Private track indemnity insurance

ellectrastar

Hi,


I posted previously about a property I am prospectively buying in relation to public rights of way that were over it. Having decided I can live with this aspect I am now faced with another decision...


The property is accessed off a "shared" track. There are six properties off of the track - four up to and including the one I am looking at (approx. 1/4 mile from the main highway), and another two farther on. The solicitor has today confirmed that there is no legally assured right of way over this lane and no maintenance/repair obligations noted on the title.



I previously thought that if this was the case that it would be a deal-breaker, but I just want to take into consideration one last thing which is the right of way indemnity insurance.



Does anyone have any experience of taking this out, or having to invoke it?



As far as I understand it, because the lane doesn't appear to actually belong to anyone, there isn't anywhere to go to to ask for a legal right of way to be added to the registry. And because the lane doesn't belong to anyone I also wonder who would have the power to stop you from using it in any way? But the insurance would "buy" me a right of way, or compensate me for loss of value (although I can't see the place being worth anything if you have to walk 1/4 mile to get to it??)


If anyone has experience or knowledge of this your response would be much appreciated.

tom9980

My in laws bought a property in 1986. It was a mill house the access was about 1 mile over fields and the old railway line. At some point there were multiple tracks to it from 3 or 4 directions but the main route was clearly marked on maps for 100+ years as a track.

The bit from the main road to railway line they had redone with the farmers permission they found the old track under the mud about a metre down. We suspect it was ploughed up during the war. The farmer didn't want them to restore the remaining half from the railway line to their property because it would cut his field in half. The farmer didn't dispute their right of way it was very clear they had it and for a good 20 years everyone was happy they simply left their car parked on the old railway line and used a 4x4 or walked.

The mortgage company at the time requested they get indemnity for the access because it wasn't documented on any deeds. This indemnity policy when they needed it 30+ years later was useless it stated they couldn't talk with the landowner or it would be invalid. But they couldn't not talk to the farmer to discuss restoring the access, he might agree. I suspect the policy was not fit for purpose or miss-sold and they had no idea about this clause at the time it was purchased. Read the terms very carefully!

They tried a few times to solve the track issue with the farmer who they were friends with (their son visited them just last week) and ultimately had to sell because the remoteness of the property was too much for them to cope with and they didn't have money to purchase land for a new route. It cost the new owner a good £90k to buy land and build a new track and my in laws something like £150k devaluing the property.

Be wary.

G_M

Sigh!


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5881757/public-right-of-way-query

ellectrastar

G_M wrote: »

Sigh!


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5881757/public-right-of-way-query

Sigh? This is a link to my previous thread which was about a different matter.

ellectrastar

tom9980 wrote: »

The bit from the main road to railway line they had redone with the farmers permission they found the old track under the mud about a metre down. We suspect it was ploughed up during the war. The farmer didn't want them to restore the remaining half from the railway line to their property because it would cut his field in half. The farmer didn't dispute their right of way it was very clear they had it and for a good 20 years everyone was happy they simply left their car parked on the old railway line and used a 4x4 or walked.

So their access was over land that the farmer owned? But there was no right of access documented on their land registry? See, if anyone owned the lane it would give us somewhere to start about getting a right of access registered, but as far as we know no-one officially owns it (although I'm not sure how that's possible). Which if true seems to raise the question of who would have the "right" to stop you using it at any point? No one property could claim adverse possession of it as it's regularly used by all.

tom9980

ellectrastar wrote: »

So their access was over land that the farmer owned? But there was no right of access documented on their land registry? See, if anyone owned the lane it would give us somewhere to start about getting a right of access registered, but as far as we know no-one officially owns it (although I'm not sure how that's possible). Which if true seems to raise the question of who would have the "right" to stop you using it at any point? No one property could claim adverse possession of it as it's regularly used by all.

None of the properties were registered on the Land Registry, there might be something about the track in someones paper deeds but there was nothing in my in laws which iirc have various documents well over 100 years old.

davidmcn

ellectrastar wrote: »

If anyone has experience or knowledge of this your response would be much appreciated.

Presumably your solicitor has experience and knowledge of it? They're also the only ones who can tell you exactly what the policy in question will cover. But in general the policy ought to cover the cost of challenging anyone who tries to prevent you using the access, and failing that, the loss of value of the property.

angelin77

We purchased a property in Cornwall that was accessed via a track which also served 2 other properties and originally was the rear access to a tin mine (now a visitor attraction) but was sealed off for mine traffic. Our solicitor arranged an indemnity insurance for which the seller contributed 50% towards. The insurance amount was based on the cost of the property as it was then (eighteen years ago). All three properties have the ROW noted on their deeds and no one has ever challenged us. We do maintain the track and keep the weeds down and I recently filled in a couple of pot holes(first time in 18 years any appeared) caused through neighbour having extensive building works.

These access tracks are quite common in remote areas of Cornwall and I suspect the rest of the country.

ellectrastar

angelin77 wrote: »

We purchased a property in Cornwall that was accessed via a track which also served 2 other properties and originally was the rear access to a tin mine (now a visitor attraction) but was sealed off for mine traffic. Our solicitor arranged an indemnity insurance for which the seller contributed 50% towards. The insurance amount was based on the cost of the property as it was then (eighteen years ago). All three properties have the ROW noted on their deeds and no one has ever challenged us. We do maintain the track and keep the weeds down and I recently filled in a couple of pot holes(first time in 18 years any appeared) caused through neighbour having extensive building works.

These access tracks are quite common in remote areas of Cornwall and I suspect the rest of the country.

Slightly different from our situation as the ROW is not noted on the deeds. Is it on the deeds that you have an obligation to maintain the track as well? And if the ROW is noted on your deeds why would you need the insurance, as surely this makes it legally assured? Or is it still possible that the ROW could be challenged and this is what the insurance covers you for?