No right of access over footpath to house!

sarlea

Thanks Tiglet2. The house was bought from the council by a previous owner in 1973, and Dad bought it in 1985.  I downloaded the title register for the house next door which is owned by the HA, having been bought from the council in 1995. It has the following clauses

The land has the benefit of a right of way over that part of the shared pathway included in 204 Saxton Road.

The part of the shared pathway included in the title is subject to rights of way for the benefit of 204 Saxton Road.

I think this refers to the path between 204 (private) and 206 (HA).

The parts of the shared accessways which adjoin the parts edged and numbered in green on the filed plan are subject to rights of way on foot only.

Number 198 (private) is edged green on the title plan and was bought from the HA in 1997, so they have the benefit of a right of way.

CSI_Yorkshire

"The part of the shared pathway included in the title" suggests that each house owns some of the path, not that it's council owned or unadopted.

sarlea

Looks like the path is owned by the HA that owns about half the houses that use it according to the title plan, having been previously owned by the council. Makes me wonder why a right of way wasn't given to all 14 houses at the time.

user1977

The rights ought to have been granted to each house with their title at the time each of them was originally sold off. It's not unknown for councils to get these things wrong (perhaps somebody assumed the path was adopted) but it ought to have been picked up by the solicitors acting for the original buyers, and your dad's when he bought. But not much you can do about that now.

ThisIsWeird

Sarlea, if neighbouring house's deeds have that right included in them, but your father's does not, then please buy the policy and move on.
Seemingly this new conveyancer is doing the right thing, and a better job than your father's did.
Personally, I would walk away from a property where the right to access it via its front path wasn't nailed down or protected. You'd be nuts to take the small risk, as the consequences could be so serious.
Oh, and since you are indemnifying, do NOT mention the path to anyone, or make any further enquiries :-)

Section62

Tiglet2 said:

If the council are the owners of the path, then they don't need to "adopt" it, it is already theirs.

The key issue for the OP though is if the land is highway (adopted or designated) then the lack of a RoW in the title is of no consequence.  They can step from their front gate onto Highway land.

From what the OP says the land is probably owned by the council as 'housing' land and unadopted, so therefore not highway.  If it were adopted/designated as highway already, or in the future, then the problem would go away.

In the (unlikely) event the council tried to stop the owner of this property using the path then it would probably be worth trying to use Highways Act 1980 S31 to show presumption of dedication as highway - as well as getting the local media involved in highlighting the absurdity of the council's actions.

If the title doesn't contain a RoW provision then I suspect rather than being an error it may have been that in 1973 it wasn't considered necessary to grant that RoW because the path was public realm and nobody would have contemplated a scenario in which the owner of the property wouldn't be allowed to walk over it.

propertyrental

sarlea said:

OK, I thought this was a money saving forum! 

Correct. It is. But there are many different ways to save money. Often, as here, spending a little money upfront can save you money down the line, so paying for the insurance could well be (almost certainly will be) 'moneysaving'.

sarlea

Thanks everyone. We've decided that buying the policy will be the simplest solution rather than have a drawn out investigation with the HA. Just hope they approve the rear access application.

zagubov

sarlea said:

OK, I thought this was a money saving forum! 

Yes, but...
Tails shouldn't wag dogs.  It's like the old saying that frugality is a great servant but would make a terrible god.
Therefore, sometimes -rarely - we suggest spending on things like these policies to save hassle rather than money.
Life's a short trip.
Don't fill it with hassle.

Edit: just saw the OP's last post! 
Probably the best outcome!