buying a house on a private road

EachPenny

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote: »

What happens with private roads when it snows?

In my area, people on the private road club together for snow plowing but does that happen everywhere? Will the council do it even if it's private?

The owners/users get their snow shovels out and clear it themselves... or walk to work/school instead

In theory you might be able to negotiate with the council to include the road on a gritting run, but they would want to be paid for it and have an agreement which removes any risk of liability from them. In practical terms it is very unlikely to happen.

Many councils won't even take refuse collection vehicles into private roads because of the risk of causing damage. Taking a lorry into a snow/ice covered private road is asking for trouble.

hazyjo wrote: »

You're lucky down here if they even grit the non-private roads :rotfl: It's often just the main roads they attempt to clear. I don't remember them ever doing my road and they certainly didn't do my last road!

Councils usually have a prioritisation policy - starting with 'A' roads, then bus routes, roads serving hospitals or used by the emergency services. Residential roads are normally at the bottom of the pile, unless they happen to be in one of the higher priority categories, or are a convenient short-cut to take on a gritting/clearance run. By the time the higher priority roads have all been sorted out the snow has normally melted on the residential streets

AlexMac

Wow; I live on a private road- of about 100 houses - in an inner London suburb, which is also a right of way albeit not "adopted" by the council and with absolutely no arrangements in place for its maintenance. Doesn't even have pavements.

So I'm coming late to this thread (after a day out walking in the country, on public footpaths through mud, steps, styles, herds of cows and footbridges, all of which were privately owned; yet I survived, without falling over or suing the landowner) and thinking;
....if I'd read this lot of comment and advice, I'd never have bought it....

Only joking; of course I'd have bought it! Get real.

You can over-think this stuff. We get may hundreds of pedestrians, cyclists and delivery vans, dustcarts and visitors' cars along our street every day and it just ain't a problem. Some potholes are a foot deep (we call it traffic-calming).

No one falls. No one busts their suspension or tyres. No one sues. When it rains, the potholes fill with water. When it gets icy or snowy it usually melts after a few days...

Life goes on. Occasionally (as most people own the bit of the road outside their house) neighbours gang together and engage a cowboy to spread some black stuff. Cheapskates like me buy a bag or two of Tarmac Cold Fill and top up the worst holes...

Life goes on

(Oh and in a private road resale values are at a bit of a premium!)

EachPenny

AlexMac wrote: »

Wow; I live on a private road- of about 100 houses - in an inner London suburb, which is also a right of way albeit not "adopted" by the council and with absolutely no arrangements in place for its maintenance.

See below.

AlexMac wrote: »

So I'm coming late to this thread (after a day out walking in the country, on public footpaths through mud, steps, styles, herds of cows and footbridges, all of which were privately owned; yet I survived, without falling over or suing the landowner)

Probably not much point suing the landowner. If you were on a public footpath then you were on a highway maintainable at public expense and the local council would most likely be the relevant Highway Authority. You could try suing them, but your lawyer would probably advise you of the difficulties in making a successful claim.

The Highway Authority's duties are commensurate to use and the nature of the highway. Users of a footpath through a muddy field can expect to find the surface uneven and slippery and would be expected to take appropriate care. If a footbrige or stile collapses due to lack of maintenance then you might have grounds for a claim, but if you slip because the wood is wet then don't waste your time.

There may be circumstances where a claim against the landowner would be appropriate, but unless the landowner is an idiot they will have insurance in place covering the risks involved.

People using a countryside footpath are expected to realise the environment they are in poses specific risks and act accordingly. The same cannot be said of a 'street' in an 'inner London suburb'.

AlexMac wrote: »

You can over-think this stuff. We get may hundreds of pedestrians, cyclists and delivery vans, dustcarts and visitors' cars along our street every day and it just ain't a problem. Some potholes are a foot deep (we call it traffic-calming).

That's what many people say up to the day when it does become a problem.

AlexMac wrote: »

No one falls. No one busts their suspension or tyres. No one sues. When it rains, the potholes fill with water. When it gets icy or snowy it usually melts after a few days...

You've been lucky, let's all hope it stays that way. But many thousands of claims are made every year against highway authorities for slips, trips and damage to vehicles. In principle there is no reason why a similar claim cannot be made against the owner of a private road. G_M would no doubt be willing to confirm that can happen and the headaches it might cause if it does.

AlexMac wrote: »

Life goes on. Occasionally (as most people own the bit of the road outside their house) neighbours gang together and engage a cowboy to spread some black stuff. Cheapskates like me buy a bag or two of Tarmac Cold Fill and top up the worst holes...

Which takes us back to the first paragraph where you said there were "absolutely no arrangements in place for its maintenance". Maybe there are no formal arrangements, but it sounds like some arrangements are in place and a recognition by the owners that there is a need to maintain and perhaps an acceptance of responsibility to maintain. That creates a significant degree of uncertainty over who is responsible for what and who might get sued in the event someone gets hurt.

You might be in a better position if there were no liability to maintain and nobody did any maintenance - but that is usually impracticable if you want to be able to use the road yourselves.

Perhaps one day shortly after the neighbours have got their cowboy to do some repairs a cyclist falls off their bike because of a pothole in your bit. You knew about the pothole and were going to fill it in the following weekend. Because the neighbours had put their bits into a good state of repair the cyclist had a reasonable expectation not to come across a pothole nearby. You declined to participate in the collective repair scheme, so have made yourself individually liable if the cyclist can demonstrate you are at fault. Just the kind of situation lawyers love because there is so much uncertainty to explore.

AlexMac wrote: »

(Oh and in a private road resale values are at a bit of a premium!)

Which is great news for the claims company, lawyers and the 'victim' because it means you are more likely to have sufficient assets available to make it worthwhile suing you. Whereas the owners of a back alley between ex-council houses are probably less likely to find themselves in that kind of situation. It's really unfair, but people wanting to make a quick buck tend to target those with the most money.

The people who need to 'get real' are the ones who think this could never happen to them. There is no need to start maintaining the road to motorway standard, but understanding the risks and how to mitigate them is just common sense. And the best time to do that is before you buy a property and make yourself liable for something you don't understand.

moneyistooshorttomention

EachPenny wrote: »

Perhaps one day shortly after the neighbours have got their cowboy to do some repairs a cyclist falls off their bike because of a pothole in your bit. You knew about the pothole and were going to fill it in the following weekend. Because the neighbours had put their bits into a good state of repair the cyclist had a reasonable expectation not to come across a pothole nearby. You declined to participate in the collective repair scheme, so have made yourself individually liable if the cyclist can demonstrate you are at fault. Just the kind of situation lawyers love because there is so much uncertainty to explore.

.

I can think of another unadopted road I know where one can easily see that there has been recent resurfacing work on the road - and it's now a patchwork quilt in this respect.

Going along it one sees - done outside this house (to halfway point across the road), done, done, not done, done, done, not done, not done etc type pattern. It's very clear what has happened there - ie a lot of the occupants have decided they would probably be "It" for any claim for the road outside their house only to the middle of the road only - and have protected themselves just by doing their bit. Followed by deliberately not doing the bits outside the homes of those who didnt contribute when the road as a whole was done.

Quite obviously they've decided the "frontager" concept is the one that applies. Clearly there doesnt appear to be a named owner of that road - and hence they've done things that way.

hazyjo

AlexMac wrote: »

You can over-think this stuff. We get may hundreds of pedestrians, cyclists and delivery vans, dustcarts and visitors' cars along our street every day and it just ain't a problem. Some potholes are a foot deep (we call it traffic-calming).

No one falls. No one busts their suspension or tyres. No one sues. When it rains, the potholes fill with water. When it gets icy or snowy it usually melts after a few days...

Feels a bit like me saying 'I've been driving for 30 years without having an accident - might as well not bother with insurance'.


It's becoming a very 'blame culture'. When I tripped over a paving slab, most people were saying 'sue the council'. My friend fell over and broke her wrist and straight away looked into how to sue them.


I don't think it'd be unreasonable to expect some sort of protection plan, insurance, whatever - just in case someone put in a claim for falling flat on their face and maybe being out of work for however long.

Barryoakcrest

I live on a priate cul de sac of 20 houses.A private Co. was set up to buy the road from the original owner and our Co. now owns the road. Each property has one share and one vote to decide all matters at AGM.

However one property refused to join the association and the share for that property is held in obeyance should the current,or any future ownwer decide to take it up.
The Co. makes an annual charge for Co.admin, maintenance and future provision for the road but this one property refuses to pay this charge on the basis that their deeds (which were set up by the previous and original road owner) state that they are responsible for maintenance of their road frontage and one twentieth of the common road and that this provision in their deeds takes precedence over any demand fom the Co.
The Companies argument is that the Co. now owns the road and is entitled to make a charge for its maintenance and that the statement in the deeds is now irrelevant(it being the provision made by the original owner who sold it to the Company.
Any previous experience of like situations would be much appreciated since we are a friendly road and wish if possible to resolve the matter without recourse to solicitors,if at all possible.

EachPenny

Barryoakcrest wrote: »

...this one property refuses to pay this charge on the basis that their deeds (which were set up by the previous and original road owner) state that they are responsible for maintenance of their road frontage and one twentieth of the common road and that this provision in their deeds takes precedence over any demand fom the Co.

Can you clarify whether the 'they' in bold means the owner of the property, or the (former) owner of the road?

The assumption in the absence of other information might be the property (house) owner is responsible for maintaining 'their' bit of the road.

Also, what is the 'common road' - is this clearly defined either in the wording of any agreement/deeds or on a plan? Sometimes it means the part of the private road between the boundary of the first house (the one nearest the public highway) and the public highway itself. These would be used by all residents, but may have no frontagers (e.g. flanked by houses which are accessed directly from the public highway). Does that apply in your case?

moneyistooshorttomention

Barryoakcrest wrote: »

The Co. makes an annual charge for Co.admin, maintenance and future provision for the road but this one property refuses to pay this charge on the basis that their deeds (which were set up by the previous and original road owner) state that they are responsible for maintenance of their road frontage and one twentieth of the common road and that this provision in their deeds takes precedence over any demand fom the Co.
The Companies argument is that the Co. now owns the road and is entitled to make a charge for its maintenance and that the statement in the deeds is now irrelevant(it being the provision made by the original owner who sold it to the Company.
Any previous experience of like situations would be much appreciated since we are a friendly road and wish if possible to resolve the matter without recourse to solicitors,if at all possible.

I can't make out what the difference in the amount of money concerned would be between:

a. What that house-owner was due to pay anyway under their own (prior) arrangement on the one hand

OR

b. If their share was covered by the Company on the other hand.

Surely they'd have the exact same amount of liability one way or another and be paying the exact same amount either way wouldnt they?

"Maintenance" and "future provision for the road" would be payable by that owner anyway wouldnt they?

The only (possible) difference I can see is your remark about "company admin." - ie I'm guessing that none of the houses were previously paying anything for "company admin".

If that "company admin" is the sticking point - then surely it doesn't cost more than literally a few £s a year (ie well under £100) and that would be split between 20 houses anyway = the amount each house would pay for "company admin" would be peanuts (no more than a couple of quid per house per year)?

I just don't see that there is any financial difference whatsoever between the two set-ups (previous and new) from what you are saying? So there would be no extra charge - and where's the problem then?

Which is just as well - as my suspicion would be this house is entitled to stick to exactly what is down in its own personal paperwork. If you wanted things to be any different - then my suspicion would be that the house-owner would have to be persuaded (and not threatened) and they would be entitled to force the company to pay the legal costs of changing their own personal paperwork to match. Is it really worth it for literally a couple of quid a year to cover 1/20th of "company admin" costs of a few £s a year?

Barryoakcrest

the they refers to the current owners and the "common" road refers to the main entrance road that is common to all and used by all properties.
Thanks

Barryoakcrest

The difference is that some properties have no frontage some have alittle and some have a lot but the Co. rules were agreed that to simplify matters all residents would pay the same i.e one twentieth of the total cost.
The property in question refuses to pay anything unless he decides the work needs doing and then he may make a voluntary contribution.
This ability for the Co. to make decisions at the AGM is one of the greatest adantages of having the Co. Getting twenty individuals all to agree seperately to do anything would be a nightmare.
I should also add that the charge we are talking about is £80 per annum!