Back 1.5m of garden owned by life insurance company?

musehead

I'm looking at houses to buy at the moment and found a really nice looking terraced house. At the back of the garden is a makeshift 1.5m deep shed across the width of the garden which goes up to the fence of the neighbouring property to the rear. Having looked at some maps and the title plans, there was originally a 1.5m wide passageway at the rear stretching across 8 adjacent houses. This is the title plan for the house I'm interested in:



To be clear, the passageway to the rear directly behind 92 has been absorbed by them and converted into a narrow shed, the shed is on land which is not included in the title plan. Number 90 is not using the passageway, and doesn't have access to it, it's just a 1.5m wide void space between the 2 fences filled with earth, weeds and branches. Number 94 is also using the space as a shed, however the title plan for 94 shows they own this section of land:



Finally, I downloaded the title deeds for the "land behind number 92", and it says it has been owned by "PHOENIX LIFE ASSURANCE LIMITED", a life insurance company, since 1906, which I believe is around the time these houses were built:



Would I right be right in thinking that, at some point, numbers 98, 94, 88 and 86 have bought the land from this company? Is there any way to find out how much they bought it for? 

The title register says:

"The parts of the passageway on the north west side of X Road remaining in the title are subject to rights of way."

I'm not sure what this means in reality because the ex-passageway is not accessible at all, apart from just the side passageway next to 94, and possibly by 96.

I've never seen a situation like this, what are the implications here? 

TBagpuss

You could download the title deeds for number 94 / 98 or 88 and see whether their deeds show that land and whether a search for 'land behind [those numbers' yields anything, as if there is a still a separate title then it would show when it was last transferred and *may* show how much for.
Beyond that I am not sure that there's any way of finding out, although you might be able to ask around - if any of the neighbours have been there a long time they may know.
The implications are that if you buy the house, it's possible that someone may have a right of way along the passage at the back, so if you were obstructing it then you might have to remove the obstruction

Grumpy_chap

I assume that 90 - 84 have right of way along this alley. What if they want to use it, for Wheely bin or big delivery, or mini digger to landscape the garden?
One to ask the solicitor

jennycov40

Right to buy 
Iv been in my house 12 years in February my son is going to buy for me how much discount will I get 
thank you 
Jenny 

Slithery

jennycov40 said:

Right to buy 
Iv been in my house 12 years in February my son is going to buy for me how much discount will I get 
thank you 
Jenny 

Please start your own thread.

edgex

The deeds have been updated relatively recently, as PHOENIX LIFE ASSURANCE LIMITED is the new name of Pearl Assurance, since 2012.

94 may own the land, but there could still be a Right of Way over it for 92-84.
With so many properties involved, & it being the only 'not through the house' access to the rear gardens, I would work on the assumption that the Right of Way still exists.
Plenty of people put gates across these rear accesses, but you have to open them for access when asked.

musehead

edgex said:

The deeds have been updated relatively recently, as PHOENIX LIFE ASSURANCE LIMITED is the new name of Pearl Assurance, since 2012.

94 may own the land, but there could still be a Right of Way over it for 92-84.
With so many properties involved, & it being the only 'not through the house' access to the rear gardens, I would work on the assumption that the Right of Way still exists.
Plenty of people put gates across these rear accesses, but you have to open them for access when asked.

Yes, according to the deeds:

Title absolute

1 (06.12.1906) PROPRIETOR: PHOENIX LIFE ASSURANCE LIMITED (Co. Regn. No. 1419) of 1 Wythall Green Way, Wythall, Birmingham B47 6WG.

2 (13.12.2012) The proprietor's address for service has been changed. 

Realistically, I wouldn't expect anyone to ever want to use that right of way because it would require demolishing at least 2 sheds, clearing bushes and vegetation out the way etc. The last time it was used may have been decades ago.

Is there potentially a problem with the fact that number 92 has built a shed on land which is owned by someone else? Other than the fact that it might be blocking a right of way? I think I would feel a bit uncomfortable if I bought this house, knowing that my shed is built on someone else's land. Surely it's not legal to do that?

musehead

I looked at the deeds for number 94, the one that appears to own their section of the passageway at the back:

2 The land has the benefit of the rights granted by but is subject to the rights reserved by the Transfer dated 28 January 1970 referred to in the Charges Register.

3 The Transfer dated 28 January 1970 referred to in the Charges Register contains a provision as to light or air. 

Under Charges:

1 A Transfer of the land in this title dated 28 January 1970 made between (1) Pearl Assurance Company Limited and (2) Frank George Harris contains restrictive covenants.
NOTE: Original filed.

So, it looks like the owner of that property bought the land in 1970 but no record of the cost. I don't know what "restrictive covenants" refers to, nothing else mentioned.

eddddy

musehead said:

Is there potentially a problem with the fact that number 92 has built a shed on land which is owned by someone else? Other than the fact that it might be blocking a right of way? I think I would feel a bit uncomfortable if I bought this house, knowing that my shed is built on someone else's land. Surely it's not legal to do that?

Maybe think of it in these terms...

• You're buying the property excluding the 1.5m strip and shed. 
• For the moment, you can use the 1.5m strip and shed for free - unless/until somebody complains that you've blocked their right of way, or that your shed is on their land.
• If somebody does complain, you'll have to spend an hour or two removing the shed
• (But given the circumstances, it seems unlikely that anyone will ever complain)

user1977

musehead said:

edgex said:

The deeds have been updated relatively recently, as PHOENIX LIFE ASSURANCE LIMITED is the new name of Pearl Assurance, since 2012.

94 may own the land, but there could still be a Right of Way over it for 92-84.
With so many properties involved, & it being the only 'not through the house' access to the rear gardens, I would work on the assumption that the Right of Way still exists.
Plenty of people put gates across these rear accesses, but you have to open them for access when asked.

Is there potentially a problem with the fact that number 92 has built a shed on land which is owned by someone else? Other than the fact that it might be blocking a right of way? I think I would feel a bit uncomfortable if I bought this house, knowing that my shed is built on someone else's land. Surely it's not legal to do that?

Depends what you mean by "legal". It's only a problem if and when the registered owner suddenly appears and demands you get your shed orf their land. Which doesn't seem at all likely here.

bouicca21

I doubt the deeds have been updated. Phoenix has been around for over two centuries.