Removing Right of Way from terraced house.

slowpoke_rodriguez

robatwork wrote: »

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?

There is no back path that I can see on satellite. There may have been once but houses were built along the back about 20 years ago.

It is possible the far end has a right of way across "my" garden, as they are not the same owner...

unforeseen

robatwork wrote: »

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?

If you are thinking easement of necessity then it won't apply because
a. They are not landlocked and
b. They have access to the rear through the house


As I said in my earlier post, Garden law is the best bet to get a qualified view. There are people on there who have dealt with this as part of their job.

robatwork

unforeseen wrote: »

If you are thinking easement of necessity then it won't apply because
a. They are not landlocked and
b. They have access to the rear through the house

That is what I was thinking (although didn't know the terminology).
The OP just said there wasn't a back path, so surely it is "landlocked". I do realise they have access through the house, but if they have no other access to the rear, that must make it more likely that a ROW would be upheld.

Note I am talking from common sense, not from a legal perspective, which sadly does diverge from common sense as often as feuding neighbours do.....

unforeseen

The premises are taken as a whole, not just the garden. There are loads of houses where the only access to the rear is through the house, especially back-to-backs built in the early part of the 20th century. They were designed and built that way.

Common sense says the owner of the 2 houses amends the deeds of the houses and transfers a strip of land wide enough for a path around the edges of the end house to the middle house to guarantee access to the middle house garden.

Land_Registry

I think I'm right but at present it is unconfirmed whether any rights of way are registered. Whilst a path is certainly a clue it is important to understand what rights exist, registered or claimed for example when considering such things.

Yes, unity of seisin can come into play when the dominant (benefiting from) and servient (subject to) land/property come into the same ownership but the registered rights would only be removed if the owner then applied for them to be removed.

So any registered right does not just become extinguished as soon as the one person buys both properties as they may simply sell one on again so the registered rights all remain in place.

Common sense is key here and all of the issues you face are ones your solicitor should be able to advise on and of course the seller can help with regards what options might be available especially if selling both properties on

As such I would recommend confirming what rights are actually registered and then explore what options are available re either the seller extinguishing them or perhaps varying them in some way as originally suggested.

unforeseen

Yes, unity of seisin can come into play when the dominant (benefiting from) and servient (subject to) land/property come into the same ownership but the registered rights would only be removed if the owner then applied for them to be removed.

Owner in this context will be any owner post the joint ownership, not only the owner that currently owns the 2 properties. However it pays to get this done sooner rather than later to prevent an easement by prescription occurring

moneyistooshorttomention

unforeseen wrote: »

However it pays to get this done sooner rather than later to prevent an easement by prescription occurring

If that is a possibility - then...yep... "sooner rather than later" sounds good. These "easements by prescription" take 20 years to build up - but you dont know how many years worth have "built up" so far presumably that might count towards that.

unforeseen

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

If that is a possibility - then...yep... "sooner rather than later" sounds good. These "easements by prescription" take 20 years to build up - but you dont know how many years worth have "built up" so far presumably that might count towards that.

None have built up because the houses are in common ownership.

You can not have an easement over land that you own

Ozzuk

I'm confused a little - unforeseen is saying ROW are automatically extinguished if owned by one party, but LR is saying a registered right isn't extinguished and will remain in place if property sold on. So which is correct?

I'd have thought if they sold the property on and the right of way is listed on the title deeds then that right would remain on the deeds for the new owner?

Interesting because my parent have a terraced property and as is common with many there are RoWs for the neighbours and they were told its virtually impossible to remove even if everyone agrees.

DaftyDuck

I believe unforseen is wrong, and LR is correct - at least I hope so! Mass confusion would exist from many Victorian BTL properties and HA properties, when they are sold on.

Consider the position where somebody owns two adjacent houses in a long terrace, but lets one, or them both out.... Say house 12 has access rights across house 14's back garden... has the common ownership extinguished the access rights laid down in the deeds? Is the Tenant suddenly landlocked because the LL has bought a neighbouring property? Unless the deeds are actively changed, no, the right remains.

How about the common access rights that were granted to numbers higher than these?

No, the rights remain. However, the same ownership just allows the rights to be removed, not that they are automatically removed...

At least, I think that's right. Whole can o' worms if it isn't!