would be better served by exploring the details with your solicitor

evilsheep

Thanks for the help :-)

The vendor tells us that the neighbour has access to his garden over the yard, but is not usually allowed to park there (he's currently doing so by arrangement with the vendor). We'll be clarifying the issue with our solicitor, as our offer of £2k below asking price was accepted!

Now begins the buying process; fingers crossed, we'll complete within 4 weeks (optimistic). I'll post back here when we've had full clarification of the registry documents to clarify the issue for any others who may be interested.

princeofpounds

Hi,

I think the tiny scale of the plans you have posted may be confusing some people! Specifically I think people are having trouble realising how they match up, particularly as the hatching appears in one and not the other.

that ownership? We've now spoken with the neighbour, who says he doesn't own the yard (not sure whether he fibbed to the other neighbour who told us that he did, or whether that neighbour got the wrong end of the stick ...). He just said that we couldn't park our car there as he needed to access his garden gate. Odd, because he is currently parking HIS car there (he knows the house is empty and will move it straight away when the house is sold).

I am very glad you posted this, as this is the conclusion I drew as the likely scenario from what you have posted above.

Number 1 clearly owns the hatched area, as that is within the red boundary lines on the plan. Number 2 does not, as that area is not within the red boundary lines on its plan.

The brown ROW is irrelevant to you, as you seem to know, but I see why you mentioned it.

SOMEONE has a ROW without vehicles over the hashed area in #1. That ROW was established by ' joe bloggs' when 'jane' bought the property.

The question is - who? That conveyance should tell you. It could be joe bloggs in person. But I think it is far more likely to be the owner of number 2. Because they have entrances on that side, because such ROW are normally attached to land. It would make little sense for it it to be attached to anything else. Unless I have missed something in your description. This is something your lawyer would need to check.

The deeds for number 2 do NOT need to have the ROW way mentioned separately on them. It is enough for it to be established on your deeds.

The ROW does not include vehicles. And a vehicular ROW does not permit parking. The neighbour is basically being a bit cheeky whilst number 1 is vacant. At least they seem to understand that.

You cannot park your car there if it interferes with his ROW on foot. Given the very restricted space as you describe it, it probably does mean you can't park there at all.

You also need to make sure that the neighour has not been cheeky for a long time (10yrs+), as they can also establish easements to vehicular access and parking by long-term use without permission. I think this is unlikely given what they have said.

As to why the other neighbour gave you different information; probably a combination of assumptions, misunderstanding and making-it-up.

Do understand that this neighbour may well walk past your windows rather frequently... and you may not always have a neighbour you like.