Unauthorised right of way and land development
Discussion
Speak to a proper solicitor.
It all depends on the wording of the easement.
We just won a similar case when the local farmer tried to sell a load of land with access through our field - the easement was for agricultiural purposes only, and and only for access into a specific field with the rest of the farm explicitly excluded.
Just took a solicitor’s letter to make them see sense.
It all depends on the wording of the easement.
We just won a similar case when the local farmer tried to sell a load of land with access through our field - the easement was for agricultiural purposes only, and and only for access into a specific field with the rest of the farm explicitly excluded.
Just took a solicitor’s letter to make them see sense.
Thanks for the advice - but just to be clear this thread is more of a theoretical ‘what would you do in this situation’ instead of ‘what should we do’
Dad is quite an accomplished self-builder going back 40 years, this isn’t his first project and of course specialist advice has been sought and given. Google Earth also backs up the timelines for all site changes - when conversations first started with A last year they had claimed that the wall and trees had blown down 10 years ago and that really they had done Dad a favour putting the gates up. They were left a little bit red faced when we showed them year on year growth for the trees via Google Earth up until 2019…
When A was sold all deeds were aligned very much with this as a possible future option, retaining B and C didn’t really affect the value of A so it was a no brainer to retain control of B and C should an opportunity present itself in the future in respect to D - he often trots out Stokes v Cambridge and the precedent for the value of the access being equal to a third of the predicted profit realised from the land (which I am skeptical of in reality) I might add he’s done this elsewhere too and has another ransom strip going back over 30 years - Dad is a very patient man!
But as I said, the money is not the overriding issue here, it was the opportunity to return to the UK following Brexit, which also aligns with my 3 sisters knocking out grandkids. His rough idea was to build 3, maybe 4 eco bungalows, one which he’d retain and live in, the others would pay for the all of development. This is not a condition or way of funding his return, just something to keep him busy in retirement.
Speaking of which Dad has been very much enjoying his retirement, living the self sufficient good life for the last ten years which includes brewing and selling his own beer to a community of ex-pats local to him. The money associated with this situation is not the be all and end, in fact I only really mentioned the figures in context of the girl - she turned up on the doorstep of A and asked if they wanted the land on the assumption that A owned and controlled the access. Its obvious that neither party sought proper advice here and to me the biggest loser in this situation is the girl - it does make you wonder if A told her that they were the only option as it would be easy to assume that B is just part of A.
Dad is only really annoyed because he’d treated the whole investigation (all done remotely from another country I might add) as a little history project and it was galling for him to discover that the sale had completed a mere week after discovering the true owner. And this is all down to the Land Registry giving him the wrong info.
To answer some of the questions, at the moment, A cannot exit their property without crossing B and C. To buy an adjoining property to D would be in the region of £250k, A is probably worth £350k now. Knocking down A is not an option due to where is sits on the plot, you’d still need to get across B and C to get to D.
@Buzz84 - initially conversations were very frosty from A, it was clear that they hadn’t done their home work, after they got advice became a little more amenable to talking about a possible deal. In respect to a deal, nothing has really been put on the table yet. They are probably another £10k in when you factor in the work to change the boundary and clear the site.
You can access D from A via foot - D has essentially just become an extension of their garden. Any vehicular access at the moment would have to be via B & C. See above for likely costs associated with other options.
I might add I have no interest in this as I was gifted one of his other ransom strips elsewhere (32 years and counting!)
What’s also interesting is that almost all of the neighbours who backed up onto the narrow footpath have tried to take sections of the path back to extend their own gardens over the last 10 years or so, two of the houses that border the south edge of D have also over time carved out extra chunks, one even laid decking and a hot tub. Needless to say A has now reestablished ownership of all pieces of D that were trying to be appropriated.
In this situation, I feel that Dad is well within his rights to just park an old transit or shipping contained at the far end of B, A only needs access across the first 25% of B to get on to their driveway and garage. Playing devils advocate A has enjoyed the use of B as extra parking for a long time now, I don’t see why Dad should extend this courtesy given some of their behaviour to date.
Ultimately Dad has nothing to lose, the sale of A more than covered its original costs, anything else that can be realised via B & C is just a bonus. A are at least £35k in with a huge patch of bare earth on which they can do nothing commercially. Dad has no intention of being an arse, its just not his nature and he’s not motivated by financial gain for the sake of it.
Dad is quite an accomplished self-builder going back 40 years, this isn’t his first project and of course specialist advice has been sought and given. Google Earth also backs up the timelines for all site changes - when conversations first started with A last year they had claimed that the wall and trees had blown down 10 years ago and that really they had done Dad a favour putting the gates up. They were left a little bit red faced when we showed them year on year growth for the trees via Google Earth up until 2019…
When A was sold all deeds were aligned very much with this as a possible future option, retaining B and C didn’t really affect the value of A so it was a no brainer to retain control of B and C should an opportunity present itself in the future in respect to D - he often trots out Stokes v Cambridge and the precedent for the value of the access being equal to a third of the predicted profit realised from the land (which I am skeptical of in reality) I might add he’s done this elsewhere too and has another ransom strip going back over 30 years - Dad is a very patient man!
But as I said, the money is not the overriding issue here, it was the opportunity to return to the UK following Brexit, which also aligns with my 3 sisters knocking out grandkids. His rough idea was to build 3, maybe 4 eco bungalows, one which he’d retain and live in, the others would pay for the all of development. This is not a condition or way of funding his return, just something to keep him busy in retirement.
Speaking of which Dad has been very much enjoying his retirement, living the self sufficient good life for the last ten years which includes brewing and selling his own beer to a community of ex-pats local to him. The money associated with this situation is not the be all and end, in fact I only really mentioned the figures in context of the girl - she turned up on the doorstep of A and asked if they wanted the land on the assumption that A owned and controlled the access. Its obvious that neither party sought proper advice here and to me the biggest loser in this situation is the girl - it does make you wonder if A told her that they were the only option as it would be easy to assume that B is just part of A.
Dad is only really annoyed because he’d treated the whole investigation (all done remotely from another country I might add) as a little history project and it was galling for him to discover that the sale had completed a mere week after discovering the true owner. And this is all down to the Land Registry giving him the wrong info.
To answer some of the questions, at the moment, A cannot exit their property without crossing B and C. To buy an adjoining property to D would be in the region of £250k, A is probably worth £350k now. Knocking down A is not an option due to where is sits on the plot, you’d still need to get across B and C to get to D.
@Buzz84 - initially conversations were very frosty from A, it was clear that they hadn’t done their home work, after they got advice became a little more amenable to talking about a possible deal. In respect to a deal, nothing has really been put on the table yet. They are probably another £10k in when you factor in the work to change the boundary and clear the site.
You can access D from A via foot - D has essentially just become an extension of their garden. Any vehicular access at the moment would have to be via B & C. See above for likely costs associated with other options.
I might add I have no interest in this as I was gifted one of his other ransom strips elsewhere (32 years and counting!)
What’s also interesting is that almost all of the neighbours who backed up onto the narrow footpath have tried to take sections of the path back to extend their own gardens over the last 10 years or so, two of the houses that border the south edge of D have also over time carved out extra chunks, one even laid decking and a hot tub. Needless to say A has now reestablished ownership of all pieces of D that were trying to be appropriated.
In this situation, I feel that Dad is well within his rights to just park an old transit or shipping contained at the far end of B, A only needs access across the first 25% of B to get on to their driveway and garage. Playing devils advocate A has enjoyed the use of B as extra parking for a long time now, I don’t see why Dad should extend this courtesy given some of their behaviour to date.
Ultimately Dad has nothing to lose, the sale of A more than covered its original costs, anything else that can be realised via B & C is just a bonus. A are at least £35k in with a huge patch of bare earth on which they can do nothing commercially. Dad has no intention of being an arse, its just not his nature and he’s not motivated by financial gain for the sake of it.
CSLchappie said:
Ultimately Dad has nothing to lose, the sale of A more than covered its original costs, anything else that can be realised via B & C is just a bonus. A are at least £35k in with a huge patch of bare earth on which they can do nothing commercially. Dad has no intention of being an arse, its just not his nature and he’s not motivated by financial gain for the sake of it.
Unfortunately it sounds like he is being just that out of spite for missing out on a cheap plot of land (No disrespect to him) Ultimately it could wind up in lengthy legal wrangling which could cost a lot more than the sections of land are worth. I echo what everyone else has said, sell the piece of land, enjoy retirementTo begin with, solicitor reviewed situation and confirmed deeds placed control of B&C with Dad and expected and confirmed that A do not have right of way over B & C on to D (again, as was expected) He then drafted a letter to open dialog about possibility of collaboration and sharing the plot, also reminding them of the what the were and weren't allowed to do under the current deeds.
Their initial response was to demand access be granted irrevocably across B & C on to D, at which point they'd consider talking about splitting the plot. Then we get all the nonsense about the trees blowing down 10 years ago.
Dad doesn't see it that he's missed out on a cheap plot, he was fully expecting to have to pay a significant sum to acquire it, it may be perceived that he's being awkward but at every step along the way he's been the one looking to find a solution. But he won't give access away nor sell it for peanuts, and I don't think A will consider market rate for the access either as their expectations have been set by the cheap purchase price.
Their initial response was to demand access be granted irrevocably across B & C on to D, at which point they'd consider talking about splitting the plot. Then we get all the nonsense about the trees blowing down 10 years ago.
Dad doesn't see it that he's missed out on a cheap plot, he was fully expecting to have to pay a significant sum to acquire it, it may be perceived that he's being awkward but at every step along the way he's been the one looking to find a solution. But he won't give access away nor sell it for peanuts, and I don't think A will consider market rate for the access either as their expectations have been set by the cheap purchase price.
Wooda80 said:
OP's dad spends fortunes with solicitors before current owners of A+D agree to sell to him at a mutually acceptable price.
Owner of A then objects to every concievable planning application concerning the development of D
I agree that is a big risk, you've also got a dozen or more other parties on the boundary of the plot which could delay matter. He hasn't spent anything like a fortune, yet, few hundred quid so far I think.Owner of A then objects to every concievable planning application concerning the development of D
If it were me, and there was a decent offer on the table I'd sell, the hassle wouldn't be for me, but Dad on the other hand, we were joking about it last night, living 16 years in rural France has cultivated his patience enormously!
Your dad is in an ideal position to get the plot for significantly less than market value.
The owners of A have the opportunity of making a killing.
He probably wouldn't need to offer £200K but even at £200K it would be a bargain.
£150K would be a great price for the owners of A.
Meet halfway and everyone gets a fantastic deal.
The owners of A have the opportunity of making a killing.
He probably wouldn't need to offer £200K but even at £200K it would be a bargain.
£150K would be a great price for the owners of A.
Meet halfway and everyone gets a fantastic deal.
This all seems very complicated for something that it is/could be quite simple.
What does the B/C Title say? Is the access over B and C limited one dwelling or the specified Title Reference of A?
If so, he has a ransom strip. Combining A and D will result in a new Title
Regardless of whatever the owners of Plot A say, if they build on D, they won't be able to sell the plots as the potential purchasers' solicitors will flag the access issue.
If the owner of Plot A needs to raise funds to develop Plot D, the bank's solicitors will pick up on the lack of access and won't lend.
The owners of Plot A (if the B/C Title is as above) have to come to an arrangement with your Dad to buy Title/Access to D.
The alternative for the owners of Plot A is to buy the bungalow to the left of Plot A and use that as an access.
Re Planning, the owners of Plot A can object as much as they like to a planning application, but it is likely to carry very little weight if the development of D fits policy/can be identified as a windfall site in the SHLAA.
Obviously the last thing your dad wants to do is to grant the owners of Plot A access to D through B & C.
What does the B/C Title say? Is the access over B and C limited one dwelling or the specified Title Reference of A?
If so, he has a ransom strip. Combining A and D will result in a new Title
Regardless of whatever the owners of Plot A say, if they build on D, they won't be able to sell the plots as the potential purchasers' solicitors will flag the access issue.
If the owner of Plot A needs to raise funds to develop Plot D, the bank's solicitors will pick up on the lack of access and won't lend.
The owners of Plot A (if the B/C Title is as above) have to come to an arrangement with your Dad to buy Title/Access to D.
The alternative for the owners of Plot A is to buy the bungalow to the left of Plot A and use that as an access.
Re Planning, the owners of Plot A can object as much as they like to a planning application, but it is likely to carry very little weight if the development of D fits policy/can be identified as a windfall site in the SHLAA.
Obviously the last thing your dad wants to do is to grant the owners of Plot A access to D through B & C.
Edited by ben5575 on Saturday 22 February 20:28
Maybe the owner of A just wants a nice big back garden for £25k , Or they don’t want someone to build 4 houses right behind their house .
Probably not the case as they cleared the access land, but they might be happy to wait forever as well . I’d love to extend to the back of my house but no chance of that happening
Probably not the case as they cleared the access land, but they might be happy to wait forever as well . I’d love to extend to the back of my house but no chance of that happening
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff