Un-adopted footpath /pavement and Homebuyers Survey questions from a seller

davidmcn

3or4magpies said:

davidmcn said:

3or4magpies said:

davidmcn said:

3or4magpies said:

Next issues is getting the proof to send to the solicitors though, up to 10 working days apparently, and they want us to exchange asap

Why can't the other solicitor just talk to the highways dept like you did?

Damn good question- incompetent?

It would be a bit weird for there to be an adopted road with an unadopted pavement running alongside it, and like I said above, the consequences are minimal anyway even if it were unadopted.

Issue would potentially be that the house is landlocked if an unknown owner stuck a fence up along it (highly unlikely after 53 yrs)

You'd have established rights of access after this length of time.

Section62

NeverTooLate said:

They did spot the issue to start with though, maybe not so incompetent.

But if the highway authority are saying the paths are adopted then how has the solicitor got it into their head that there is an issue?

Unless the info 3or4magpies has been given is wrong and there are two parallel paths with the one nearer to the houses being unadopted. (that isn't impossible)

3or4magpies said:

I'm still unclear if they mean the pavement (along the edge of the road) or the footpath (running inside that with grass verge in between. The county council chap implied both are adopted though

Any chance of a picture - doesn't have to reveal the location - just so we can see how the paths are arranged.

However, the advice davidmcn gave probably still applies - after 20 years use there is something called presumptive dedication (Highways Act S31) if this is in England or Wales and if the original owner didn't take the necessary steps to prevent it (e.g. notices).

If a way becomes public by presumptive dedication then the highway authority should become responsible for maintenance.  The outcome is effectively the same as adoption, but the ownership of the land won't be changed.

3or4magpies

*picture removed* the footpath bottom left is to our front door, the white car is on the road outside the house.

Section62

3or4magpies said:

As below,(hope it posts) the footpath bottom left is to our front door, the white car is on the road outside the house.

Thanks. Yes, that was what I'd been expecting to see after your further description of the situation.

It is possible that the adoption only covered the path nearest to the road and the grass strip, with the path closest to the house remaining with the developer.  There are reasons (from the developer's POV) why that might be a good idea.

But if no action has been taken to prevent presumptive dedication then it is probable that both paths can be claimed as public highway.  The council's highways register would then show both as 'adopted', even though different processes had been applied.

Presumptive dedication rather than adoption could mean the strip of land remains in the original developer's ownership, and if the buyer's solicitor notice this they might have concerns about it becoming a 'ransom strip'.  But if presumptive dedication has occurred then the adjoining householders would have at least the same access rights as they would from any other adjoining public highway.

3or4magpies

Section62 said:

3or4magpies said:

As below,(hope it posts) the footpath bottom left is to our front door, the white car is on the road outside the house.

Thanks. Yes, that was what I'd been expecting to see after your further description of the situation.

It is possible that the adoption only covered the path nearest to the road and the grass strip, with the path closest to the house remaining with the developer.  There are reasons (from the developer's POV) why that might be a good idea.

But if no action has been taken to prevent presumptive dedication then it is probable that both paths can be claimed as public highway.  The council's highways register would then show both as 'adopted', even though different processes had been applied.

Presumptive dedication rather than adoption could mean the strip of land remains in the original developer's ownership, and if the buyer's solicitor notice this they might have concerns about it becoming a 'ransom strip'.  But if presumptive dedication has occurred then the adjoining householders would have at least the same access rights as they would from any other adjoining public highway.

Thanks Section 62. I'm assuming (hoping) that the council will come back and state that it's adopted then (as that's what may/should show on their maps). Legally, does it matter as long as it's not a ransom strip? I'm assuming this is what the buyers solicitor might be getting at (not so incompetent after all then). Is it better all round just to get an indemnity policy and move on?

3or4magpies

Also there are water meters situated within the nearer footpath- something I assume they had to get permission to do from an owner (the council?)

Section62

3or4magpies said:

Thanks Section 62. I'm assuming (hoping) that the council will come back and state that it's adopted then (as that's what may/should show on their maps).

You might need to prod them a bit to make sure you get the right answer.  The default response would be something like confirmation that the carriageway and footways in "x Street" are adopted.  You need a more specific answer about the extend of adoption and/or maintainable highway, so it is important the request is framed in the right way.

3or4magpies said:

Legally, does it matter as long as it's not a ransom strip? I'm assuming this is what the buyers solicitor might be getting at (not so incompetent after all then). Is it better all round just to get an indemnity policy and move on?

I don't have the legal background to be able to comment on that, but as I understand it there is usually no difference in terms of user rights dependent on whether the highway was dedicated or adopted.  One of the user rights is access to/from adjoining land.

3or4magpies said:

Also there are water meters situated within the nearer footpath- something I assume they had to get permission to do from an owner (the council?)

Again, as I understand things, the statutory water company has powers to place meters or stop valves in private land as well as in the public highway.  They usually prefer to put them close to the boundary just within the public highway (because they are guaranteed easy access). But there is no reason not to put them on private land, and many people have their water meter on the rising main, typically under the kitchen sink.

3or4magpies

Useful and detailed Section62, I'm so grateful thank you. I'm going to ring the council tomorrow and check they've received the enquiry, and then check they're understanding what I need (reframe it if necessary). Thanks to everyone for all their input to date 

Seashell517

3or4magpies said:

Yes, that's an option, I don't mind paying at all, just want to move!
Onwards purchase (vacant possession)and chain below us(our buyers and a FTB under them) want to exchange asap (this/next week- who knows) and so do I!.
County Council website said thanks for your enquiry (I've made my own rather than wait for the solicitors to get their act together) it'll be up to 10 working days (quicker if possible). EA said well done, suggest you chase it up with a call tomorrow and check they've received the enquiry in the hope it might move more quickly.

I've just ended up paying for an indemnity policy for my buyers, because even though I know that it's not needed, I'd rather just pay the £70 and get exchanged rather than take the time needed to prove it's a non-issue to the buyer's conveyancer... (Just the fact that it's so cheap shows how unlikely it is that there will be a problem...)

3or4magpies

Thanks Seashell517, if I could ever get hold of the solicitor I'd see if we can just do that.