Unowned access to garden

WIAWSNB

When a deeds map is updated, are the earlier copies retained anywhere? It would be interesting to know when the fenced-off path appeared on the deeds map.

If a previous owner of the OP's property surreptitiously fenced it off themselves, then it surely wouldn't appear on the deeds map? So, presumably there was some official agreement?

Is an indemnity policy by the sellers the safest way to treat this?

Bigphil1474

I work for a council, and personally, I wouldn't approach them unless you have proof of any rights or agreements. The chances of them being able to retrieve any records if they are more than 20 years old are slim, and the chances of anyone having a scooby about what was agreed or not, is also gonna be slim. We didn't start using a electronic document management system in our service until around 2008, and we lost 100's of records going back to the 80's when we moved offices a few years before, some which should have been kept for 40 years or more. When we moved a few years ago, a few more boxes of records were lost, and these included documents we are legally required to keep. Chances are you'll just prompt someone into taking a closer look, them deciding it can't be right, and losing the path altogether.

Section62

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82051760#Comment_82051760

The chances of them being able to retrieve any records if they are more than 20 years old are slim, and the chances of anyone having a scooby about what was agreed or not, is also gonna be slim.

I've worked for several councils, whilst what you say is often true for general records held by most departments, when it comes to legal and land-related matters the record keeping is excellent.

The Local Government Act 1972 imposes duties on local authorities to manage assets for the public good. The norm is for each local authority to operate their own land terrier system to record their land ownership, rights and responsibilities - this is why a lot of public land won't be registered with LR (yet). There are clearly defined processes for adding or disposing of land (and rights) in the council's ownership.

Whilst it can't be ruled out that a rogue officer could go to the council's strong room and decide 'all that junk can be thrown away', it isn't something you would expect anyone authorised to access the strong room to do without first consulting the statutory officers. Who, once their blood pressure had returned to normal, would probably feel it essential to take that person's key away from them.

It is unlikely anyone currently working for a council would remember something agreed 20 years ago (though not impossible), but the people currently working in the relevant departments would know how to find the information.

For the reasons already given that doesn't mean the OP should contact the council, but it would be wrong for people reading this thread to go away with the idea that council's don't know what land they own and/or what agreements relate to that land - regardless of how long ago things happened.

lincroft1710

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82051814#Comment_82051814

Unauthorised disposal of old records (and also current records) has also happened at Central Government level.

Many years ago in th VOA an office manager (since deceased) faced with a large backlog of documents needing to be inputted and inputting staff unable to catch up, consigned said unprocessed documents to the Confidential Waste sack.

On another occasion Head Office advised offices could dispose of little used but space taking records. About 48 hours later HO realised these records should have been kept. But it was too late as miraculously the offices had already managed to dispose of said records.

Thebestcracqui

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82051735#Comment_82051735

Thanks so much for all the responses.

From what the agent said, the sellers believe the previous owner had purchased the land from the council, what was originally tennis courts.

An update from the solicitor this afternoon is that the sellers obtained indemnity insurance policy when they purchased the house, and that seems to be their advice to do the same, with a warning that this set-up may put off future buyers.

I have the deeds and there is reference to the access via the back only. It is just pedestrian, not vehicular access that way. There are some covenants on the ground but nothing relating to the path (as an aside random covenants like we can build up to 3 houses on there, but we can't erect a shed 🙂).

I've also just purchased the title deeds for the park behind, and the neighbour - this was interesting as the path ownership isn't included in either, and is also not represented by a separate piece of land as it is with the house we are buying, although I'm not sure it leaves us in a better position really!

Neighbour:

Park:

Slinky

Layperson's view.

It's interesting that the purchase of the land was from the council. It would seem highly unlikely that the people who bought the land would shell out money for land they had to reach only by a long walk round, and the fact the park deeds clearly show that their border does not include the pedestrian path suggests strongly that the council no longer own it.

WIAWSNB

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82052024#Comment_82052024

Unless I'm missing something, that would appear - quite conclusively I'd have thought - to put you in a 'better position'?

Don't both deeds maps - the park and the neighb's - clearly show your curtilage's boundary line as encompassing the property, the additional land, and the connecting path, all in a single continuous unbroken black line around the whole property?

Can you examine your own coloured map closely, and see what the black boundary line does at the start and end of this path - is it open at each end as it is on the other maps, giving that same single unbroken black line?

I can't see anything contrary going on - I think I'd personally be happy with an indemnity policy, in the remote chance anyone tries to challenge this.

An IP would cover what? - the cost of defending a 'challenge', and - should you lose - the reduction in value of the property?

I'd also ask the vendor to write a Statement of Truth regarding their knowledge and use of that path, and what they were told by the previous owner (and chance you can trace them?).

silvercar

I had a query relating to a right of way over adjoining property on what was once a council house. The deeds (that you can download from Land Registry) had this clause:

“A. PROPERTY REGISTER

1 (date in 1992) the freehold land shown edged in red on the above title filed at the registry and being (XXX- address)

2. (same date 1992 ) the transfer dated (date 1992) referred to in the charges register was made pursuant to Part V of the Housing Act 1985 and the land has the benefit of and is subject to such easements as are granted and reserved in the said deed and the easements and rights specified in paragraph 2 of schedule 6 of the said act.”

Rights of way are usually noted as easements. You would see them on a copy of the transfer document, as opposed to on the downloadable deeds themselves. You can request them from the Land Registry, though it does take a few weeks for them to arrive. You can request a copy through this link (costs £11 by cheque, don’t be fooled by paying more from a third party site) https://www.gov.uk/get-information-about-property-and-land/copies-of-deeds

Land_Registry

A few things to add to the mix that may assist although our recommendation would always be to rely on your own legal advice here as you are looking to buy and need to understand the legal position and risks going forward

You have established that the land is unregistered. That does not mean it is unowned but simply we don't know who owns it. The council own the adjoining land but it does not follow that they must own the referenced land

The solid black lines (and pecked lines) are Ordnance Survey lines. Solid for features over a foot in height (fences, walls, hedges etc). Pecked for under a foot (kerbs, grass edging, paths etc). They don't denote or confirm ownership.

Indemnity insurance is a common way to go in the more modern (last 25 years) risk-averse approach preferred to get things over the line quickly when it comes to selling/buying. Some suggest, perhaps tongue in cheek, that if someone is willing to insure you for that risk then they aren't expecting to have to pay out which might be a positive for some

If the land is enclosed in some way as part of the property then the adverse possession route would be the way to go. However I assume it's perhaps not enclosed otherwise you/your sellers/the conveyancers involved would have chosen that option and not been asking the Q

If you are buying with a mortgage your lender is likely to have a say/view to be considered also and if they have that often trumps what you might think/want on the matter.

Will watch with interest to see what conclusion is reached - please do share the outcome as it helps others who may come across similar scenarios although this is quite a unique one re the purchase of the blue land/own access etc

Section62

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82053867#Comment_82053867

Land_Registry said: If the land is enclosed in some way as part of the property then the adverse possession route would be the way to go. However I assume it's perhaps not enclosed otherwise you/your sellers/the conveyancers involved would have chosen that option and not been asking the Q

From what the OP said it sounds like the path is enclosed.

But another possible reason past owners haven't gone down the AP route is because the enclosure and use of the land are by agreement… it could just be that such an agreement (if there is one) has been forgotten about by the current/previous owners of the property the OP is buying.