access way indemnity policy

mudboz

In the process of buying a house where the 3/4 mile access lane is in a neighbours ownership. The sellers are taking out an access indemnity policy. How does that help me to get right of access sorted as a buyer with the neighbour, as the sellers do not wish to do this? They have had vehicular access for 20 years+ but because of timescale for completion the legal side may take too long and there is a long chain of purchasing .

G_M

Are you doing the conveyancing yourself? Don't! You clearly are out of your depth....

Using a solicitor? They will advise you on the risks, the processes, the timescales etc.

But basically you or they can claim Prescriptive Use. If you are going to claim it, you need the seller to sign a Statement of Truth saying they've used the road for 20 years.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/easements-claimed-by-prescription/practice-guide-52-easements-claimed-by-prescription

Alternatively you could claim an Easement by Necessity if there is no other way to access the property.

https://www.hepworthlegal.com/2015/02/land-landlocked-can-get-access/

moneyistooshorttomention

Not sure why you are concerned??

Over 20 years = prescriptive rights to keep using the track (including for vehicles).

I would have thought all you need to do is get that indemnity policy and have one of those "statements of truth" or the like from the seller certifying that they've had that access since x date (over 20 years ago).

The plus side to this set-up is it sounds as if there isn't any responsibility on your house to pay towards maintenance of this track in return for use of it as a "right of way".

davidmcn

And bear in mind that if you're relying on an indemnity policy, it's important that you don't discuss the access rights with the neighbour, or your cover will be invalidated.

tom9980

My advice is to pull out now.

The indemnity policy is worth nothing, in laws had one, it was impossible to claim on it because the only way they would resolve the track issue was to talk to the owner of the land which the policy prevents. Those policies are a scam in my book.

Their property would have been worth about 150k more with a proper track over the existing route. In the end about 100k was spent buying land and building a new one with planning over a different route by their eventual buyer.

The short story is they owned an old mill house that served the local farms there were multiple tracks on the land but they had sunk or been ploughed in over many years (probably WW2). They got on very well with the land owner but he refused to let them reinstate the hardcore on the middle 40% of the track over his field despite their friendship of 35 years.

Be very wary.

chunkytfg

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

The plus side to this set-up is it sounds as if there isn't any responsibility on your house to pay towards maintenance of this track in return for use of it as a "right of way".

Worth remembering though, as far as I know, they don't have an obligation to maintain it for your use so it could end up a rutted mess and thats tough on your part