Neighbours using my garden yard but no easement on my deeds?

Post Reply
Petra77
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri May 22, 2020 8:29 pm

Re: Neighbours using my garden yard but no easement on my deeds?

Post by Petra77 »

pilman wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:05 am In an earlier posting the register of title for the original property, which comprised the three cottages and the large parcel of land behind them was added as a PDF file to be read by anyone interested in this thread.

The right of way referred to in the Property Register allowed access past the back of No.54, to access all the land on which Nos. 56, 58 and 60 had been erected and to continue past those houses to provide access to the land behind.

When the land behind the cottages was sold in 1991 by the common owner, at that point the common owner would have to have granted a right of way over the land he was retaining. i.e. A right of way over the land north of Nos. 56, 58 and 60 which was part of the original access road to the back land.

It appears he did not do that, which is why the land that is now occupied by houses cannot be accessed using the old road past 54, 56, 58 and 60.

It did not have any effect on the right of way over the land behind No.54, because that continues to exist for the whole of the retained land on which the three houses are located.

So in that respect you are correct when you say that the land behind No.60 can no longer use the right of way over your land, because it cannot use the remainder of the road owned by the person who sold the back-land in 1991, but the right of way still exists over your back road to access the back of the three cottages.
I was referring to the row of a car not on foot
Petra77
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri May 22, 2020 8:29 pm

Re: Neighbours using my garden yard but no easement on my deeds?

Post by Petra77 »

pilman wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:05 am In an earlier posting the register of title for the original property, which comprised the three cottages and the large parcel of land behind them was added as a PDF file to be read by anyone interested in this thread.

The right of way referred to in the Property Register allowed access past the back of No.54, to access all the land on which Nos. 56, 58 and 60 had been erected and to continue past those houses to provide access to the land behind.

When the land behind the cottages was sold in 1991 by the common owner, at that point the common owner would have to have granted a right of way over the land he was retaining. i.e. A right of way over the land north of Nos. 56, 58 and 60 which was part of the original access road to the back land.

It appears he did not do that, which is why the land that is now occupied by houses cannot be accessed using the old road past 54, 56, 58 and 60.

It did not have any effect on the right of way over the land behind No.54, because that continues to exist for the whole of the retained land on which the three houses are located.

So in that respect you are correct when you say that the land behind No.60 can no longer use the right of way over your land, because it cannot use the remainder of the road owned by the person who sold the back-land in 1991, but the right of way still exists over your back road to access the back of the three cottages.
Iv asked many times, how I would get hold of these documents ( not the maps ) what files are you looking at and how could I access them?
Petra77
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri May 22, 2020 8:29 pm

Re: Neighbours using my garden yard but no easement on my deeds?

Post by Petra77 »

alyson wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:11 pm
Petra77 wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 9:50 pm @Pilman

I have noticed while using this site that every time I post an alternative points of view that’s this has consistently been dismissed, often in a hostile way. But at the end of the day - Easements come and Easements go.

Easements are created out of a of need a necessity, they are not granted from a point of connivence. It was necessary in 1962 that the house had access along the old unadapted road to access the allotment gardens. So when these were sold by Company S a right was granted to each house the right by car or pony. This is the easement your talking about.

But when this parcel of land was sold by the servant owner Mr F, and developed into the a housing estate, a 3mt retaining wall 3mt shift in ground level, blocking the road, house build at the entrance to the original plot. It’s obviously that Mr F has abandoned this right to this road. This would have been part of the deal when he sold it. Why would a developer buy a plot of land with an easement on it.

its utterly inconceivable that this road could ever be reopened. Easement that are extinguished are often still present on deeds. The easement that is present on my deeds for house 52 is related to the coal house. When the houses were modernised, and coal was no longer needed as a necessity, and the right to the coal house was abandoned by the act of removing it in full open view of the dominant owner. This act has extinguished that easement, however it’s still on my deeds.

I guess people can’t be bothered to have them removed, but that doesn’t mean they are still active. In Mr F case, he spent a considerable amount of energy when alive bulling and intimidating me into not closing the area of. Why would he bother, if he knew he had a water tight case?

This point of view is a valid one, and will no doubt be complete dismissed by the community on here.
But that’s exactly what you are not seeming to grasp, easements do NOT come and go. Numerous knowledgeable people on this forum have explained this to you.. Pilman in particular needs to be congratulated on his patience and forbearance.
Asking the same questions and expecting a different answer is doomed to failure.
And before you start to accuse me of being condescending and insulting, I don’t care how deep your pockets may or may not be (I believe you supplied the information on your career choice) but few of us who haven’t won the Lottery recently would contemplate getting in a legal fight with someone with a large bank account and a possible vindictive streak.
And before you start to accuse me of being condescending and insulting, I don’t care how deep your pockets may or may not be (I believe you supplied the information on your career choice)
very condescending - some nurses can earn a consultant wage, but I guess you know more than me.
alyson
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:43 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 10
Number of topics per page: 10
Location: Wales

Re: Neighbours using my garden yard but no easement on my deeds?

Post by alyson »

Petra77 wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 5:33 am
alyson wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:11 pm
Petra77 wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 9:50 pm very condescending - some nurses can earn a consultant wage, but I guess you know more than me.
It was you that in one of your initial posts volunteered the information regarding your marital status and employer.
The inference being that you were not in a position to spend immense amounts of money on this matter.

All the questions you have asked have been covered in the replies you have very kindly been given by strangers who have spent a not inconsiderable amount of their time to do so, with no expectation of recompense.

Your replies to them have come across as angry, ungrateful and combative, I am surprised they are continuing to reply to you in the polite and patient manner that they do.
pilman
Posts: 3130
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:08 pm

Re: Neighbours using my garden yard but no easement on my deeds?

Post by pilman »

I was referring to the row of a car not on foot
As patient as I have been in trying to explain what appears to be an historic right of way that affects the property at No.54, you still continue to ignore the words transcribed on to the Property Register of title GM86252.
The land has the benefit of a right of way over the yard on the north
side of 54 Waterton Lane with or without animals and vehicles
Your explanation that there is now a fence to prevent access beyond the land behind 56 is an event that has happened because there is a single owner of the title who has tenants occupying the three houses.

If that Landlord has allowed this fence to be erected that means that currently only the occupier of 56 can physically use the land behind your house with or without animals and vehicles, which is the legal interest over your land that is part of the title GM86252.

That has not been extinguished by a Deed that would have to be signed by the Land-owner and witnessed by an independent person to confirm the legality of such a Deed of Extinguishment.

It would be possible to negotiate a Deed that will amend the right of way to become a pedestrian right of way with a defined reduced width, but at the moment the width of the tarmac surface that can be seen on your property is the width of land that cannot be obstructed since that would be a trespass against the Legal Interest that is part of title GM86252.

Can I add that if I was the owner of the three cottages with the details of the right of way correctly recorded in the title register it would not be in my best interests to agree to modify the right of way that adds value to the land in the title.

It is time for you to accept the reality of the situation that a car belonging to the current occupier of 56 can lawfully pass and repass over your land as long as it does not remain parked on your land.

There is no legal way you can prevent that from happening.

It would be sensible to acknowledge that you finally understand the situation,
Petra77
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri May 22, 2020 8:29 pm

Re: Neighbours using my garden yard but no easement on my deeds?

Post by Petra77 »

alyson wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 9:36 am
Petra77 wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 5:33 am
alyson wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:11 pm

It was you that in one of your initial posts volunteered the information regarding your marital status and employer.
The inference being that you were not in a position to spend immense amounts of money on this matter.

All the questions you have asked have been covered in the replies you have very kindly been given by strangers who have spent a not inconsiderable amount of their time to do so, with no expectation of recompense.

Your replies to them have come across as angry, ungrateful and combative, I am surprised they are continuing to reply to you in the polite and patient manner that they do.
Pilman appears to be the only person on here who has offered any constructive and useful advice, related to the topic matter. Others have behaved in an appalling combative and nasty manner, which just details the conversation. At times I’ve reacted to this, am now learning to ignore it for what it is. Trash
Petra77
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri May 22, 2020 8:29 pm

Re: Neighbours using my garden yard but no easement on my deeds?

Post by Petra77 »

pilman wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:12 am
I was referring to the row of a car not on foot
As patient as I have been in trying to explain what appears to be an historic right of way that affects the property at No.54, you still continue to ignore the words transcribed on to the Property Register of title GM86252.
The land has the benefit of a right of way over the yard on the north
side of 54 Waterton Lane with or without animals and vehicles
Your explanation that there is now a fence to prevent access beyond the land behind 56 is an event that has happened because there is a single owner of the title who has tenants occupying the three houses.

If that Landlord has allowed this fence to be erected that means that currently only the occupier of 56 can physically use the land behind your house with or without animals and vehicles, which is the legal interest over your land that is part of the title GM86252.

Thanks for looking into this, obviously I will have to have this confirmed by a property solicitor.

Just one other thing, I have asked a few times from where you are getting all the conveyancing documents and information relating to this case? It would be very useful if I could located this, and present it in my next meeting. Many Thanks




That has not been extinguished by a Deed that would have to be signed by the Land-owner and witnessed by an independent person to confirm the legality of such a Deed of Extinguishment.

It would be possible to negotiate a Deed that will amend the right of way to become a pedestrian right of way with a defined reduced width, but at the moment the width of the tarmac surface that can be seen on your property is the width of land that cannot be obstructed since that would be a trespass against the Legal Interest that is part of title GM86252.

Can I add that if I was the owner of the three cottages with the details of the right of way correctly recorded in the title register it would not be in my best interests to agree to modify the right of way that adds value to the land in the title.

It is time for you to accept the reality of the situation that a car belonging to the current occupier of 56 can lawfully pass and repass over your land as long as it does not remain parked on your land.

There is no legal way you can prevent that from happening.

It would be sensible to acknowledge that you finally understand the situation,
Petra77
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri May 22, 2020 8:29 pm

Re: Neighbours using my garden yard but no easement on my deeds?

Post by Petra77 »

Thanks for looking into this, obviously I will have to have this confirmed by a property solicitor.

Just one other thing, I have asked a few times from where you are getting all the conveyancing documents and information relating to this case? It would be very useful if I could located this, and present it in my next meeting. Many Thanks
Petra77
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri May 22, 2020 8:29 pm

Re: Neighbours using my garden yard but no easement on my deeds?

Post by Petra77 »

It would be possible to negotiate a Deed that will amend the right of way to become a pedestrian right of way with a defined reduced width, but at the moment the width of the tarmac surface that can be seen on your property is the width of land that cannot be obstructed since that would be a trespass against the Legal Interest that is part of title GM86252.
@Pilman. With the the best of intent I’m struggling to understand this, as it appears to contradict itself? Your saying that a pedestrian row could be negotiated, but then your saying that the width of tarmac cannot be obstructed? Please clarify. Thanks
pilman
Posts: 3130
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:08 pm

Re: Neighbours using my garden yard but no easement on my deeds?

Post by pilman »

It would be sensible to acknowledge that you finally understand the situation,
My last posting ended with that sentence, because of all the information that has been provided about what the neighbour's Property Register makes clear about the right of way being for animals and vehicles.

I am probably quite obsessive when I try and reply to a posting that concerns matters of property law, because now that I am retired from full time work, it has became my major hobby. That is why I sometimes buy documents from Land Registry to ensure that I can provide accurate advice after reading what is stated in the register of title for a property.

What I had failed to notice when I started to respond to this thread was the statement that had been posted by Petra after she re-started posting on 28th July after the initial posting had stopped on 10th June.
19.04.1999) The land is subject to the rights reserved by a Conveyance of the land in this title dated 9 May 1969 made between (1) Williams Deacon's Bank Limited and (2) John Lilley and Marilyn Joyce Lilley.

I finally spotted that statement because I decided to read the whole of the thread again now that Petra has made so many statements about the poor quality of advice being offered to her, which I felt did not apply to the constructive postings that had been made while responders were trying to be helpful at all times.

So once again I decided to use the Land Registry web-site to buy a copy of the Register for no.54 to confirm for myself what that document provides as evidence regarding a right of way over the land in that title.

Without posting a copy on this web-site, the following facts can now be confirmed.
No.54 was first registered on 19th April 1999.
The current proprietor was registered on 30th March 2007
The first item recorded in the Charges Register is the sentence quoted above, followed by these words:
" NOTE: Original Filed"

What is noticeable about the entry in the Charges Register is who was shown to be the Transferor when 54 was conveyed in 1969.
It was a Bank.

In many of the posting made by Petra, she has explained that a company had originally owned all of the land that was first registered in 1976 as title GM86252. The register of which was posted earlier as a pdf file.
Petra also explained that this company had been placed into liquidation.

It seems to me that it would be a reasonable implication that a Bank could have re-possessed property that it had lent money on if the Company, as the borrower, failed to make payments on the mortgage or loan made by the bank.

That would explain why Williams Deacon's Bank Limited transferred ownership of No.54 in 1969.
It would also explain why there needed to be rights reserved by the seller if the Company owned all of the cottages at that time.

Looking at the 1967 OS map copied earlier, it does look as though there was a direct route from the public highway past the block of buildings that was the only vehicular access to the "Allotment Gardens" shown on the map.
It also appeared to be the only vehicular access for each of the cottages which had their back doors facing that access road, although there were no other buildings located to the north of that access road as there were when the 1892 OS map was surveyed.

On 1967 OS map it just looked like a road to anyone seeing how it was shown on the map.

There is a copy of that Conveyance filed with Land Registry which can be bought at a cost of £7, although it may be that Petra has a copy and that it very specifically relates to a a right of way reserved for the benefit of No.52, since that is what a solicitor has apparently stated.

In 1969 it does not seem as though there was an out-building in existence so it seems more likely to be a reservation of a right of way by the Bank in favour of all of the other land it may have re-possessed.
That is just a guess at this stage, although it does have some commercial sense attached to it.

It is now known that the property comprising three cottages together with the land behind them was first registered on 12th October 1976, which was 7 years after 54 had been sold by the bank with a reserved right of way over it.

If the conveyance in 1976 described the land being conveyed and contained the wording "TOGETHER WITH the right of way over the land at 54 that was reserved in the conveyance dated 19th April 1999" that would explain why Land Registry included the second entry on the Property Register.
The land has the benefit of a right of way over the yard on the north side of 54 Waterton Lane with or without animals and vehicles
I think this has to be my last posting on this thread since it seems very clear that a right of way exists that can be used by cars even if the only person able to take the benefit of the right of way is the current occupier of No.56.

When trying to post this reply, the program asked if I was aware that another posting had been made .

That was when I saw a question directed at me about not understanding an earlier post.
@Pilman. With the the best of intent I’m struggling to understand this, as it appears to contradict itself? Your saying that a pedestrian row could be negotiated, but then your saying that the width of tarmac cannot be obstructed? Please clarify. Thanks
At the moment the right of way for pedestrians and vehicles is exercised over an identified width of tarmac road. That cannot be obstructed because it would be a substantial obstruction of a right of way that will be a trespass against the Legal Interest that is part of the title for GM86252.

By negotiating with the land-owner (not the tenant) it could be possible to agree that the right of way will be modified to be a pedestrian right of way over a defined width of your land. That will require a deed to be executed by the land-owner and yourself to set out the route and width of the new right of way with the original right of way extinguished. That would be when removing the stone boundary wall and the stone planter would allow the route of the amended right of way to be positioned as far over against your boundary as possible.
Your current boundary being the outside edge of the stone wall, which itself has an extensive width.
Does that make things easier to understand?
Petra77
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri May 22, 2020 8:29 pm

Re: Neighbours using my garden yard but no easement on my deeds?

Post by Petra77 »

@Pilman
it could be possible to agree that the right of way will be modified to be a pedestrian right of way over a defined width of your land. That will require a deed to be executed by the land-owner and yourself to set out the route and width of the new right of way with the original right of way extinguished. That would be when removing the stone boundary wall and the stone planter would allow the route of the amended right of way to be positioned as far over against your boundary as possible.
By this are your suggesting the the right of way could be a pedestrian right of way, and would not involve the width of a car?
By knocking down the boundary wall and repositioning it, a paths width with the boundary of 54, with an open access to the far side ( not an enclosed path ) using the unregistered road, leaving enough width to allow a row for pedestrian access? If Iv understood you correctly, I would say that for me this would be a solution. However this appears to me to contradict your other statements relating to car access.. - puzzled ?

Iv looked at the sight many times and if allowing for a car to access 56 through a different route, knocking down the boundary using the unregistered road, the land lost for 54 would be significant, a wall would have to be placed at a diagonal, which would reduce the light through the kitchen window, which would then face a wall, ( an unattractive option ) as any car would need space to turn into 56 from the unregistered road.

I still cant understand how a solicitor with 12 years + experience who works for a leading property law firm in the city ( the company mostly complete works for government / housing organisations ) advised me that there was no ROW on my property and that I could file a claim for trespassing? He was given ALL the paperwork I have including deeds for all house. I was advised that the only easement on my deeds was for the old coal house relating to 52 which was now extinguished.
Petra77
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri May 22, 2020 8:29 pm

Re: Neighbours using my garden yard but no easement on my deeds?

Post by Petra77 »

@Pilman

I been asking many times from where you are getting all this information from relating to my property? It would be very useful for me to obtain this and present to my solicitor. You have stated that this is your hobby now retired and that you buy these documents from various places. Now you have finished your investigation would you be interested in selling these documents to me? That would include the old maps, and any conveyance docs. I already have the deeds of all 5 houses. Many Thanks
Petra77
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri May 22, 2020 8:29 pm

Re: Neighbours using my garden yard but no easement on my deeds?

Post by Petra77 »

If you don’t wish to sell the documents, would you be able to explain to me where I can get them?

I know that the maps yours obtained from a site called ‘old maps’ Iv found this.

Iv been on land registry, but Iv only managed to buy land deeds from this site, and can see no extra conveying documents.
pilman
Posts: 3130
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:08 pm

Re: Neighbours using my garden yard but no easement on my deeds?

Post by pilman »

I have sent a private message with my e-mail address so that you can contact me directly if you do not want to remain on an open forum, but I will reply to the queries you are now raising.
By this are your suggesting the the right of way could be a pedestrian right of way, and would not involve the width of a car?
That is what I was suggesting.

By agreeing with the neighbouring land-owner the existing right of way for vehicles would be extinguished by deed.
A new right of way for pedestrians would be granted by you by deed although your Mortgagee would have to agree to that happening, but since the new right of way would benefit your title once the vehicular right of way was extinguished that should not be a problem except for the legal costs involved in having a deed drafted.
It would also be highly probable that if an agreement was made with the neighbouring land-owner his legal costs would also need to be paid by you.

Should you remove the stone boundary wall a measured width of 1 metre could be granted as a right of way alongside the invisible boundary line that would define the northern extent of the land in your title once the physical wall was no longer there. By erecting a tall wooden fence at that 1 metre distance this would provide a private area for you to have exclusive use of.
A fence at right angles to that fence could then be erected to define the western boundary of your property and create permanent separation from the land at No. 56.

At that point there would be no vehicular access to 56 but if the current occupier wanted to temporarily park a vehicle on the adjacent land, which appears to be a an unregistered access road between 54 and 62, then he could walk from the car along the new right of way set out on your property to get to the back of no.56 where there is a door in the wall of the house. I know that because it can be seen on Google Street View. Another source of information that is free to use.

You would not lose a significant area of land as you stated, you would gain the whole width and depth of the tarmac area after giving up exclusive use of the 1 metre width of land next to the unregistered road after removing both of the stone walls that can be seen on Street View.

Unless that agreement can be achieved then it still cannot be doubted that there is currently a vehicular right of way that will allow a car to be driven over your "yard" to be parked on the land behind No.56.

The attached photo shows situation that existed when you bought the property.

If we ask the people who regularly post on Garden Law whether there was a possibility, or a probability that there was a vehicular right of way over the road shown on the photo, how many would agree with your solicitor's advice that there isn't one, after seeing the words printed on the register of title GM86252.
2 The land has the benefit of a right of way over the yard on the north side of 54 Waterton Lane with or without animals and vehicles
Access road.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Post Reply