They are not allowed to come onto the road

matttye

metroman wrote: »

Nope, I dont have any others. Should there definitely be some?

By the way, thanks so much for all your help and patience. Its being hugely appreciated

In the property register, there are two references to the same transfer but it doesn't tell us the date. Is this the same transfer referred to in the charges register?

There are two referred to in the charges register so there are at least two transfers, possibly three, to get a full picture. Is that the entire text of the official copy? Does it say 'copy filed' anywhere? If so that means the Land Registry hold copies of the documents referred to.

metroman

Running_Horse wrote: »

Did you talk to the school about the loud teacher?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64065828#Comment_64065828

Sometimes when a can of worms is opened it has unexpected consequences.

I know exactly what you mean, but sometimes it just gets to a point when things have to be said.

As it happens, on this occasion I didn't have to say anything, as I found out this lady wasn't very popular with the other employees of the infant school and she was moved to their senior school building.

davidmcn

G_M wrote: »

this applies to 'the transferee' (you, and by legal extension your family) - no mention of clients (though workmen are specifically included by clause 13.2.2)

And, surely, all visitors?

metroman

matttye wrote: »

In the property register, there are two references to the same transfer but it doesn't tell us the date. Is this the same transfer referred to in the charges register?

There are two referred to in the charges register so there are at least two transfers, possibly three, to get a full picture. Is that the entire text of the official copy? Does it say 'copy filed' anywhere? If so that means the Land Registry hold copies of the documents referred to.

Yes thankyou, it does say copy filed .... Ill look into it further, and come back here later with my findings.

G_M

davidmcn wrote: »

And, surely, all visitors?

Need a lawyer's opinion.

visitor? client?.....

davidmcn

G_M wrote: »

Need a lawyer's opinion.

visitor? client?.....

Clients are visitors, and rights of access are pretty useless if they don't cover, say, the postie. If it were Scotland (which I know it isn't) any "change of use" arguments would only apply to the rights of access if it materially increases the burden on the other property (unless there is more specific wording). Four cars coming and going each day could just as easily be achieved by a normal household. Different if it's a constant stream of customers, commercial vehicles, etc.

ethank

Who is the owner of the School - the local Council?

Just tell him that you will only deal with the landowner.

chris_m

ethank wrote: »

Who is the owner of the School - the local Council?

From the OP's other thread (linked in an earlier post) it's a private school.

G_M

davidmcn wrote: »

Clients are visitors, and rights of access are pretty useless if they don't cover, say, the postie.

I admit I'm out of my legal depth here, but in many areas, the law would make a distinction between a non-paying guest (Maggie Battenberg dropping in for tea), an employee (Mr Slate coming to fix the roof - or the postie), and a paying client (Mr Backstrain paying for a pilates session).

Certainly in the insurance world these distinctions would matter. A better understanding of ROA law than I have is required, but it would likely be influenced by the precise wording in the various (3?) documents referenced in the registered Title.