Right of access denied

Land_Registry

danslenoir wrote: »

The ROW is not mentioned on our title register. Our title register just refers to "TOGETHER with and subject to all rights of way water drainage and other rights existing at the date hereof."

Just to check that I understand your feedback, even if the properties came into common ownership since 1954, there is no possibility that anything could change what is currently in the neigbour's title register as of now regarding the ROW without our consent?

Interesting to now note that your solicitor is already engaging with us on the issue of the right of way so not really too much to add as that will need to take it's course.

The very general wording re the 'existing' rights of way I assume is taken from the 1954 Conveyance registered on your title. If it is then that may have been simply to cover anything that had existed before the new Conveyances and/or intended to act as a dovetail with the subjective right included in the neighbour's 1954 Conveyance. Simple fact is we won't really know what the intentions were or what the wording was intended to cover. One for your solicitor to explain away really as we can only register the actual wording and not then add a legal interpretation.

I made no mention of what would happen re any 'change' but IF the neighbour applied to extinguish the right from their title and IF their application contained sufficient evidence to support such a request then we might serve Notice on you to seek your view as the adjoining landowner with the benefit of the right of way

That mirrors the approach mentioned by your solicitor in how the application to note the benefit of the right of way on your own title is likely to be processed.

Sounds like you are already well down the registration route already so I will wait to see what outcome is achieved here - do come back and let us know as it is always interesting to see how such matters finally end up.

danslenoir

Land_Registry_representative wrote: »

Interesting to now note that your solicitor is already engaging with us on the issue of the right of way so not really too much to add as that will need to take it's course.

The very general wording re the 'existing' rights of way I assume is taken from the 1954 Conveyance registered on your title. If it is then that may have been simply to cover anything that had existed before the new Conveyances and/or intended to act as a dovetail with the subjective right included in the neighbour's 1954 Conveyance. Simple fact is we won't really know what the intentions were or what the wording was intended to cover. One for your solicitor to explain away really as we can only register the actual wording and not then add a legal interpretation.

I made no mention of what would happen re any 'change' but IF the neighbour applied to extinguish the right from their title and IF their application contained sufficient evidence to support such a request then we might serve Notice on you to seek your view as the adjoining landowner with the benefit of the right of way

That mirrors the approach mentioned by your solicitor in how the application to note the benefit of the right of way on your own title is likely to be processed.

Sounds like you are already well down the registration route already so I will wait to see what outcome is achieved here - do come back and let us know as it is always interesting to see how such matters finally end up.

Great, thanks again.

Could you please elaborate on what kind of evidence might be sufficient from the neighbour's side to support the extinguishment of the right of way and removal from the title register?

Land_Registry

danslenoir - the PG 62 linked to previously explains that for you as to how an easement can be extinguished. You have covered some of the possibilities in your posts already

danslenoir

Just to provide an update, the Land Registry have added the ROW wording to our own title register without any quibble. I guess that they did this without informing/consulting with neighbour means they see it as a pretty cut and dry case.

Unfortunately neighbour has still not been persuaded that ROW exists. Apparently she is unable to locate her deeds and now wants to seek legal advice from her solicitor, whilst continuing to deny that the ROW exists. She has given ‘permission’ for access for roofers to get round as we’re having our roof retiled, but does not want to acknowledge the ROW for ‘willy nilly’ use as she is worried about setting a precedent. She has also suggested that because the ROW has not been used in a substantial period of time that even if it did exist at some point before it is now invalidated, and that a family member of the previous co-owners/vendors in the historical conyevance in which the ROW is described, who live on the same street, have confirmed to her that what we are claiming to be a ROW is just a historical ‘coal run’.

All of the points above seem to me to be factually inaccurate with respect to the law (lapse through non-use, precedent setting) and/or irrelevant to the current situation given that the ROW is clearly spelled out in black and white in her title register held by the Land Registry, and now ours too.

Also unfortunately, even if we choose to use the ROW anyway for the only real purpose we want to use it for (i.e. bins), we are often not able to do so at the times we need to if there are two cars parked on her driveway (often) as there is insufficient space for a wheelie bin to fit through. Can we insist that sufficient access for bins is made available on the days/times we want? There is no width specified on the ROW wording and I'm unsure where legally we stand on this.

dc197

Davesnave wrote: »

Would you go into a total stranger's house if that person was male?

Shouldn't make any difference. My feeble elderly female neighbour came round to my house (I'm male) on the first week to say hello. New neighbours shoudl start off on the right foot.

Davesnave wrote: »

Would you want to discuss something like this on their territory, or your own?

Neutral - go to the pub or cafe.

lincroft1710

danslenoir wrote: »

Also unfortunately, even if we choose to use the ROW anyway for the only real purpose we want to use it for (i.e. bins), we are often not able to do so at the times we need to if there are two cars parked on her driveway (often) as there is insufficient space for a wheelie bin to fit through. Can we insist that sufficient access for bins is made available on the days/times we want? There is no width specified on the ROW wording and I'm unsure where legally we stand on this.

If you can walk past the cars without damaging them or yourself then there is probably sufficient width. If not then your neighbour is blocking the ROW. As regards wheelie bins, what precise usage does the ROW permit.

danslenoir

lincroft1710 wrote: »

If you can walk past the cars without damaging them or yourself then there is probably sufficient width. If not then your neighbour is blocking the ROW. As regards wheelie bins, what precise usage does the ROW permit.

As described in the first post, the ROW is for:


Subject also to a right of way for the owners tenants or occupiers for the time being of the adjoining property Number X, XXX Road [our house] aforesaid and all persons authorised by them at all times and for all purposes on foot only over and along the passage or way to the North side and to the rear of the property hereby conveyed

I don't think that just because I can walk between the cars without any problems that this means automatically that the width is sufficient. I'm a reasonably slim guy. Surely what one would consider to be sufficient access isn't dependent solely on whether any one individual can pass through or not?

Besides, a bog standard wheelie bin isn't even THAT large - surely if I am not able to pass wheeling a wheelie bin, and would not be able to pass carrying any other similarly sized objects, means that I am not able to use it 'for all purposes'?

BornAtTheRightTime

for all purposes on foot only

Your purpose it to move your bins to the collection point. You are doing it on foot. Therefore, they must make [reasonable] allowance for you to do this.

lincroft1710

The ROW states "on foot only" doesn't say anything about something having wheels, which is the argument I'll wager your neighbour will put forward. And you already know logic and reasonableness are not your neighbour's good points.

If you cannot persuade them to move the offending vehicle(s), then your next recourse would be a solicitor's letter, if they agree that you have a case.

iammumtoone

I don't know what your rights are regarding the bin but If I were you what I would start doing is using your ROW as much as you can. Use your back door as your main entrance so every time you come and go use the ROW (how many in your household? perhaps get everyone to do this as well). When you do a supermarket shop this may involve several trips back and forth to your car ferrying shopping. Is there a route straight past one of her windows, maybe this might be the easiest path

You have tried to be reasonable and polite, it has got you nowhere. They is no way she will consult a solicitor at this rate as there is no need for her to do so. Once you start walking up and down the ROW a few times each day, hopefully she will be forced to seek legal advice where she will be told what you already know.

You could supply her with a copy of hers and your deeds highlighting the relevant paragraph and if questioned just refer her back to it. Tell her you will stop when you get a letter from her solicitor telling you to (that will never happen) or if you can come to some agreement where she will acknowledge the ROW and make sure there is space available for your bins on bin day.

Good luck keep us posted.