Property Right of Access Issue with Neighbour
- Thread starter Bokvis
- Start date
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2016
- Messages
- 5,930
- Reaction score
- 1,094
- Country
I know sod all about the law, there are two plots of land next to each other, and a well in the centre of one of them? ( for argument's sake) Then surely any right of access is from one plot to the well across the boundary?
The OP seems to suggest that they might "walk around the block" to gain access?
I.e. Have built something on their own land blocking access yet wish to cross the entirety of the well owner's land?
The OP seems to suggest that they might "walk around the block" to gain access?
I.e. Have built something on their own land blocking access yet wish to cross the entirety of the well owner's land?
I guess a left over from when the well was the source of water - and the alternative route would be a much longer route to carry the water, than the direct route, so the land owner permitted a short cut across his land and did it officially in the deeds.
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2016
- Messages
- 5,930
- Reaction score
- 1,094
- Country
Yes. I understood that bit. But surely if the person with the right to use the well cuts off their own access to the well, surely they can't then demand an alternative route?
Put a shed on it and mow it yourself. Use the shed occasionally, problem solved.
All the op needs do, is keep an eye on the land and watch for any attempt by his neighbour to claim the land by adverse possession. Which means the neighbour have to deny the op use of the land/ make use of it without the op objecting and for a number of years. It used to be 12 years, back in 2001, when I claimed some land under the act. That usually involves fencing the land in for the neighbours exclusive use. The OP allowing the neighbour a limited licence to cross the land, would seem to exclude the neighbour making any claim for adverse possession.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession
It might be worth the op subscribing to the Land Registries free service, where he would receive an email if any attempt were made to register the land under a different name, or claim possession of it, if the land has an actual address attached to it.
He don't need to watch. Any claim will be notified to the registered keeper, who is given the opportunity to refute the claim
By which time it may be too late to refute it.
No, the land registry does not just pass titles around to whoever puts any old claim in. The person with the registered title gets a say.
Having gone through the process myself, the owner would need to fight for their land and be able to prove they had not been denied use of it for the period.
The burden of proof is on the claimant, and it is very difficult to claim possession of registered land nowadays.
Having said that, things like laying a paved area or making an area look like it is part of the claimants property can be deemed an intent to possess the land and deny the registered owner (it does not need to be physical denial of access like a fence). So owners need to be alert to changes, and ensure that the land registry has their current contact details.
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 9,562
- Reaction score
- 923
- Country
Having spent a considerable time on gardenlaw.co.uk in the past ISTR that if they purposely block the defined access then they cannot just choose another one, the right to use another access is only if the landholder blocks it.
Also that the access has to be for a purpose, the well is long since gone and they cannot dig it up and restore it if it is not on their land so no longer have the reason to use the access and hence it is nullified.
I have a Right of way along the passageway that crosses my neighbours house, defined for any reason so I can do what I want (within reason), but (and this does depend on the wording in the deeds) if I had a right of access to a well to draw water then this would be conditional upon me actually drawing water not just walking to/from it when it's no longer able to supply water.
If it is only "permission" then permission given can be taken away.
They are not allowed to modify the pathway from it's original condition unless it is in such a state that it is dangerous to walk on.
As for adverse possession the squatter has to be in single [exclusive] control of the land, so the owner cannot use it and as they are not and the owner can walk on their own land (and they should) then adverse possession claims would fail. See here section 2.1
Cutting the grass on a footway is not sufficient evidence of possession.
However, the OP says that they sold the property so the exact nature of this thread is a little puzzling.
If the OP is the landowner of the pathway they can do whatever they want with the land, such as lay gravel or paving, patio, decking etc. especially if there is no longer a need for an access to something that no longer exists.
Also that the access has to be for a purpose, the well is long since gone and they cannot dig it up and restore it if it is not on their land so no longer have the reason to use the access and hence it is nullified.
I have a Right of way along the passageway that crosses my neighbours house, defined for any reason so I can do what I want (within reason), but (and this does depend on the wording in the deeds) if I had a right of access to a well to draw water then this would be conditional upon me actually drawing water not just walking to/from it when it's no longer able to supply water.
If it is only "permission" then permission given can be taken away.
They are not allowed to modify the pathway from it's original condition unless it is in such a state that it is dangerous to walk on.
As for adverse possession the squatter has to be in single [exclusive] control of the land, so the owner cannot use it and as they are not and the owner can walk on their own land (and they should) then adverse possession claims would fail. See here section 2.1
Cutting the grass on a footway is not sufficient evidence of possession.
However, the OP says that they sold the property so the exact nature of this thread is a little puzzling.
If the OP is the landowner of the pathway they can do whatever they want with the land, such as lay gravel or paving, patio, decking etc. especially if there is no longer a need for an access to something that no longer exists.
Last edited:
Apologies for jumping in on this post, if wrong, I’ll start a new thread but I’ve got a mate who I think is possibly storing up trouble for himself in a similar situation. He lives in a semi and the drive between his house and the next semi is double width so effectively both he and his neighbour had their own drive to their garages in their rear gardens. There is no fence but there is a dividing line of bricks set flush in the drive. About 8 years ago, the neighbour built a side extension to his house leaving himself about 1 metre from the side of his house to the dividing line. The neighbour now uses my friends drive to get his car to his garage and what’s more, gets the right 'ump if any visitors to my friend parks on my friends drive blocking his access! I’ve suggested putting a fence up to clearly define his property. My mate has no problems with the neighbour and doesn’t want to start any ill feeling but if the neighbour moved, would any new owner have a legal right of vehicular access? I'm hoping I’m just being more concerned on his behalf than he is! Should my mate be concerned about losing sole use of his drive and the neighbouring property claiming a right of vehicular access? What if he wanted to build a side extension, could the neighbour object on the grounds that he is blocking vehicular access?
Last edited:
A very good point, which I had not realised.
That is how it was 20 years ago, though I was aware the law on adverse possession had been modified - I understood it made it even more difficult to claim land, than before.
- Joined
- 1 May 2018
- Messages
- 1,751
- Reaction score
- 527
- Country
Yes, I believe he should be concerned that a right of access might be obtained through continued use. I am by no means an expert on this, and I suggest he post in the rights of way forum on Gardenlaw. For sure, the experts on there will guide him in the right direction.
It will depend of course, on what his registration says - if there is anything on there that describes the drive as having rights of way/access already it will be more complicated, but somehow I suspect not
prob best to start a new thread
Your mates neighbours access issues to his garage are entirely his own problem, your mate has every right to stop him going onto his land to get to the garage or build an extension if he wants. I wouldn't accept someone regularly using my drive to access the rear of their property - though I will permit access where there is a special need for access.
I have a 12 foot wide drive, my next door neighbour has a drive which ends at the front, so they have no access to the rear without demolishing an original outbuilding. When they recently installed new gas mains, they brought my new pipe up my drive. My neighbour was faced with having his new pipe run around the outside of his house, to his gas meter at the rear - which would not have looked pretty. I volunteered the suggestion that I would allow them to have their new pipe run up my drive, alongside my pipe - which was what they agreed to do.
The only way your mates neighbour can gain legal use of his drive, is by making a legal agreement with him and paying rental for it, or paying a one off sum. Some drives are shared, then fork at the back to individual garages or parking, but that will be mentioned in the deeds. Your mates house was built with its own drive.