Unadopted Land that's now been sold on- should we go ahead with the purchase?

user1977

Aldraper said:

user1977 said:

Aldraper said:

Jeepers_Creepers said:

As far as I know, a RoW is a RoW is a RoW. It doesn't disappear just because someone changes the surface of the pathway or raises it by 3'.

Again - DO 'your' deeds show it as a RoW to your garden? If it does, then my understanding is you can walk down there at will.

That is worth confirming, because it should strengthen your hand. I mean, if the new owner were to ask for upkeep, then you can reply with "And you need to keep it clear for my access."

Is the fence 'yours'?

So maybe i should look into whether this land is actually still unadopted?

"Unadopted" means no more than the roads department don't maintain it. Which is almost certainly still the case if it's a Tesco car park!

But don't "look into it" by contacting third parties at this stage, as that may invalidate any indemnity insurance if that ends up being the solution.

thanks. that's helpful. Are you saying- we shouldn't find out who the owner of the land is?  

I'm saying you shouldn't contact anybody else or start talking about this title quirk to them. There is an almost-zero chance of it actually mattering (you think Tesco are going to ask you to pay for maintenance of a bit of car park?) - just get indemnity insurance (or rather, get the vendors to get it) and then you can forget about it.

Aldraper

it's not owned by Tesco, they just use it as they take one of the retail units. Theres another owner but we don't know who. We need to contact them as the fence is in disrepair and we need to sort that by being on their land to replace some posts. Thats how it all began- by us asking the vendor who the land owner was and if there had been communications about repair of fence. 

I will look into indemnity insurance...or ask the vendor to.

Our solicitor just says "Management contracts for the upkeep of these "unadopted" roads and spaces are frequently sold off by the developer to property management companies in the same way as freeholds and ground rents, leaving owners of properties on the development to meet these future uncapped fees termed "estate charges" or "service charges" or similar." 

Which is what worried us. future uncapped fees. But maybe we're unecesarily worrying. 

Section62

Aldraper said:

No RoW. The alleyway has completely gone and the car park is now  about 3 foot higher than the garden on the other side (they've levelled it as it was on a slope).

Problem is, the car park is really badly maintained and the fence needs proper repair. So we'd need to contact the carpark owner about that.  So if I get in touch with them about the fence- I may rattle the cage...

 And given it's in London, I wouldn't be surprised if someone decides to put flats on the car park in the future. sounds like I need to chase our solicitor about it! thank you....

If it wasn't for ^this I'd agree with user1977 about getting an indemnity policy and forgetting all about it.

But lack of maintenance, some kind of retaining wall(?), and future development prospects all add up to risks I wouldn't want to take based on the level of uncertainty about land ownership and maintenance liabilities.

Tesco might not own the freehold of the land the store is built on (plus the mystery ownership of the former alley), it could be leased from A N Other who would see a lot more profit from selling for flat building. Tesco are normally very hot on maintenance of their stores and car parks, so the disrepair might be a warning sign that the situation is more complicated than it appears.

I would want to know who currently owns the strip of land the alley was previously situated on.

I'd also be concerned that the maintenance liability for the RoW might extend to whatever (wall?) is supporting that 3 foot level difference.

If the RoW still exists legally then it might also be in the interests of the landowner to go through the process of removing both that and the OP's potential maintenance liability (on a quid pro quo basis), provided there is nobody else with rights to use the RoW who might object. Getting the legal paperwork tidied up is likely to be more beneficial long-term than having an indemnity policy, which ultimately might not give the needed protection.

Aldraper

Section62 said:

Aldraper said:

No RoW. The alleyway has completely gone and the car park is now  about 3 foot higher than the garden on the other side (they've levelled it as it was on a slope).

Problem is, the car park is really badly maintained and the fence needs proper repair. So we'd need to contact the carpark owner about that.  So if I get in touch with them about the fence- I may rattle the cage...

 And given it's in London, I wouldn't be surprised if someone decides to put flats on the car park in the future. sounds like I need to chase our solicitor about it! thank you....

If it wasn't for ^this I'd agree with user1977 about getting an indemnity policy and forgetting all about it.

But lack of maintenance, some kind of retaining wall(?), and future development prospects all add up to risks I wouldn't want to take based on the level of uncertainty about land ownership and maintenance liabilities.

Tesco might not own the freehold of the land the store is built on (plus the mystery ownership of the former alley), it could be leased from A N Other who would see a lot more profit from selling for flat building. Tesco are normally very hot on maintenance of their stores and car parks, so the disrepair might be a warning sign that the situation is more complicated than it appears.

I would want to know who currently owns the strip of land the alley was previously situated on.

I'd also be concerned that the maintenance liability for the RoW might extend to whatever (wall?) is supporting that 3 foot level difference.

If the RoW still exists legally then it might also be in the interests of the landowner to go through the process of removing both that and the OP's potential maintenance liability (on a quid pro quo basis), provided there is nobody else with rights to use the RoW who might object. Getting the legal paperwork tidied up is likely to be more beneficial long-term than having an indemnity policy, which ultimately might not give the needed protection.

That's all very wise thanks. I guess it's also about how much risk and hassle we can bear. Really helpful thoughts.

I am probably more fearful than others would be, but for all the reasons above you state. i can catatrophise and see the worst of it! That's partly why I wanted to post to see what others thought or if they had experience of it for good or ill and whether I'm just being overly cautious. 

Pok3mon

If it is still on the deeds is it not still part of the property? Are you sure the carpark is supposed to be there or in the place it is? There may have been some sort of gentleman's agreement in the past.

I gave my neighbor part of my land 10x2m for £1 and new wall so he had enough space to park his car down the side I never used it but he sorted all the legals. No issues now we are selling.

Aldraper

Yeah we're trying to find out when it was transferred/built over. on 1934 plans, there is an alleyway down the side, (with a site that says "site for 8 flats and shops".By 1970s the alleyway and side access has gone and instead there is a car park right up to the fence with the house. So who knows! If I knew that had happened I'd be much happier- it's the not knowing that is difficult as you never know who could come back and make claim! 
Glad you've managed it well. That's what you hope would happen, right?