Removing Right of Way from terraced house.

unforeseen

Mojisola wrote: »

In this instance, but could he if he wanted - thinking hypothetically now?

Becoming the owner of both properties has removed the original ROW but could the owner make a new one before selling or would it have to be done after the two properties had different owners?

The current owner can not make one as Unity of Seisin applies. No ROW can exist while in common ownership. So effectively OP holds all the cards

chris_m

unforeseen wrote: »

There is nothing saying the middle house has a ROW at the other end.

See post 11

slowpoke_rodriguez

chris_m wrote: »

See post 11

I am assuming there is a ROW at the other end. There may not be. The other end house may also have a ROW across "my" garden...
Plenty of food for thought if my offer is accepted.
Thanks!

G_M

I assume that when selling the end house, the owner of the 2 houses could include in the contract that the middle house was to have a (new) ROW (assuming he realises the current ROW has been extinguished).

This commonly happens where a seller of a large plot/estate, sells off part of the land but with conditions attached.

The buyer would have no choice but to accept the condition or walk away from the purchase. Or perhaps renegotiate the condition eg to specify that the ROW was for weekly bin removal only or whatever.

unforeseen

chris_m wrote: »

See post 11

Sorry, missed that.

unforeseen

G_M wrote: »

I assume that when selling the end house, the owner of the 2 houses could include in the contract that the middle house was to have a (new) ROW (assuming he realises the current ROW has been extinguished).

He could but I would expect any buyer, if they proceeded, to want a large drop in price to accommodate that condition

G_M wrote: »

This commonly happens where a seller of a large plot/estate, sells off part of the land but with conditions attached.

I think that is slightly different as they would be creating brand new deeds for each plot

G_M wrote: »

The buyer would have no choice but to accept the condition or walk away from the purchase. Or perhaps renegotiate the condition eg to specify that the ROW was for weekly bin removal only or whatever.

I imagine it's a deal killer for a lot of people.

There is a big difference between buying a house with a ROW and buying a house with a condition that a ROW is created.


If I were OP I would go ahead with the purchase and not mention about it until after exchange if the owner hasn't realised already

chris_m

unforeseen wrote: »

See post 11

Sorry, missed that.

No probs

Although, the OP's now said that what they said in that post was an assumption, not fact :mad:

unforeseen

OP needs to get the deeds for all 3 houses to find out if the other end house has a ROW through the middle to the 'his' end house. If so, then it could get very complicated if the guy in the middle doesn't have a ROW.

bouicca21

I think the important thing is to check the precise ownership of both properties. Unity of seisin only works if both are owned by e.g. Joe Bloggs. If one is owned by Joe Bloggs and the other by Mr and Mrs Joe Bloggs there is no unity of seisin.

I think you'd have to make an application to land registry to alter the details they hold about the title.

robatwork

Can I just clarify - for the middle house is the ROW their only access to the rear of their house (apart from their back door of course), or do they also have a back path/entrance too?