We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Easement Issue
Comments
-
Wot, no cake?0
-
Sorry - that party was so yummy that cake was not required......shortcrust wrote: »Wot, no cake?0 -
lthompson87 wrote: »The easement if enforced would effectively allow him to drive over 3 gardens all in a row leading the the field. .
Sounds like a win-win to me. Horse gets to run around the field and gardens are manured en-route.Only if he owns a horse and cart. He can't drive a car....."to pass and repass on foot or with horses and carts, at all times"
0 -
OK so there IS doubt has whether the neighbor is actually a beneficiary by virtue of simply owning the land (or maybe you live next to the Secretary of State!). Normally easements are attached to land and therefore the owners of the land, so this is a bit unusual.
You can't be 100% sure at the moment - it's possible that the easement referred to may be more expansive in the original documentation, and include the Secretary of State in their capacity as the adjacent land owner. Or it's possible that they have established an easement through another method, such as long-term historic use, or an easement by necessity, or an easement that you don't know exists yet.
But I would say this puts the ball back into their court to evidence their right to pass on the terms suggested.
As G_M suggests, it's probably best to communicate with them at this time. You probably don't need to go in with blazing opposition - it's not yet the stage for antagonism. Simply show them the clause, ask them for further evidence, see what they come up with (if anything).
The other thing I wanted to add is that if you are happy for them to continue accessing the field even without an easement in place, you should probably give them a license (as they can't build up rights to an easement under a license). That's nothing more than giving them permission to do it, but write and keep the evidence that you did. You don't need to say anything more that you give them permission to cross from x to y via z on foot until further notice - you should give yourself the right to cancel it at any time.
Let us know how it goes.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards