Neighbour wants me to give up private right of way if I sell house

[Ric2013]

Hi there,

Wondered if anyone has any ideas that might be helpful to me with regard to my right of access through my neighbour's garden which, since I may be selling, my neighbour would like me to relinquish.

I'm considering selling my house. Recently this has been rented out and I've been renting a pad on the other side of the country (but I'm fed up of travelling back and forth to do maintenance while having to put up with my own landlord's somewhat bizarre idea of what constitutes maintaining a house... but I digress).

The back garden of my own centre-terraced house has access to the road via the garden of the neighbouring house which is end-of-terrace, with a very clearly defined (on paper, if not on the ground) path through the garden around its outer perimeter. This is all documented as a formal easement.

The neighbour (she's had her house almost as long as I have, nearly ten years) had a bad experience with a former tenant of my house who used the premise of a right of way as an excuse for standing in her garden and making phone calls for some reason (why she didn't just ask him to s-d off is beyond me, and I was unaware of the situation) and is now a bit scared that, since I'm thinking of selling, the new owner of my house might be equally difficult.

Personally I don't see why the access is a particular problem, as she can always fence around the access route, thus making her garden seem smaller if she really wants to worry about it, but I'd like to help her out if possible.

She seems to think a simple exchange of letters would extinguish the right, but I can't see how that can be, seeing as this right is on Land Registry, and is some 50 years old. Obviously if there are legal costs involved, I'll tell the neighbour she needs to pay them if she wants this done. And we're assuming that there are no planning issues involved - I wonder whether having a 15' back garden without access to the road could be considered a hazard in that there would be no fire escape?

There is a part of me that would be sad to see this go as I thought it was a good thing for the house to have, and actually I feel that sharing a space adds to a community feel. It was very useful to me to have an access for my bicycle without having to push them through the lounge, and I like to keep my bins out the back where the neighbours didn't have to look at them.

Leaving all that aside, this will certainly add to the value of her house, which I don't begrudge her. What I do object to, is possible loss of sale or value if I do sell up, as several people online as well as in person see having a rear access to the tiny back garden as an advantage. (I say if, but actually this is not an issue as no-one has suggested I relinquish the access UNLESS I sell up).

Does anyone have any ideas on how I could ensure that I don't lose money on this, short of just telling her that no, I'm not prepared to extinguish the access, or is that the only way, really?

Thanks for any contributions. If anything really helpful comes up, I may even show her this page :)

Ric

This 'through the back' access is very common where I live (Victorian city centre in east Anglia). Don't give up the access, it is essential for bins, bikes, builders etc!

I feel very sorry for her as that cannot be nice at all to have such a right of way through her garden, but I agree that it's valuable to your property so you would lose out if you gave it up.

None of our row of terraces have a back access however and they sell regularly with no trouble - last one in just two days. I would at least consider if she's prepared to compensate you, once you've taken legal and agents advice.

In case you want to show her the thread, another one saying don't do it.

We own a house, which we now let, and when we bought it understand we'd access to the back of it through an l-shaped alley that starts at the end of the terrace and winds around the back of it iyswim. However, the alley is unregistered and three businesses on the long bit have piled up rubbish from extensions, old oil drums and a bunch of other crap over the years which means its now inaccessible. Great for security, not so much if we ever want to do significant work to the back garden.

Offer to sell the house to her. That way her problem is solved.
The right of way through the back is likely to be a fire escape, and she is not being reasonable.

I would just say no. Why should you put yourself at a disadvantage? It would reduce the value of your house and increase the value of hers. What is she giving up for you?

When she bought her house the value would have taken account of the garden being used for access.

Likewise with your property.

If you give this away it is effectively just giving her a slice of your equity.

You could sell - but I wouldn't do that without getting impact valuations from 2/3 estate agents to understand what the loss would be to you and the gain to her.

You'd also need to speak to a solicitor.

Generally speaking I wouldn't do it. I'd guess the loss of access to your property would be far greater than the increase in hers - because she could at least fence off the access route to ensure privacy.

Your property without the rear access has no workaround and would thus become far more difficult to sell this significantly lowering its value.

Don't give it up. We are the end terrace with next door having access over ours and have never had any problems. Things we use our rear access ourselves for include bikes, bins, garden stuff (including large toys such as a trampoline, pressure washer, sacks of compost etc), log storage, windowcleaner access, getting white goods delivered straight into the kitchen, camping gear to and from shed, the list is endless. My first house (modern 2 bed terrace) had no rear access and was a PITA, never again will I buy a house like that.

When I lived in Terraced property, I had access through my neighbours garden and the houses further on than us had access through each one in turn although they didn't use it.

But I had to use it to get the bins out. Plus my front door was up several steps whereas the back access was level so easier to bring in furniture/white goods etc.

The access is necessary for your property and therefore I don't think you should change it. Your neighbour should not have bought a property that allowed neighbours through her garden if she doesn't like it. By helping her you would be seriously devaluing your own property.

I dealt with a house once where the right of way had effectively been extinguished by the late owner allowing neighbours to build over over their bits of her access (it was the middle of 3 houses). It sold for a pittance.
Say no. She can't make you.

Also, right of way is just that - access over the land. It doesn't confer any rights to sit, stand, loiter or otherwise enjoy the land. If your neighbour has problems such as she had with your tenant at any point in the future, she has other forms of recourse like politely asking them to stop, ffs.

Definitely don't do this. It's a valuable right, and important to the value of your house. We had some friends who were asked the same thing, and quite simply told the other owner were to go.

The other owner had to take a much less valuable offer for the property, because that was the market value of the house with the right of way over the property.

Another one adding to the chorus of 'Don't do it'.

'No, sorry. It's very inconvenient if a house doesn't have direct access to the rear of the property'.

If I were in her situation I'd fence & gate the end bit. Job done.

The more you look at it the more absurd it is. She thinks you should agree to a major improvement to the value of her house by a major reduction in the value of yours because . . . that's where I get stuck.

No, no, thrice No!

No way! I would never buy a house without access to the rear (hur hur), and the access will have made her house significantly cheaper too. Cheeky mare.

Can I make one suggestion?

Don't give up right of access, but one house be looked at hard a right of access through for specific reasons only:

Maintainence - builders etc.
Bins
Can't think of what else.

It didn't allow the owner of the middle house to come and go that way at will - but we would have had to allow access for the above reasons. I think access had to be got by permission - bins out and in on day x only, builders by prior arrangement - but we would not be allowed to say no. A sort of built in communication courtesy.

I hope that makes sense - could this be a middle ground? We didn't buy as we didn't anyone in our garden, but neither would I buy a middle house without some form of access.

Possibly she hasn't thought the reduction in value bit through? I think she's just thinking that she'd be glad to gain a totally private garden and didn't think it would cost me anything.

In fairness to her, she seemed to think my other neighbour who has a right over his neighbouring property (terrace of 4 - the centre houses have access over their respective end of terrace neighbouring gardens) had relinquished his on the grounds that he had removed his gate and just thought I might do the same. But I only had to glance over my fence to see that his gate was still there, so I really don't think a lot of thought has gone into this.

The 'access land' has a value. It's as simple as that. It could potentially put people off from buying her house but the flip side is it could attract people to your house,.. I think, if she serious about not wanting people to use it them she should buy it from you and the legal costs should be hers... That's assuming you want to sell it. Would you have bought your house if it first have access?

That should say 'didn't have access' (typing in the sunshine)

Your neighbour's issue with your former tenant has noting to do with the access. This was just someone doing something stupid and there were other ways to deal with that issue.

Don't sell or give up the access. We used to live in a mid-terrace and without access would have had no way at all of doing any necessary work at the back of the house. Luckily we had an alleyway between ours and next door giving access.

I don't know of any houses in my area without rear access.

Another vote for no. You're being very reasonable to her I don't think she's being fair to you, in fact she's being really cheeky. If she cared that much she would have put up a fence even if it did reduce the size of her garden.

Does your neighbour know you're planning to sell? She may have just seen the opportunity to get rid of an annoying feature of her property and increasing its value. She most likely doesn't care about any detrimental effect on your property. The tenant standing in her garden may be a convenient smokescreen. I would tell her she will have to take it up with the new owners.

ElegantDream - that's a good idea, and perhaps a modified access could be arranged, though by the sounds of it there are a lot of people who would find having rear access an attractive proposition, for example Pootles2010.

So hard to quantify the value of the access. I reckon the most certain bet for us both is, as suggested, she buys the the house (assuming she can afford to buy it) and then the easement magically disappears. She is then able to choose who she sells it onto and on what terms. Genius... if unlikely to happen lol.

I wouldn't look to discuss this further with your neighbour or look for any solutions, it will potentially drag on ad Infinitium. I'd say no I'm sorry, that doesn't work for me.

I wouldn't relinquish it. I live in a house with no rear access and it is a PITA. Everything has to come through the hall and kitchen.

Toast3 - I wasn't particularly aware of the access when I bought - I was young and bank of Mum and Dad had more of a say in what was acceptable. However, when I was at a meeting with my solicitor I was thrilled to discover I had unrestricted access, and I must say that now I'm looking at houses again, not having rear access would put me off, if only because the front garden at the house has nowhere to store a bike.

Actually, now I think about it, the house effectively has a rear entrance hallway (passed off in planning documents as a 'lounge extension'). It would be a bit pointless if there were no back access, but it was good for parking bicycles in, so I think you are right that a lack of access would severely compromise the design and value of the house.

Thanks to all who have replied - more replies than I expected.

I viewed a property which was in the perfect location, great catchment etc but it had no rear access so I didn't make an offer.