Neighbour & land query

zaax

A ROW is a right of way. The shed needs to be removed, start at the start and ask nicely. In the end you can smash it down.

Mojisola

zaax wrote: »

A ROW is a right of way. The shed needs to be removed, start at the start and ask nicely. In the end you can smash it down.

Only if you're happy to be charged with criminal damage.

You could carefully remove the shed from the ROW but only if you can do it without damaging it.

zaax

You can remove the shed doing whatever it takes, if you have to damage it to remove it so be it, and its not criminal damage if you have warned them.

Mojisola

zaax wrote: »

You can remove the shed doing whatever it takes, if you have to damage it to remove it so be it, and its not criminal damage if you have warned them.

Yes, it is.

tired_dad

Honestly I think this is being blown out of proportion.

While legally minded posters are commenting that this is a big issue and they wouldn't buy a house with such an issue, I think it detracts from the reality of modern life.

Most people are not legally minded as per some of the comments above. We buy houses based on the heart and price rather than issues like this.

Many people would be put off by a shared gate with a neighbour. I for one would prefer privacy in my garden.

For an average terrace house in the UK the impact on selling price will be minimal.

A conveyancer/solicitor won't make a site visit on purchase. They do it all remotely. They would never know the shed was there unless the buyer made it an issue.

Anyway, I am just making the point that this may not be as big an issue as intimated but I accept that this depends on exactly what it says in the deeds.

Davesnave

tired_dad wrote: »

Anyway, I am just making the point that this may not be as big an issue as intimated but I accept that this depends on exactly what it says in the deeds.

It also depends very much on the physical situation.

For example, if the terrace has front doors straight onto the pavement, there will be nowhere to store wheelie bins, bikes etc.

This is probably not the case here, however, as the OP's tenants have been managing without a rear access.

When I sold a piece of garden land in 2012, I offered a rear access to owners of two houses, currently worth about £350k each. Both owners declined the offer, though they each bought some land. Security was cited as a concern. At first, I thought the purchasers were just playing negotiating games, but when I met them face to face, I realised they were serious. One of the things they liked about their houses was the security, although it was not a high crime area.

So, for some people, this matter might be of little consequence. The question is, what % of the buying public do they represent? I'd not spend £350k+ on a house with only a front entrance.

Seronera

zaax wrote: »

You can remove the shed doing whatever it takes, if you have to damage it to remove it so be it, and its not criminal damage if you have warned them.

That is so NOT true and very poor advice. Not only is it criminal damage but you are also threatening them. When my then neighbour built a fence on my land we were strongly advised not to move it unilaterally by our solicitor. Seeing as this shed is not on his land but on a right of way it is probably more complicated.

It is very frustrating at times but you must retain the moral high ground and that includes behaving correctly in a manner that keeps right on your side, and does not give the neighbour grounds to take legal action against you. That way lies an expensive stalemate.

tired_dad

Davesnave wrote: »

I'd not spend £350k+ on a house with only a front entrance.

agree with your comments but you need to come to London. Scores of houses with no rear access selling for 7 figure sums.

Its a crazy world.