Access to rear gardens under one ownership.

Jeepers_Creepers

Hello.

Asking for a friend, who fortunately is not actually involved in this issue as she has the end of terrace house which has its own side access to her garden.

The other three properties are as shown in my wonderful diagram. The other three houses have small rear gardens which lead on to a path - shown cross-hatched - via gates in their fencing. As far as I know, it's been like this since the houses were built in 2007.

Oookkkaaaay, the lady in 'No3' - the 'path owner' - has got emotional/mental problems and has caused various issues over the past few years such as lobbing stones over the garden fence at my friend's neighbour's cat (in 'No 2'). She has also posted cat faeces through that neighb's letterbox (possibly others), and generally caused some unpleasantness with other neighbours too. My friend's neighb sympathises with her to some degree as she appreciates the lady (at 'No3') has genuine paranoia, but it still isn't pleasant. 

The latest thing to happen is, the lady at 'No3' had a builder in to install a locked gate at the start of the path which runs to the rear of the three properties shown (all the houses except my friend's at 'No1'). This path has been used constantly to gain access to the backs of these gardens, and to allow recycling bins to be wheeled out from there for collection every fortnight. The lady at No3 has also fitted padlocks to the backs of the gates - certainly to No2's - to prevent her from exiting her garden on to that path.

Yesterday, my friend (No1) was in conversation with the owner of No5 - the end-of-terrace house in the next row which also has a garden and fence backing on to that now-inaccessible path - about this issue; the owner had collared her to ask what she thought about it all, and to say she could no longer access her fence for upkeep due to the locked gate. As they were talking, the owner of No3 came out to complain they were speaking too loudly, and - when they explained what they were talking about - declared it was her path, so she could do this if she wanted to.

She then brought out her title deeds, and to the jaw-dropping astonishment of my friend and the neighb, showed them her deeds plan which - sure enough - had that path outlined in red along with her house and garden - she owns the darned path! The house in the middle owns the bludy path! There ensued a scury home to check their own deeds, and - clucking bell - they apparently were only allowed access to that path to carry out repairs to their respective fences!

What the heck?!

Why on earth would a national builder do such a bizarre thing - give one mid-terraced house ownership of what appears to be a communal path?

And, given that the other houses have used that rear path on a regular basis, is there anything they can do? (My own suggestion - if all else failed - was to plaster her with requests for access to paint their fences...)

davidmcn

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Why on earth would a national builder do such a bizarre thing - give one mid-terraced house ownership of what appears to be a communal path?

Not that bizarre if the other properties have rights to use it - I would have thought it pretty unusual for ownership of the path to be communal. Who owns the other bits of the path? Sounds like the main issue is that everyone else thinks they have broader rights to use it than they actually do. What were they told by their solicitors when they bought?

greatcrested

Please quote the exact wording the in other properties' deeds regarding access to/along the path, and any maintenance liabilities.

For £3 the Titles can be downloaded here.

If the Titles refer to any other relevant document(s) eg a "conveyance dated xx/xx/xx", that can be obtained from the Land Registry for £6 using form OC2. Again, quote the exact wording therein.

Without this, no one can advise you on what rights the other property owners have.

Jeepers_Creepers

Thanks David and Crested.

Their first assumption was that the path was owned by the grounds maintenance company, but they seemingly only have responsibility for the front paths (and communal green spaces).

Sorry, no idea what the exact wording is as my friend fortunately doesn't have this issue. She did report that one of her neighbs confirmed - when they checked - that it was, indeed, access only for upkeep/repairs to boundaries. 

Neighb at No2 doesn't have sight of deeds as she's renting the place - ironically she had been given notice to quit as LL wanted to sell, but he realised he was scuppered by the reputation of No3 so didn't, so neighb was allowed to stay. Silver lining, I guess :-)

This is 'normal', tho'?

Hey-ho. 

greatcrested

Pointless to speculate.

Come back when you've obtained the documents. The LR Title(s) will take you about 5 minutes.....

carefullycautious

Cant believe that the immediate neighbours did not know this. Did they not read their documents before buying? Also you cannot say that someone has mental problems just because they dont want neighbours cats cra**ing on their garden. Non cat lovers hate this happening.
If they could have kept on good terms with her she may have allowed them a key. Has she done this for security reasons?

Jeepers_Creepers

I'll pass that on, Crested, but that's an issue for the neighbs involved should they wish to pursue it. 

I'm not saying that the lady has mental health issues, Careful, but it's the sympathetic conclusion of No2 (a health care worker) and my friend (a school teacher). There is a much larger list of incidents than the cat 'stoning' and poo, but that's beside the point as far as the ownership of this path is concerned. Despite a long-standing range of unpleasant behaviour, the neighbs have held back from taking action; they are, on the whole, genuinely nice, considerate people. Had they considered her past behaviour to have been simply malicious, the cops would have been called out, more than once.

It surprised me, that's all - one mid-terraced house would be given this sort of ownership by a modern developer, when most of the houses have actual access to it and significantly benefit from this access as it's the only way to get to their gardens except through their houses - it seems almost guaranteed to cause problems down the line. I mean, why isn't it shared ownership? Why isn't it part of the rest of the communal grounds and front pathways? The mid-terrace 'owner' can wheel their bins out that way if they like, but no-one else can? I thought this was was weird, but seemingly it isn't?

Yes, the lady at No3 probably has done this for security reasons, but not for justifiable ones; it is a very quiet neighbourhood with no such issues. 

greatcrested

Jeepers_Creepers said:

I'll pass that on, Crested, but that's an issue for the neighbs involved should they wish to pursue it. ......
It surprised me, that's all - one mid-terraced house would be given this sort of ownership by a modern developer, when most of the houses have actual access to it and significantly benefit from this access as it's the only way to get to their gardens except through their houses - it seems almost guaranteed to cause problems down the line. I mean, why isn't it shared ownership? Why isn't it part of the rest of the communal grounds and front pathways? The mid-terrace 'owner' can wheel their bins out that way if they like, but no-one else can? I thought this was was weird, but seemingly it isn't?

No idea why you continue to ask questions, and express surprise, when you still have no idea of the reality of the legal set up. As I said earlier, it's all speculation.

If you're asking for the neighbours- fine. Pass on the info, let them pursue and stop posting.

If you're asking out of personal curiosity, spend a couple of quid, post the required information, and we'll try to satisfy your curiosity!

Jeepers_Creepers

:-)

My apologies for expressing surprise :-)

Jeepers_Creepers

But I think it's surprising.


I'll stop now...

Fosterdog

You keep saying it's a mid terraced house but from the plan you have drawn and the fact there is an entrance at the side of the property so it would be an end of terrace so perfectly normal for it to have access that mid terrace properties don't have