a legal phrase ...urgent help required

k4leem

Looking at a bit of land to buy and the access road crosses another persons land but the deeds indicate you have access ...but bit confused by the this phrase below

"but not otherwise with or without vehicles equipment and machinery "

Does this mean you CAN take a vehicle over their land ??

Be grateful of any lawyers in the house to advise.

Here is the full phrase

"......said title full and free right of way at all times and for all purposes in connection with the use of such remaining land but not otherwise with or without vehicles equipment and machinery over and a long and across the access road serving the same and running to and from the public highway such access road being indicated in its approximate position"

G_M

You've missed the start of the sentence!

It appears to permit a ROW without restriction provided the purpose of access is in connection with the land (need the start of the sentence!).

It prohibits access for any other purpose.

chris_m

My take, as a non-lawyer, on it is that you have the right to cross the neighbouring land over the route indicated on the plans, for any purpose relating to your land but not for any other purpose. That access may be with or without vehicles.

In other words you can use the access road for any purpose that is on your land - but not for access to other land beyond it.
So, for example, you could take a digger across for doing your own drains but the farmer owning the land beyond yours couldn't take his combine harvester up the access road, through your land and onto his fields the other side of your land. The access is solely for access to your land.

dragonsoup

I think you should ask your solicitor to clarify this for you. You have a comeback if they get it wrong.

Surrey_EA

Not a lawyer, but that reads to me like you have access over the land, both on foot and with a vehicle.

G_M

chris_m wrote: »

So, for example, you could take a digger across for doing your own drains but the farmer owning the land beyond yours couldn't take his combine harvester up the access road, through your land and onto his fields the other side of your land. The access is solely for access to your land.

No. The clause applies to the OP only.

The farmer may have his own access rights.

The OP could take a digger to fix his property's drains (I suspect, subject to seeing the entire clause...).

He could NOT take a digger to mend the road, or dig the field.... This would apply even if he subsequently bought the field and wished to dig/develope it (unless of course the field itself also has a ROW as already explained re the farmer).

k4leem

Thanks folks ... think you have answered my question nicely so thanks for that :money:

for the reference here is the start of it ... (their caps)


"The land shown and edged with red on the plan bound up within and known as 'plot A' being part of the land comprised in the title above mentioned EXCEPTING and RESERVING unto the said transferor and its successors in title owners and occupiers for the time being of the remainder of the land comprised in the said title full and free right of way.....

G_M

k4leem wrote: »

""The land shown and edged with red on the plan bound up within and known as 'plot A' being part of the land comprised in the title above mentioned EXCEPTING and RESERVING unto the said transferor and its successors in title owners and occupiers for the time being of the remainder of the land comprised in said title full and free right of way at all times and for all purposes in connection with the use of such remaining land but not otherwise with or without vehicles equipment and machinery over and a long and across the access road serving the same and running to and from the public highway such access road being indicated in its approximate position"

This changes the meaning considerably.

The ROW applies to the owner of the original larger plot, NOT the new owner of 'Plot A'.

So let us assume the current owner of the whole land is a farmer and he is selling a small plot (Plot A) for a residential house.

He (the farmer) retains the right to use the access road for use on his farm eg he can drive a combine harvester up the road. But he cannot use the road OTHER than in connection with his land (eg the farm).

The clause says nothing about the rights of the owner of Plot A to use the road.

To paraphrase:

"The land comprising Plot A is sold EXCEPT that the seller (transferor) RESERVES full right of way for all purposes in connection with the use of such remaining land (ie the land NOT being sold) blah blah blah"

and the moral of the story is: never interpret legal stuff out of context. Even now, to be sure, I'd want to see where this clause appears in the document, what the preceeding/suceeding clauses said etc

Land_Registry

G_M wrote: »

and the moral of the story is: never interpret legal stuff out of context. Even now, to be sure, I'd want to see where this clause appears in the document, what the preceeding/suceeding clauses said etc

I would agree - the additional wording, and the opening line in particular, provided seems to be inconsistent with the type of wording you would normally see re such rights. However the way such things are often worded can be quite lengthy/complex for legal reasons so may not always be easily interpreted.

I imagine that the extract is taken from a Transfer of Plot A as G_M posts and would agree with the paraphrasing. The part which seems to have caused some uncertainty is the 'but not otherwise' which then runs on into the 'with or withour' part. If you pause after otherwise then the meaning is perhaps clearer and the right is only to be used for the benefit of the 'remaining land' and can be exercised 'with or without vehicles.......'