Changing access across bisected garden

Herbalus

princeofpounds wrote: »

As for re-routing... courts are quite strict on this. If the occupants of the property want to use the historic route, they must be permitted to, even if another route would be more logical, let alone private.


However, if they agree to be re-routed then fine, it can work for as long as they feel like complying, but it will not extinguish the original right of way. So don't spend loads of money on a really permanent structure.

Thanks for this. I did wonder about the phrase "for the time being" in the deeds from 1930. In anybody's book 86 years is certainly longer that, so the pedant could argue that right has been extinguished (unless it means something else in title deeds).

TBagpuss

the 'for the time being' refers to the occupiers - it is worth speaking to an expert to chack whether that means 'the occupiers and owners at the time the right was agreed' or the occupiers and owners at the time the right is being exercised'

I think it would be contrused to mean that the current owners and occupiers at any time can use it bit that past owners can't pop back and do so after they have sold/left, but I could be wrong.

Maybe worth puting up a non-permanent barrier to create a path - maybe tubs of holly and bamboo with wicker panels between, rather than a full fence? It would probably disclourage them flocking across the garden.

Have you tried speaking to them? They may be perfectly willing to go round if they asked politely to do so.

Bluebonnie

The phrase "for the time being"goes with the word preceding it - so "occupiers for the time being". This way it gives the current occupiers, who may be the owner's tenants, the right of access. Exactly the circumstances you describe.

In any case, rights of way are not extinguished just because they are 86 years old, or even 860 years old.

missbiggles1

As the house was built before 1930, it might be worth bearing in mind that many people would've used the back door as their normal access anyway.

Are they legitimately registered an an HMO?

Herbalus

Bluebonnie wrote: »

In any case, rights of way are not extinguished just because they are 86 years old, or even 860 years old.

Well, they would be if they were only temporary! But I get your point.

And in response to other questions, it doesn't need licensing as HMO as only 4 occupants.

nkkingston

I know there's a regulation regarding fire escapes not being through a kitchen, though i don't know whether it's an HMO, rented accommodation, or what (I do know it came in about a decade ago, because my uni suddenly had to yank all the kitchens out of their halls because they didn't have alternate escape routes). It may be the place next door is contravening fire regs if the back door is off or through the kitchen.

Here's a bit of googling for you: The regs according Leeds Council:

2.3 Category B HMO’s (Shared Houses)
These are houses rented to a group of mainly unrelated people, commonly students, young professional adults, work colleagues and friends. Occupiers share personal washing, WC and kitchen/dining facilities and usually have a communal living room. The occupiers of the HMO tend to have some of the characteristics of a single household. The HMO is usually but not always let on a single joint contract.

In ‘lower risk’ properties, meeting the above, the standard for a protected route may be relaxed. In such cases, the property must meet the following criteria:
-ƒ Doors opening onto the escape route should be sound, solid construction, close-fitting, conventional doors (lightweight doors and doors with very thin panels should be avoided) and self closing;
-ƒ an appropriate system of fire detection and warning is in place (LD3 Plus Grade D AFD as a minimum);
ƒ- the stairs must lead directly to the final exit without passing through a risk room; ƒ the staircase enclosure must be of sound, conventional construction throughout the route.

2.3.3 Small Shared HMO - Up To Two Storey Buildings.
ƒ- There is no requirement for a full 30 minute protected route of escape, but the escape route should have traditional construction and not pass through risk rooms. There is no requirement for fire doors but sound, well constructed and close fitting conventional doors are required. Alternatively suitable escape windows can be provided from bedrooms and living rooms. Note that where construction standards are poor in the route of escape, travel distances are long or other high risk factors are present a 30 minute protected route of escape may be required;

Even if it's not licensed as an HMO, it may fall under similar regulations.

Herbalus

The back door is in the kitchen, so yes I would imagine they'd fall foul of fire regs if that was the only exit.

The trouble I have is that it isn't the only exit, but it is the only one that they use!

Unless they've physically blocked the old front door up, but I wouldn't be able to tell if they have.