Accessway land ownership question

teachfast

greatcrested said:

Like Dave, I too would not buy a property with no rear or side access. Push/carry my bike through the house every time? No thanks!

Yes, of course, many people will not be put off by this, but some will so the 'pool' of potential buyers is reduced.

Might have a garage access at the front where bike is stored. I lived in one for 14 years, no problem at all. Depends on the layout. 

Davesnave

davidmcn said:

Davesnave said:

davidmcn said:

Davesnave said:

Jaynorth_2 said:

I am facing a similar issue with my house sale but in my case, I am in an end of terrace house so the accessway is just a narrow path that runs beside my house and then branches when it reaches the wall at the end of my garden and extends behind other houses on my street.

My buyers solicitors are also claiming that my buyers could be prevented from accessing the property in the future because of the lack of easements and access rights in the title of my property, and that they will even not be able to sell my property in future because it will be impossible to obtain a mortgage! All of which I find totally ridiculous seeing as my property is currently mortgaged and was mortgaged by the previous owners, and the thought of someone stopping them from taking the 10 second or less walk down the narrow path from the garden gate to the pavement is farcical!  I have pointed out that the access via the garden gate is actually a benefit and not a necessity as the main and official access point to the property is through the front door.

The buyers solicitors have already suggested and drawn up the paperwork for some indemnity insurance which they say can cover this risk for the buyers so you may be able to go down this route if you want but the insurance is around £250 and I have already said that I am not paying for it so will have to wait and see what happens. Hopefully common sense will prevail.

Saying that having rear access is a benefit, not a necessity, shows how far apart we are. I wouldn't look at a property that didn't have access to the garden, other than through the house.

But that is just your personal preference, no different from "I wouldn't buy a flat / on a main road / in a small village / older then 30 years old" etc. It's hardly uncommon for gardens to be accessible (both in practice and legally) only via the house and does not make a property unmarketable (I could point you at million-pound townhouses built like that in the 19th century) .

Absolutely, but I was talking about this buyer and myself only, not the whole of the human race. I was also commenting before the poster drip-fed important further information. Nowhere did I say or imply the property was unmarketable.

But apparently this buyer is arguing that it's unmarketable.

To them, maybe it is. There's nowt so queer as folk.

I lived with such rear alleyways most of my adult life and I know how  much 'fun' they can be. I've seen sheds erected on them, walls collapsing and the debris remaining for many months and neighbours deciding to put locked gates across them.When I left the last house with one, a group of nearby residents thought their alley was invitation to burglars, and worse, ("We want our  children to play in the garden without worrying.") If they could, they'd have closed their section off.

There are certainly good reasons for wanting some sort of insurance to cover challenges to what is probably a RoW by continued use over many years.

davidmcn

Davesnave said:

davidmcn said:

Davesnave said:

davidmcn said:

Davesnave said:

Jaynorth_2 said:

I am facing a similar issue with my house sale but in my case, I am in an end of terrace house so the accessway is just a narrow path that runs beside my house and then branches when it reaches the wall at the end of my garden and extends behind other houses on my street.

My buyers solicitors are also claiming that my buyers could be prevented from accessing the property in the future because of the lack of easements and access rights in the title of my property, and that they will even not be able to sell my property in future because it will be impossible to obtain a mortgage! All of which I find totally ridiculous seeing as my property is currently mortgaged and was mortgaged by the previous owners, and the thought of someone stopping them from taking the 10 second or less walk down the narrow path from the garden gate to the pavement is farcical!  I have pointed out that the access via the garden gate is actually a benefit and not a necessity as the main and official access point to the property is through the front door.

The buyers solicitors have already suggested and drawn up the paperwork for some indemnity insurance which they say can cover this risk for the buyers so you may be able to go down this route if you want but the insurance is around £250 and I have already said that I am not paying for it so will have to wait and see what happens. Hopefully common sense will prevail.

Saying that having rear access is a benefit, not a necessity, shows how far apart we are. I wouldn't look at a property that didn't have access to the garden, other than through the house.

But that is just your personal preference, no different from "I wouldn't buy a flat / on a main road / in a small village / older then 30 years old" etc. It's hardly uncommon for gardens to be accessible (both in practice and legally) only via the house and does not make a property unmarketable (I could point you at million-pound townhouses built like that in the 19th century) .

Absolutely, but I was talking about this buyer and myself only, not the whole of the human race. I was also commenting before the poster drip-fed important further information. Nowhere did I say or imply the property was unmarketable.

But apparently this buyer is arguing that it's unmarketable.

To them, maybe it is.

No, they don't just mean subjectively: "they will even not be able to sell [the] property in future because it will be impossible to obtain a mortgage". I'm pointing out that's a load of ballcocks.

Jaynorth_2

No, they don't just mean subjectively: "they will even not be able to sell [the] property in future because it will be impossible to obtain a mortgage". I'm pointing out that's a load of ballcocks.

Exactly! and in my case this was coming from the buyers solicitors who I might add spent several weeks debating with me about the requirement for a building certificate for a boarded loft!

To them, maybe it is. There's nowt so queer as folk.

I lived with such rear alleyways most of my adult life and I know how  much 'fun' they can be. I've seen sheds erected on them, walls collapsing and the debris remaining for many months and neighbours deciding to put locked gates across them.When I left the last house with one, a group of nearby residents thought their alley was invitation to burglars, and worse, ("We want our  children to play in the garden without worrying.") If they could, they'd have closed their section off.

There are certainly good reasons for wanting some sort of insurance to cover challenges to what is probably a RoW by continued use over many years.

In some cases yes the insurance can cover unreasonable challenges but in the case where the path passes behind several properties it just is not practical to even try and block it off. They would do a lot better by erecting a higher garden fence with spikes on the top, and this is what I mean by saying the access through the gate is a benefit because some people might see it as a security risk and just board up the access completely which removes any question of having rights of access to the path.