Buying right of access

AdrianC

Stuart1918 wrote: »

That's not technically true, legally him owning both pieces of land is irrelevant (from Boundary Problems site - http://www.boundary-problems.co.uk/boundary-problems/priv-r-o-w.html):

Situation 1 concerns two fields, 'A' and 'B' that are contiguous with each other.

A right of way over South Lane was granted to benefit the land in field 'A' at a time when field 'A' was owned by Mr Smith. Completely separately, a right of way over North Lane was granted to benefit the land in field 'B' at a time when field 'B' was owned by Mr Jones.

Mr Jones (or strictly speaking, field 'B') does not enjoy a right of way over South Lane and Mr Smith (or strictly speaking, field 'A') does not enjoy a right of way over North Lane.

At a later date, Mr Smith purchased field 'B', which is contiguous with field 'A'. Mr Smith now owns all of the land connecting the end of North Lane with the end of South Lane. However, Mr Smith is not, by law, allowed to use South Lane as a means of access to field 'B', nor is he allowed to use North Lane as a means of access to field 'A'.

The right of way over South Lane is enjoyed only by the land that was identified in the Deed of Grant as the dominant tenement, ie by field 'A'. Field 'B' is not a dominant tenement relative to South Lane, and so South Lane may not be used as a means of access to field 'B'. Similarly, field 'A' is not a dominant tenement in relation to North Lane.

That's a different situation.

You're talking about a private ROW over Property 1 to access Property 2 then being used to access Property 3.

The OP's situation is the neighbour using the public highway to access Property A (which he owns) to access Property B.

A better analogy to yours would be this neighbour using the OP's land (Property 1) to access the field behind (Property 2) to then access his own back garden (Property 3). The OP would be able to stop that, under your precedent.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Stuart1918 wrote: »

So he would need to firstly create a new right of way both physically and with the necessary legal paperwork before he could offer me the opportunity to extinguish the right of way through my land. Otherwise he could still claim a right of way over my land by necessity.

Once he had opened up a second right of way, his argument that extinguishing the one through my land halves the value of his land is completely null & void.

So ultimately it's a frank conversation to point out how wrong he is (in the most diplomatic manner possible) and then wait to see what happens.

That's not really the point though. It's not about his loss, it's about your gain. He has something for sale you want and you have to make the call of how much you are prepared to pay for it. Whether he wants or needs the something is immaterial. Fair doesn't come into it.

Stuart1918

And currently I gain nothing as he can't use the land for anything at all that impinges on my use of my land. His current intention to use the land for parking commercial vehicles on it has been vetoed by the council too so once his work is complete on making it into a garden, he will have no reason to access it beyond the occasional grass cutting. So it is fully about his gain, he wants to strong arm £25k as he knows he can't make any other money on the land. It is for all intents and purposes a worthless piece of land and a worthless access right.

Sorry Adrian, I can't see the difference. There is no public highway access at all to the land at the rear so a new right of access would need to be granted through his land before the current access is extinguished.

AdrianC

Stuart1918 wrote: »

Sorry Adrian, I can't see the difference. There is no public highway access at all to the land at the rear so a new right of access would need to be granted through his land before the current access is extinguished.

Why does he need right of way? He'd be crossing his own land. He can grant himself permission whenever he feels like it. If he wants to grant a more formal and long-lasting right of way, he can, but he doesn't need to.

He needs right of way over YOUR land precisely because you may not grant him permission.

JJG

Stuart1918 wrote: »

That's not technically true, legally him owning both pieces of land is irrelevant (from Boundary Problems site - http://www.boundary-problems.co.uk/boundary-problems/priv-r-o-w.html):

Situation 1 concerns two fields, 'A' and 'B' that are contiguous with each other.

A right of way over South Lane was granted to benefit the land in field 'A' at a time when field 'A' was owned by Mr Smith. Completely separately, a right of way over North Lane was granted to benefit the land in field 'B' at a time when field 'B' was owned by Mr Jones.

Mr Jones (or strictly speaking, field 'B') does not enjoy a right of way over South Lane and Mr Smith (or strictly speaking, field 'A') does not enjoy a right of way over North Lane.

At a later date, Mr Smith purchased field 'B', which is contiguous with field 'A'. Mr Smith now owns all of the land connecting the end of North Lane with the end of South Lane. However, Mr Smith is not, by law, allowed to use South Lane as a means of access to field 'B', nor is he allowed to use North Lane as a means of access to field 'A'.

The right of way over South Lane is enjoyed only by the land that was identified in the Deed of Grant as the dominant tenement, ie by field 'A'. Field 'B' is not a dominant tenement relative to South Lane, and so South Lane may not be used as a means of access to field 'B'. Similarly, field 'A' is not a dominant tenement in relation to North Lane.

Surely in this situation 'Mr. Smith', would just say he was using the lane to access the allowed field. Once he's on the field there's nothing stopping him from moving around the two fields that he owns.

davidmcn

JJG wrote: »

Surely in this situation 'Mr. Smith', would just say he was using the lane to access the allowed field.

He might say it, but if there's more persuasive evidence that he's telling porkies then it's not going to help him.

Stuart1918

Adrian & JJG, the law is a peculiar thing and whilst he may say he grants himself permission on each one time basis to wander between the two parcels of land, technically he does not have the legal right to do so. If he did, the right of access through the other land would be even more pointless. And as it currently stands, if gave up the right of access, he could still argue he needs it out of necessity as his two parcels of land have no legal access rights between them, the only legal access right being the one through the other land.