Tenant obstructing access rights.

silvercar

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81985777#Comment_81985777

Apparently it doesn’t. Though I can’t see how that can prevent the tenant of the mid terrace exercising their right to use the RoW. How can the landlord, in giving the tenancy, exclude a right to provide access if that is enshrined in the deeds to the property. A tenancy agreement gives the use of the property as defined in the deeds.
Tenancy is in England. Both were standard ASTs before 1/5/26.

silvercar

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81985324#Comment_81985324

I’m just the friend of the landlord of the mid terrace, no direct connection to the property myself.

user1977

It's the landlord's responsibility to procure access is granted, even if they've been stupid enough not to make their tenant aware.

WIAWSNB

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81985944#Comment_81985944

I would agree with your assessment. It doesn't make any sense to me that, just because one party (the LL) was negligent on providing this significant info, their tenant is now exempt from responsibility for something that is effectively written in law. I don't see it.

The tenant of the end property is obviously not responsible for not knowing, but - now that he does - how can he possibly continue to ignore what is forceable in law?

It is up to the tenant of that end property to take this up with the LL as a perfectly legitimate complaint if they wish, and perhaps arrive at an agreement to cancel the tenancy early with no penalty, should they wish to move on. Or, agree a rent discount.

But for the tenant to block access to a legitimate RoW? No way.

Say the end tenant had a guest or visitor, and this person spotted the middle-terrace tenant walking across their garden and accosted them about this, ignorant of the RoW. Once made aware of the RoW, would that visitor be still permitted to block the RoW? Of course not.

If the LL does not act, then the middle tenant needs to take direct action against the end tenant.

TroubledTarts

The simple fact is the LL of the end terrace has to have a chat with their tenant, advising them of the right of way and what happens then between that LL and tenant is non of your friends concern they just need to make it clear.

Otherwise you need to have a word with your friend and see how far they want to go on this.

WIAWSNB

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81986121#Comment_81986121

I understand the LL has had this chat, but the tenant is ignoring it, and the LL does not want to lose their tenant.

As I said before, it's enough to give LLs a bad name.

If it's stalemate using that approach, then there are, I think, three options for middle terrace tenant.

1. Give up, and stop trying.
2. Physically force the issue until the end tenant responds aggressively, and then call the police. By this I mean the mid-ten records and has witnesses present as they themselves move the objects out of the way. Or, they stop at the significant restriction - say with a barrow - and wait there calling for the endten to unblock it. The endten will have to decide what they prefer - to try and ignore and continue to restrict access, whilst completely losing their peace and privacy, or to come out and address it. If either party calls the cops (say midten feels intimidated by an aggressive endten, or idiot endten thinks he is being aggrieved by the midten), then the Bobby, whilst being careful to not take 'legal' sides, will/should look at the deeds evidence, and suggest to the endten to be careful, and to take legal advice if they intend to carry on blocking. And they will be told to not be threatening or aggressive.
3. Midten takes out an injunction against the endten, coupled with a claim for costs. If they have Legal Protection included in their contents policy, they'll be guided on this, but if not they'll either have to engage a solicitor, or DIY it. Endten would be bonkers to breach an injunction. Obvs a 'letter-before-action' is first sent. Don't threaten this unless you are prepared to carry it through. Keep unimpeachable evidence of the restrictions, and the endten's behaviour.

The above is based on my understanding of the situation. Lots of info is missing, tho', such as how 'significant' the restriction is, whether the midten has always used it successfully before now and it's only this endten who's an arris, whether both sets of deeds are unambiguous on the RoW, and how aggressive the endten is being.

The mid-ten, of course, needs to be 100% calm and in control, and have ready his mantras; "These are the deeds to my, and your, properties. The part highlighted in green indicates a RoW for the purpose of 'xy&z'. That (points) is a significant interference of the RoW, and was placed there by you after I explained the RoW. Are you going to remove it voluntarily?" If they become aggressive, "Are you going to talk about this calmly, or are you going to add aggression to the way you are blocking my RoW? If so, I will call the police." (Have local Bobby on speed dial - call them there and then.) And, of course, you have your, and your witness' phones recording all this.

Herzlos

If I was mid tenant I'd be giving end tenant a letter saying that RoW cannot be legally obstructed and will be removing obstructions after 24 hours. I'd then ensure regularly that the RoW is clear, ideally without damaging anything like the bolt, but if you need to break a padlock to ensure RoW then it'll be up to a court to decide if it's unfair.

The contract thing if the rental contract doesn't mention something that covers the RoW would be a mess. The RoW would still exist as the rental contract can't invalidate it, so I assume it'd make the rental contract invalid.

Was the RoW obvious when viewing up until the end tenant blocked it?

Why is the landlord so keen to keep a difficult tenant? It's not as if there's a shortage of them, and there's no guarantee that they'd actually leave if forced to maintain the RoW.

GDB2222

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81985944#Comment_81985944

The NRLA standard tenancy agreement contains:

"Where we have provided you with a copy of a Superior Lease setting out the promises we have made to our superior landlord, you agree that you will also be bound by these promises, excepting any service charges or ground rent which we are responsible for paying under the Superior Lease."

I don't suppose the NRLA would have included that unless it was needed. Nor do I suppose the EOT landlords included a copy of their deeds with the tenancy agreement.

I'm inclined to sympathise with the EOT tenants, assuming they really didn't know there was a ROW across their back garden when they took the tenancy. Of course, that's a matter between the EOT tenants and their landlord. It doesn't give them a right to block the ROW.

Your friend's tenants also have a right to quiet enjoyment, etc, and your friend may have an obligation as their landlord to enforce the ROW. One way to do that would be through an injunction. I'm not sure whether the injunction would be against the EOT landlord, EOT tenants, or both. There would be costs implications, so a threat of proceedings might bring this to an end.

There is a principle of "self‑help to abate a nuisance" and disabling the bolt on the gate would usually be okay. The risk is that this just aggravates the all-round annoyance. The police, if summoned, probably won't know the law, and there's a risk of being arrested for criminal damage. It just goes on …

If the ROW is just required for removal of garden waste, surely this is just occasional, so a bit of common sense really, really ought to apply?

Section62

silvercar said:

Two adjacent terraced houses, both tenanted, different landlords. One is an end of terrace and the mid terrace has a right of access to their own back garden, through the back garden of the end of terrace. This is written in the deeds of both properties.

Where does the RoW cross the end-of-terrace garden? Is it at the end furthest from the houses, or is it closer to the backs of the houses?

If the RoW is at the far end then one solution is to put up a fence to turn the RoW into effectively an alleyway - this means the end-of-terrace maintains their privacy, albeit with a small loss in garden space. Not so easy if the RoW crosses somewhere in the middle (i.e. closer to the houses), but it might be possible to reach an informal agreement where the RoW is temporarily diverted to cross at the far end of the garden.

It would then be for the end-of-terrace landlord to square the loss of a small amount of garden with their tenant.

The end-of-terrace tenant not knowing about the RoW doesn't extinguish it, nor should it impact on the beneficiary of the RoW's right to use it.

It is important for the mid-terrace tenant to make sure they don't do anything provocative. There is a gnat's whisker between asserting your lawful right to use a right of way and acting in a manner the police and courts could deem to be a provocation or harassment. GDB2222 is correct that the chances are the 'local bobby' won't know the law (and may dismiss it as a 'civil matter') and may well be disbelieving that the mid-terrace tenant has a right to just saunter through their neighbour's garden at will (some regular members of this forum might express such disbelief too).

The safer way to address this is for the mid-terrace landlord to take it up formally with the end-of-terrace landlord. Although the current mid-terrace tenant is being inconvenienced, long-term it is the landlord/owner who could suffer loss of value if the RoW is blocked or disputed. It is also likely that it is the landlord as owner of the property who has the benefit of the RoW (and should be asserting that right), and the tenant's right is simply incidental to their temporary occupation of the property.

Herzlos

Even if the RoW is across the house side of the garden, I've seen plenty setups where there's a fence between the RoW and the rest of the garden. They still get privacy albeit they need to cross the RoW first.

You couldn't really do that if it was through the middle.