Obligation to maintain access road with build issues
Discussion
Any thoughts appreciated. I own a property (England) which has an access road shared with a hotel and 2 other houses (all the houses trade as furnished holiday lets in case that makes a difference). The access road is on land owned by a 3rd party and all 4 properties have an obligation to maintain the road. Road is in poor repair and we set about making good on our obligation. However contractor had to stop on day 1 since it turned out the existing road lacked proper foundations. The cost of fixing this is substantially higher than the originally quoted repair costs. I’ve pointed out to the landowner that our obligation is to maintain and surely that doesn’t include fixing original construction errors and / or improving the road beyond what was originally there. Landowner has replied that the existing tarmac was put down 25 years ago by the hotel owners and it’s not down to them if it was done incorrectly. Now 2 of the properties (hotel and a house) are substantially older than 25 years, presumably have always had this obligation to maintain, hence presumably there’s never been a road with proper underpinnings there, and so I still think I’m being asked to fund improvement rather than maintenance.
Any insights into the validity of this argument and / or if anyone could give me a starting point as to where I’d research much appreciated. Ultimately what I’m really looking for is some valid argument I can use to try and arrive at an agreed position with landowner, these things are always best settled by discussion.
Any insights into the validity of this argument and / or if anyone could give me a starting point as to where I’d research much appreciated. Ultimately what I’m really looking for is some valid argument I can use to try and arrive at an agreed position with landowner, these things are always best settled by discussion.
How long is the road and how much traffic does it get? If it's survived the best part of 25 years with the foundations it's got, do they really need replacing?
I'd say it's certainly reasonable to ask the landowner to contribute to any improvement you're making to the land compared to when they bought it.
I'd say it's certainly reasonable to ask the landowner to contribute to any improvement you're making to the land compared to when they bought it.
GiantEnemyCrab said:
You could a contractor who will do a 70% solution with the road, regardless of the underpinnings or foundations? It has been there for 25 years in the 'half arsed state' so is it recoverable? Even if not 'by the latest and greatest standards'.
No help with the legalities the OP has asked about but as a retired Civils / groundworks contractor who had a similar situation on a 400m drive / track and refused to do a "patch up" job............reason being a previous contractor had done as they asked and when it all broke up again they moaned about the road, him and the standard of his work................I gave a quote to do a 'proper job' i.e. kerbs / edgings, sub-base etc which they asked if I could reduce to get the costs down considerably.I had to point out that the reason it needed doing now wasn't because of the previous contractor's work standards but because he had foolishly agreed to reduce the costs by not doing a proper job and I didn't want them moaning to all and sundry or the next contractor they brought in to fix what I had done to poor standards at their request because they wanted to save some money...........if they want to do that there are always those that have 'a little bit of tarmac left over from a job around the corne'r types.......they have no scruples whatsoever
E63eeeeee... said:
How long is the road and how much traffic does it get? If it's survived the best part of 25 years with the foundations it's got, do they really need replacing?
I'd say it's certainly reasonable to ask the landowner to contribute to any improvement you're making to the land compared to when they bought it.
Thanks. It’s about 70m long, gets a fair bit of traffic, hotel has 35 rooms along with a restaurant and a bar, each holiday let will do 2/3 families at a time so not unusual to have 6-9 cars just for the houses. It’s a good point around can we just repeat what was done before, but it is a mess and the contractor is clear it was a bodge. I'd say it's certainly reasonable to ask the landowner to contribute to any improvement you're making to the land compared to when they bought it.
Sebring440 said:
Does the road's landowner charge you rent? Or does he just let you have the right of access?
Hi. No rent, the landowner owns the surrounding land aside from where the buildings are. Hence my working assumption is that they originally sold the land for development and provided the access over land they retained to make this sale possible. GiantEnemyCrab said:
You could a contractor who will do a 70% solution with the road, regardless of the underpinnings or foundations? It has been there for 25 years in the 'half arsed state' so is it recoverable? Even if not 'by the latest and greatest standards'.
Thanks, yep a good thought. djohnson said:
Sebring440 said:
Does the road's landowner charge you rent? Or does he just let you have the right of access?
Hi. No rent, the landowner owns the surrounding land aside from where the buildings are. Hence my working assumption is that they originally sold the land for development and provided the access over land they retained to make this sale possible. Sebring440 said:
djohnson said:
Sebring440 said:
Does the road's landowner charge you rent? Or does he just let you have the right of access?
Hi. No rent, the landowner owns the surrounding land aside from where the buildings are. Hence my working assumption is that they originally sold the land for development and provided the access over land they retained to make this sale possible. I can see your argument too.
Can you be sure that the landowner made the original road?
Or did they sell the land with a right of way and then the new property(s) made the road?
Edited to clarify and add
If you post up the wording of the deeds it will be relatively easy to tell
I'd place money on the landowner being responsible for providing a right of way (with the purposes defined) and those benefitting from the right of way being responsible for maintaining it.
Unless specified the landowner will have discharged their responsibility simply by making the land available to be used. Which could be a dirt path.
Or did they sell the land with a right of way and then the new property(s) made the road?
Edited to clarify and add
If you post up the wording of the deeds it will be relatively easy to tell
I'd place money on the landowner being responsible for providing a right of way (with the purposes defined) and those benefitting from the right of way being responsible for maintaining it.
Unless specified the landowner will have discharged their responsibility simply by making the land available to be used. Which could be a dirt path.
Edited by TownIdiot on Friday 28th February 16:38
TownIdiot said:
Can you be sure that the landowner made the original road?
Or did they sell the land with a right of way and then the new property(s) made the road?
Edited to clarify and add
If you post up the wording of the deeds it will be relatively easy to tell
I'd place money on the landowner being responsible for providing a right of way (with the purposes defined) and those benefitting from the right of way being responsible for maintaining it.
Unless specified the landowner will have discharged their responsibility simply by making the land available to be used. Which could be a dirt path.
Thanks. I’ll dig out the actual deed but I see your point. Or did they sell the land with a right of way and then the new property(s) made the road?
Edited to clarify and add
If you post up the wording of the deeds it will be relatively easy to tell
I'd place money on the landowner being responsible for providing a right of way (with the purposes defined) and those benefitting from the right of way being responsible for maintaining it.
Unless specified the landowner will have discharged their responsibility simply by making the land available to be used. Which could be a dirt path.
Edited by TownIdiot on Friday 28th February 16:38
I would imagine you have an obligation to maintain the road to the standard it was when the lease obligation was made not to upgrade the road from this standard, equally I can’t imagine that the landowner has any obligation to improve the road from the standard it was in when rights/ leases were granted.
Assuming that the hotel is at the end of the road (which would make sense if the hotel owners did the last refurbishment), then according to size and usage, logic would suggest that the hotel has to pay by far the lion’s share of the costs?
They would also be the party most affected by a dodgy access road, as the expectations of hotel and restaurant customers will be much higher than those of holiday lettees.
That being the case, any decision would be expected to be made by the hotel who would then need to sell the idea to the other leaseholders. I suppose the landowner originally just set this up as leasehold, to avoid any future problems with his own access or unwanted further development, he probably has little interest in the road.
If what the hotel comes up with is too expensive, then the other parties could probably get together to determine their contribution. Whatever the lease documents say, the hotel would be unlikely to want to embark on legal action against all of the other parties.
They would also be the party most affected by a dodgy access road, as the expectations of hotel and restaurant customers will be much higher than those of holiday lettees.
That being the case, any decision would be expected to be made by the hotel who would then need to sell the idea to the other leaseholders. I suppose the landowner originally just set this up as leasehold, to avoid any future problems with his own access or unwanted further development, he probably has little interest in the road.
If what the hotel comes up with is too expensive, then the other parties could probably get together to determine their contribution. Whatever the lease documents say, the hotel would be unlikely to want to embark on legal action against all of the other parties.
The title documents will probably have some words about rights and obligations regarding the road.
I would suggest getting all the documents from the Land Registry website, taking care to use the .gov.uk website not any bunch of shysters that's paid to be on page one of google. all the properties entitled to use the road, plus any titles owning the road or related.
I would think that if the road has lasted 20 years, then it was 'adequate' to start with?
I can't imagine the original seller of the plots lumbered themselves with an ongoing obligation to maintain the road, but the incompetence of conveyancers knows few hard limits.
If bits of it seem to be unsound now with n/poor foundations, that could be stuff being washed away due to bad drainage, or possibly it's been re-tarmac'd in the past, with tarmac going wider than the original, outside the proper base.
The problem will likely be agreeing where the edges are, what standard the road needs to be maintained to and how the costs are divided.
It gets contentious when one property has regular goods vehicle traffic or other heavy use.
I would suggest getting all the documents from the Land Registry website, taking care to use the .gov.uk website not any bunch of shysters that's paid to be on page one of google. all the properties entitled to use the road, plus any titles owning the road or related.
I would think that if the road has lasted 20 years, then it was 'adequate' to start with?
I can't imagine the original seller of the plots lumbered themselves with an ongoing obligation to maintain the road, but the incompetence of conveyancers knows few hard limits.
If bits of it seem to be unsound now with n/poor foundations, that could be stuff being washed away due to bad drainage, or possibly it's been re-tarmac'd in the past, with tarmac going wider than the original, outside the proper base.
The problem will likely be agreeing where the edges are, what standard the road needs to be maintained to and how the costs are divided.
It gets contentious when one property has regular goods vehicle traffic or other heavy use.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff