Blocked off access path for row of 4 terraced houses

werkandplay

Hello all!

We purchased a mid-terrace 1970s house a couple of years ago and noticed the left two of our row of four had blocked off the access path at the rear to extend their garden. We verbally agreed with the neighbours to the right and left that us and the neighbours to right should extend our gardens to the rear wall and finish enclosing the access path (as it's safer for everyone).

Now it specifically shows in our contract that the strip is within our land boundaries but states "A right of way on foot only over the footpath coloured green on the plan annexed hereto the persons enjoying such right paying with the purchaser an equal proportion the cost of maintaining and repairing the same. Note the footpath coloured green referred to is the part of the footpath of the rear included in the title"

We've fenced up the path as have our neighbours but we've (slightly unexpectedly) decided to move and we are wondering is this covenant in the property register going to cause us some enormous headaches? What should we do?

Any advice very gratefully received!

lincroft1710

Well you've all been naughty boys and/or girls. You should have all got together and each legally relinquished your right of way.

Any prospective purchaser will see there is no rear access and it is extremely unlikely a neighbour would want to exercise their right to use that part of the path across the rear of your property.

There may be problems with a prospective purchaser's mortgage provider, so my advice would be to discuss this with your solicitor

Mgman1965

It could cause sale problems if you prospective buyer or their lender twigs what the neighbours have done.

It could cause your neighbours a world of pain if a new owner decides to be difficult and demands to exercise their legal right of way and gets legal.

shortcrust

It wouldn’t faze me as a buyer for a second. I’d rather have the enclosed garden instead of a path that anyone can use. If all the neighbours are happy with the arrangement I can’t see why it would be an issue. Yes there’s a theoretical chance that the fences might have to come down and the path be restored but it doesn’t seem likely and if it did happen it wouldn’t be the end of the world.

I also can’t imagine how the lender would find out.

Edit to add: Where I live this sort of thing is really common. The way space is currently used at the rear of terraces often doesn’t pay much attention to deeds or covenants. There are all sorts of rights of ways for outside toilets and sheds etc that are now fenced off. No one cares because the rights of way aren’t needed and people would much rather have a bit of private space.

getmore4less

Rear access is so you don't have to take stuff through the house.

A decent solicitor will spot the rights and confirm with a prospective buyer it is there.

A sensible solution would have been gates to allow passage when required.
The primary access could have been locked with all owners having a key.

muhandis

Yeah, that's how it was when I lived in one of the mid-terrace houses in a row of 4. Effectively a narrow passage with fences on both sides ending at a locked gate to the side of one of the end terrace houses. I thought that would be the case in most places like this.

getmore4less wrote: »

A sensible solution would have been gates to allow passage when required.
The primary access could have been locked with all owners having a key.

Skiddaw1

Mind you, even with keys, those rear access paths are pretty well redundant in my experience. We have one (row of Victorian terraced houses) and although path is gated at both ends (all the residents in the road have keys) its completely overgrown. I tried to get down it once years ago but gave up and as far as I am aware, no one has ever used it in the 20 years we've been here. I doubt it has been in regular use since the days when people had regular deliveries of coal.

diggingdude

Whilst I agree with what everyone is saying, as a buyer I would probably walk away once I heard people "could" walk through my garden it they wanted to. My grandparents had a garden like this, they were the end terrace and remember seeing people walk through the garden. They were fine with it but I never liked it

Mgman1965

diggingdude wrote: »

Whilst I agree with what everyone is saying, as a buyer I would probably walk away once I heard people "could" walk through my garden it they wanted to. My grandparents had a garden like this, they were the end terrace and remember seeing people walk through the garden. They were fine with it but I never liked it

They're not everybody's cup of tea.

Some people are fine with them (as your grandparents were), others hate them, and if the latter is the opinion of all the residents then get rid of it as the OPs neighbours have, BUT, it has to be done with everyones written agreement AND legally removed on the houses deeds to save a possible heap of hassle later.

All it takes is one to become a rental property, a difficult tenant (who it doesn't affect or cause bother) to demand their "right of way" and everyone would have to comply or risk having to declare a neighbour dispute if anyone sells for however long.

Novice_investor101

I live in a block of 4 terraces, mines one of the end ones. There is an access alleyway between the two in the middle so that we can all get our bins out & there is a path that leads to the top of the garden of one of the middle ones to get to the outside toilets that aren't there anymore.

One neighbor has blocked this shared path with a raised vegetable bed (it forms about 1/3 of their garden). It leads to a bit of land at the top of my garden that I'm supposed to leave open to allow next door to get to their non existent outside toilet. I've fenced it off.

I still have rights to walk through my neighbors garden to get my bins in & out once a week, as is noted on the deeds/lease etc, but I'm one of the few people who use the front door to get in & out of my house rather than the back door like most, so I'm not disturbing my neighbour all the time.
I specifically bought the end house because I didn't want all & sundry in & out of my garden!

No one has ever bothered about the blocked off bits that "should" be left open to access because the reason for the access is obsolete - outside toilets that aren't there anymore.

Davesnave

Many of these walkways are at the end of gardens and not much bother, but people nowadays are often territorial and fearful of burglary, or worse. When I lived in a house with a rear pedestrian access, I appreciated the convenience so I'd have opposed any move to remove it. Yes, that neighbour who'd cause a dispute!:rotfl:

Where I live now, there are old, terraced, thatched properties with no front garden and rear walkways close to the house, now used for wheelie-bins etc and previously for access to old thunderboxes. There's no chance of these going, though they could be made secure if burglary became commonplace here. They are just part of the price one pays for a period property, along with thatch renewal every 20 years, and mice!