Terrace Row Alleyway ISSUES!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by Kape65 View Post
    So if the easement isn't marked on the neighbours plans he still has a right of way?
    Yes.

    Easements can be overriding interests. LR says: "Overriding interests are interests to which a registered title is subject, even though they do not appear in the register. They are binding both on the registered proprietor and on a person who acquires an interest in the property."

    Easements have to be overriding interests because they can arise other than by being specifically set out in a deed or because they were not recorded on the servient owner's title before it was registered.

    Comment


      #17
      Thanks all for your comments. I have resigned to the worst case scenario for now. Which is that even if the neighbour had not been using or had access to the alleyway, he still may be entitled. In 2019 I became the sole owner of the property having bought out my brother after we both inherited it in 2015. A valuation report was carried out and does state "There is a shared access / right of way to the rear of the property." There is no mention of the neighbours access being an issue and the report being carried out with garden in it's pre invasion status! I'll be back in the UK next week and will chase up Solicitors and report back. But I do remember selling a property in Manchester where the boundary line was changed before the sale could go through. Essentially they needed written acknowledgement that the easement had been absorbed since 1992 what it looked like before and after. I've attached a copy of the land title and it does show the common access running through the top of my garden (so much for wishful thinking). I'll see where I stand with the solicitors but if I have to suck this one up it's not that big of an issue. At least my problem pales in significance to my neighbour who whilst his tenants went on an extended holiday back to Poland decided to rent the house out to an individual who turned it into a Marajuana Farm. Several police vans later and evidence removed, the family returned only to find half their belongings missing and a complete stranger sleeping in their bed with a contract and keys the owner gave them. ....House is now empty and on the market. Other than that it's a nice neighbourhood!

      Comment


        #18
        GOOD NEWS!!! Just when I thought the worst. As I previously suspected The Easement Stops at my boundary and my neighbour DOES NOT HAVE RIGHT OF ACCESS! My solicitors looked at the deeds and confirmed my boundary does go to the boundary fence of the adjoining property at the rear. This crosses the area of the easement / back alley GREAT NEWS

        Comment


          #19
          I wouldn't open the bubbly just yet.

          Looking at your image there is clearly an allyway running behind No's 5 to 13, and possibly behind No.15.

          It's difficult to see if it continues behind No.15 because of the red line, but it certainly looks like it does and from the layout I suspect that it does, or did, (3 houses either side of the entrance way).

          If so then it makes sense - houses 3 to 17 would have a right of access down the alleyway and access off that alleyway to their own yards by a gate opening into it, the yard at No.19 can be accessed from the side street.

          If the original back wall of No.15 has at some time been removed to incorporate the allyway then there may well still be a right of access across it for No.17.
          It depends on just how it was done at the time and what legal documents, if any, exist to remove that right of access.

          Coloured lines on maps/plans are only indicative because of the scales involved, they cannot be relied on to set the actual boundry.
          As shown in this case - the red line is the whole width of the alley, 3 feet or so, which side of it is the actual boundry?
          (Has it been deliberately drawn that thick to obscure/confuse the issue?)

          Your solicitor should know that, and probably does but is arguing your case.
          But it's not the only case to be made, and absent any documents to the contrary I would say that No 17 does seem to have a (historical) right of access behind No 15.

          Comment


            #20
            That was my initial take hence why I was prepared for the worst, but then if you look at the front of the property, the red boundary line is clearly on the front garden wall. It's harder to argue that the property mark was accidently drawn over the easement. Also historically looking at old photographs from the garden of 15 before major renovations and clearance, there's evidence footings of a concrete structure (possibly a coal bunker) the width of the easement running the length of the rear garden. So given that there was never a gate at the rear of 17 to the easement (as far as I know), evidence of a concrete structure, the red boundary line and when asked to produce the evidence by the police he said he didn't have it! .....I'm reaching for the bubbly

            Comment


              #21
              It's hard to be sure with that thick red line. I would order a copy of the title plan for one of the other properties, such as number 11, to get a clear picture. It does seem strange that number 17 is the only house with no rear access at all. How much would you be willing to risk if it went to court?

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by Kape65 View Post
                It does seem strange that number 17 is the only house with no rear access at all.
                My thinking too.

                Access is clearly provided to all the back yards so that night soil and ashes from the fire can be removed, and coal delivered.

                Why would would the developer/builder leave just one house with no rear access so that everything would have to be carried through the house?
                That doesn't make sense.

                Comment


                  #23
                  nukecad,

                  Agreed but again there was never a gate on my side of the fence between no.15 and 17. I wonder whether there was an easement / access with no.19. I think Kape65 is correct that purchasing the deeds for no. 13 would show wether the red margin goes over the easement too.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by Kape65 View Post
                    It's hard to be sure with that thick red line. I would order a copy of the title plan for one of the other properties, such as number 11, to get a clear picture. It does seem strange that number 17 is the only house with no rear access at all. How much would you be willing to risk if it went to court?
                    Good points thanks! But there's criminal damage so court is inevitable.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Huston ....we have a problem Bugger!

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Yep, as you can see that red line suggests you have no right of way either. It looks as though number 17 is right and I wouldn't be too quick to court with the criminal damage as he was only freeing his right of way.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Oops indeed,

                          It does seem that your back wall dividing your yard from the alleyway has been demolished at some time. (the 'hardstanding' actually being the alleyway floor?).

                          Looking at your first picture again- is that not a delapidated gate in the fence?
                          Looks like one to me, albeit not exactly where the original allway would have been.

                          Comment

                          Latest Activity

                          Collapse

                          • Reply to Dealing with Adverse Possession objection
                            by helpmenot
                            Good to hear an update.
                            To clarify: you informed land registry your opinion is that the objection is groundless.
                            did you also send my letter template to your neighbours?...
                            22-11-2021, 12:00 PM
                          • Dealing with Adverse Possession objection
                            by Ken_Johnson
                            I bought a property 3 years ago which was in AP of a small strip of unregistered land next to it since the 1960s.
                            I recently applied for AP and all was going fine until recently an objection was received by a neighbour with a lot of spurious and false claims.
                            The letter received is a B193(A)...
                            31-08-2021, 14:55 PM
                          • Reply to Dealing with Adverse Possession objection
                            by Ken_Johnson
                            Apologies for the delay.

                            Wrote to the two objectors, twice, never heard anything back. One of the objectors tried threatening physical action, reported to Police, crime reference number obtained. Informed Land Registry that as they are not responding, it's best to go to tribunal.
                            22-11-2021, 10:00 AM
                          • Reply to Membership Certificate?
                            by Beebee123
                            Hi,

                            I have now heard back from the management agent who is also the secretary of the management company that, they were not the secretary at the time I became the owner and was not passed over details from previous agents.

                            They asked me to fill in a membership application form...
                            16-11-2021, 21:24 PM
                          • Membership Certificate?
                            by Beebee123
                            Hi All,

                            Sorry if this question was already addressed previously.

                            I hold a leasehold property back in years ago and I am now planning to sell my property.

                            What comes to my mind is that when I have a look of the previous LPE1 / M&A there was mentioned a Membership...
                            11-11-2021, 23:18 PM
                          • Reply to Membership Certificate?
                            by Gordon999
                            You should ask your management company if any certificate was issued .
                            13-11-2021, 09:31 AM
                          • Selling with tenant in situ - no EIRC
                            by meehr
                            Hi folks, slightly worried and looking for your view:

                            I’m selling my old flat with tenant in situ, and just discovered that we have been non compliant since April on the EIRC - my earlier interpretation had been that we didn’t need to do an EIRC until a new tenancy.

                            I...
                            11-11-2021, 10:18 AM
                          • Reply to Selling with tenant in situ - no EIRC
                            by Neelix
                            Your buyer needs to get their own EICR done before they buy
                            11-11-2021, 17:02 PM
                          • Reply to Selling with tenant in situ - no EIRC
                            by L4NDLORD
                            I dont think you could be retrospectively prosecuted if you were no longer the owner when it came to light that there is no EICR. I would probably get an electrician in however, to inform me what it would cost to get up to standard. You don't want to give the hypothetical buyer reasons to doubt his/her...
                            11-11-2021, 15:11 PM
                          Working...
                          X