Ransom Strip?

[LG04]

Hi I have a piece of land that I have planning permission on for 8 houses and just about to start project and someone has popped out of the woodwork for a ransom,

I own the road up to the public highway and the person who is claiming the strip is saying that he owns under the public highway and the highways have now taken the the road over and the matenence, This road was a private road many years ago and owned by the person claiming but highways now maintain the road and have for at least 30 years

Any help appreciated

[davepoth]

http://www.bolton.gov.uk/website/pages/Roadsadopti...

Is the best thing I can find quickly. The council should have an adoption agreement, and if they have adopted it, they own the road and nobody is allowed to block access. So this person can whistle.

[MJG280]

Davepoth is correct. A lot of Councils have a map on their websites where you can check their ownership of land and adopted highway.

Highways at the Council will tell you if it is adopted.

[JR]

Hmmm, I think that that's the correct result but for the wrong reason. Chap may well own the land since most adopted highway is privately owned but the owners cannot do anything with it whilst it is adopted. Sounds like he's a chancer.

[dickymint]

JR said:

Hmmm, I think that that's the correct result but for the wrong reason. Chap may well own the land since most adopted highway is privately owned but the owners cannot do anything with it whilst it is adopted. Sounds like he's a chancer.

Adopted does not necessarily imply right of way.... I think.

[JR]

dickymint said:

JR said:

Hmmm, I think that that's the correct result but for the wrong reason. Chap may well own the land since most adopted highway is privately owned but the owners cannot do anything with it whilst it is adopted. Sounds like he's a chancer.

Adopted does not necessarily imply right of way.... I think.

Quite. There's an adopted highway behind me now that is surrounded by a forest of bollards so no vehicular right of way. If you fall out with the council then they could make life difficult for you but the riparian owner has no power.

[Jobbo]

Generally, the adopted highway is only the surface and legally the properties fronting onto the adopted highway own the subsoil to the middle of the road. It's a presumption, and rebuttable, but it is of very little effect in practice since access is gained over the surface, not by burrowing.

Assuming the highway is adopted then you should be fine. Do you have a highways search result from the time of purchase of the land?

[Rude-boy]

Are you sure that it is access that he is talking about?

I think that he is looking at this from the POV of services.

Tell him to deduce title to your solicitors or jog on before you do anything else as well.

[Sam_68]

Jobbo said:

Generally, the adopted highway is only the surface and legally the properties fronting onto the adopted highway own the subsoil to the middle of the road.

You can do it both ways: companies I've worked for previously have conveyed to the centreline of the road, but these days I'd say it's more usual to convey to the back edge of the footpath and transfer the land under the road to the ownership of the local highways authority.

It's irrelevant for the purposes of the OP, however; provided the alleged separate ownership does not extend beyond the adopted extent of the road (ie. it is just the land under the adopted road that's in separate ownership), then all rights of access across the roads and pavements, and hence ability to ransom, will have been relinquished as part of the legal agreement of adoption, if the Council's solicitors have done their job right.

[Jobbo]

Sam_68 said:

You can do it both ways: companies I've worked for previously have conveyed to the centreline of the road, but these days I'd say it's more usual to convey to the back edge of the footpath and transfer the land under the road to the ownership of the local highways authority.

You can convey whatever you like - I referred to it being a rebuttable presumption that the property owns the subsoil to the middle of the road, and clearly an express transfer up to the highway only would rebut the presumption. The presumption would only apply in the absence of ambiguity or uncertainty (such as where the road has been privately owned for a long time and nobody else has a better claim than the owners of each property fronting it).

However, I suspect the chap who claims to have the benefit of a ransom strip isn't doing so on the basis of a nice recent transfer with clear provisions in it. But as I already pointed out, if he did own to the centreline then it would be of very little effect if the highway is adopted. Whether or not the OP needs to install conduits in the the subsoil would of course be relevant though.

[JR]

Jobbo said:

Generally, the adopted highway is only the surface and legally the properties fronting onto the adopted highway own the subsoil to the middle of the road. It's a presumption, and rebuttable, but it is of very little effect in practice since access is gained over the surface, not by burrowing.

That's an interesting phrase. I'm looking at a job which is an adopted highway in the countryside with farmer's fields on each side. Badgers have burrowed under the highway excavating well in excess of 50 tonnes of spoil. Maybe the farmers should be asked to contribute to repair the land below the highway.

[Rude-boy]

JR said:

Badgers have burrowed under the highway excavating well in excess of 50 tonnes of spoil.

I'd call Simon and complain if i were you

http://www.badgerbuilding.co.uk/09/index.asp

OP - Get him to deduce his title before you spend a second longer on worrying about this.