Solly sitter help please, BV et al etc
Discussion
A question regarding a path that runs behind my house.
This paragraph is copied from my neighbours deeds, and is being questioned by someone buying one of the houses with regards to "us" being liable for the path (that appears just to be a pavement outside of our houses, behind them), especially with regard to someone falling over etc etc etc.
I quote :
THERE are reserved out of this demise and the same is subject to the following rights obligations and matters :-
(A) Unto the lesser and the lessees and occupiers for the time being of the said development and every part thereof all rights of way drainage watercourse or passage of gas electricity telephone fuel oil and other rights in the nature of easements or quasi-easements now or usually enjoyed in respect of other lands comprised in the said development or by the scheme of construction intended so to be through or from all or any part or parts of the demised premises.
There is a footnote indicated with an asterisk that is in sort of English, and it says ;
and in particular subject to a right of way over that part of the demised premises coloured yellow on the plan annexed heretoo
This paragraph is copied from my neighbours deeds, and is being questioned by someone buying one of the houses with regards to "us" being liable for the path (that appears just to be a pavement outside of our houses, behind them), especially with regard to someone falling over etc etc etc.
I quote :
THERE are reserved out of this demise and the same is subject to the following rights obligations and matters :-
(A) Unto the lesser and the lessees and occupiers for the time being of the said development and every part thereof all rights of way drainage watercourse or passage of gas electricity telephone fuel oil and other rights in the nature of easements or quasi-easements now or usually enjoyed in respect of other lands comprised in the said development or by the scheme of construction intended so to be through or from all or any part or parts of the demised premises.
There is a footnote indicated with an asterisk that is in sort of English, and it says ;
and in particular subject to a right of way over that part of the demised premises coloured yellow on the plan annexed heretoo
- ***
Nigel Worc's said:
Many thanks, are you a solicitor, or just a chap that understands the jargon, it is double Dutch to me ?
I'm hopefully the latter & agree with jbs.As an aside, why do legal documents have no punctuation? Do the guys drafting the documents charge per comma, with extra fees for semicolons?
This provision confers rights of way. You have told us few facts, Nigel, so making some rough guesses about context (ie this may be a development carved out of what used to be a larger plot, with the path lying on land not part of the development), this provision says that the occupiers of the development continue to have the same rights of way (including rights to pass water and other utilities) over a bit of land that does not belong to them as used to exist before the current plots of land were divided up.
This imposes no liability on the landowners that benefit from the right of way if someone falls over on the path. It's about permission to use land, not responsibility for what happens on it. If something happens on the land that is someone else's fault, usual liability principles will apply, but there doesn't look to be an occupier's liability issue here.
This imposes no liability on the landowners that benefit from the right of way if someone falls over on the path. It's about permission to use land, not responsibility for what happens on it. If something happens on the land that is someone else's fault, usual liability principles will apply, but there doesn't look to be an occupier's liability issue here.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 8th June 09:31
Many thanks all.
There are few facts to tell you, nothing has happened, this is being questioned by a couple who are buying one of the houses, they say they have been advised that they are responsible (have liabilities) for that path, along with the other householders (of which I'm one).
There is a block of four houses, they were built in 1972.
The first house was bought by my neighbour in 1977, I bought mine in 1990, the next two have had a few different occupiers over the years, this question has never arisen before, and I've always classed the path past the rear of the properties as a pavement,(not even a "rear entry" like the one to the rear of my parents house when I was growing up, which clearly belonged to the houses and was gated), just like the one to the front. I've never seen my deeds, as I haven't finished my mortgage, but the neighbour to my left has, so since the question arose, we've looked at his deeds and it is those I've quoted the paragraph from.
The pavement to the front of our houses is not covered by the red line that marks my neighbours plot, but the path to the rear is, hence the question.
Would pictures help ?
There are few facts to tell you, nothing has happened, this is being questioned by a couple who are buying one of the houses, they say they have been advised that they are responsible (have liabilities) for that path, along with the other householders (of which I'm one).
There is a block of four houses, they were built in 1972.
The first house was bought by my neighbour in 1977, I bought mine in 1990, the next two have had a few different occupiers over the years, this question has never arisen before, and I've always classed the path past the rear of the properties as a pavement,(not even a "rear entry" like the one to the rear of my parents house when I was growing up, which clearly belonged to the houses and was gated), just like the one to the front. I've never seen my deeds, as I haven't finished my mortgage, but the neighbour to my left has, so since the question arose, we've looked at his deeds and it is those I've quoted the paragraph from.
The pavement to the front of our houses is not covered by the red line that marks my neighbours plot, but the path to the rear is, hence the question.
Would pictures help ?
These may be silly people and/or people who have advice from a silly lawyer, but you will not counter that by saying that some people on a car forum told you that the silly lawyers are wrong. If you want to trump their lawyer, get your own. Saying "I call trumps by reference to anonymous people with silly made up names on a sub forum of Pistonheads" will not win any tricks.
Also, why do you even care? If these people want to buy the house, that's up to them. If they don't because they take a dumb view of a clause in a deed, that's up to them. You can just go "Meh, I don't agree with your opinion". They aren't asking you actually to do anything, are they?
Nigel Worc's said:
All my neighbour was concerned about was do we need public liability insurance ?
We have a public footpath through our back garden. When I was first arranging buildings insurance, I did the usual Meerkat - then phoned the top couple of likelies. All said "Yep, no problem - full public liability is included for anybody using that RoW".If your neighbour is worried, he or she can buy insurance or take some professional advice. If there is anything like a real risk of big money badness happening the fact that you asked some people on the internet who said "don't worry, it will all be fine" won't help. You can't sue anyone here for giving you advice that turns out to be wrong.
Breadvan72 said:
Also, why do you even care? If these people want to buy the house, that's up to them. If they don't because they take a dumb view of a clause in a deed, that's up to them. You can just go "Meh, I don't agree with your opinion". They aren't asking you actually to do anything, are they?
Exactly what I was thinking.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff