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

I wouldn't do it.

So, I honestly have no idea about English law (even though I live here, silly me.!) but I studied law in an other European country (expat here). So, where I studied this would be rather complicated (and somewhat costly) to do, but maybe it's different in England...?

I think you should consider why the easement exists...? As somebody else already said, there are often practical and historical reasons for it.

I absolutely agree with runningincircles12, if your neighbour wants this done she should pay for any costs caused by this. And even if she does it, it doesn't change the fact that the property may be much harder to sell... You don't want to get stuck with the house....
So, if you really, really like her you may offer her this possibility?

But no, I don't think you should do it. She bought the house knowing it had an easement.

We don't have external access to our back garden, our neighbours do. It's a real pain.

There are two houses between ours and the first one on the row (no 2) . Those two have access to theirs through No. 2's garden. New owners of No. 2 didn't like the access through their garden..so they put up a big fence letting the others pass though the end, but keeping their home and garden private.

Your neighbour's cheapest option is this - other than leaving it be.

I like the idea of selling her your house very positive

Looks as though you've been persuaded not to just give up this right of way, so don't buckle under pressure!

As others have said, there is a financial implication on both sides. Your house will lose value and be a less attractive proposition to buyers if you give up the easement, although you will have paid over the odds when you bought so that you had the benefit of the right of way.If you give it up, you pay out twice over (once when you bought, and again when you sell).

Your neighbour, meanwhile, will have paid less for her property because there's a right of way through it. If you give up the access then the value of her property will go up and it will open the door to more buyers; your neighbour will therefore get the financial gain twice over if she sells .

If she wants privacy, she could put up fencing which marks off the right of way from the main part of her garden.

I really wouldn't try and compromise with restricted use. That's just irritating for your buyers.

I think a flat "No, sorry, selling the house without access isn't an option."

We have access through our neighbour's garden to the back of our house.

It's so useful - we used it to move our furniture in and also when we had some builders come and do some work to the rear of our house.

We also use it when we go mountain biking so we don't have to take muddy bikes through the whole house.

I would say we use it once every few weeks. it's vital but we don't take the piss.

Good thing you don't leave near her... Middlings text is perfect: "No, sorry, selling the house without access isn't an option." Then just leave it at that.

If she does come back to you, just say, "you do realise this has financial implications for me, it's not just a favour? I'd have to get it valued, plus there would be legal costs, all of which I would need to pass onto you. Given that it would also affect the value of any sale (resulting in a loss of unknown size to me), I am afraid I cant' take this any further."

So the benefits of giving up the rights of access to you are...?

Your neighbour, meanwhile, will have paid less for her property because there's a right of way through it. If you give up the access then the value of her property will go up and it will open the door to more buyers; your neighbour will therefore get the financial gain twice over if she sells

This is very, very true. Please remember this. She is asking you to give her something very valuable for nothing.

What would you say if she came up to you and asked you to give her £10000 out of the goodness of her heart? Because effectively that's what she is asking (or whatever the actual depreciation in value without the access is).

Er, your heart, not her. Distracted by cross toddler!

Definitely not dont do it!

I am shocked you were considering giving it up in the first place, I think she was hoping that since you will no longer live there that you won't care and wouldn't realise the effect it had on your property. I wouldn't even entertain discussing it with her.

Her own options are keep it how it is and accept people accessing their property via the right of way or fence off her garden and leave a strip for access yes it will make her garden slightly smaller but it fixes her issue.

My parents have access through their garden when they first moved in it was all open communal and over time everyone sectioned theirs off. They are not bothered in the slightest and the 5 houses below them all have smaller gardens to access their properties and leave a right of way and once this was all put into place it ended all the hassle!

She has choices leave her to them dont devalue your house for the sake of someone traveling through at most once or twice a day she knew this could be the case when she bought it.

As others have said, you'd be devaluing your own house markedly by reducing the pool of potential buyers, while increasing the value of hers. If the access were truly her main concern then she'd be willing to fence it in, so it isn't as though she hasn't an alternative. She just wants you to take a hit, do her a favour and avoid her having an expense and a smaller garden.

In short, you sound a very nice person. Your neighbour, on the other hand, sounds a chancer. I'm a tad that she has the brass neck to ask you, let alone ask you to do it without any mention from her of money to compensate.

Big fat no. There NEEDS to be access to a centre terrace.

Incidentally if you do decide to explain (I don't see you have an obligation to - you can just say you don't want to do it) I would just say you've been told not to as it will make the house a lot harder to sell - don't mention devaluing it from the start, because that opens a negotiation in a sense and if she starts offering you money you still haven't closed the conversation. It strings it all out.

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.

That's being very fair of you indeed, given the alternative explanation is she knows you don't live anywhere near any more, so may not check, so is lying to you in an attempt to make your compliance with her exceedingly cheeky request more likely, in the hope that you'll take her word for it.

Pay to put a fence up yourself. Defines right of access

Why on earth should she? The right is defined - in the deeds, the Land Registry and in use. Why go to expense?

Not to mention that she has the right to travel over the woman's land, not a claim to that land, far less a right to erect anything on it restricting the owner's use and enjoyment. How is exceeding a clear right going to help anyone?

' "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."

That's being very fair of you indeed, given the alternative explanation is she knows you don't live anywhere near any more, so may not check, so is lying to you in an attempt to make your compliance with her exceedingly cheeky request more likely, in the hope that you'll take her word for it.'

Well, no actually. This comment was made in person over the garden fence while we were chatting. Presumably from her side of my fence she wasn't able to see my other neighbour's garden and cannot possibly see from her bedroom window as a first floor extension on my side blocks that view. Not sure where she got the idea that the gate had been removed, and I suspect she knows me well enough to know I would look. My last lot of tenants had just moved out and I spent a week at the house trying to decide what to do with the place and this conversation took place at the time.

In any case, it doesn't matter whether we think she's a nice person or not, the relevant point is that I don't have enough money to be able to take a significant hit on value and saleability as I'll need all the cash I can raise in order to buy another house to replace this one. The consensus here seems to be that a house with access is better than a house without access, so I wouldn't be giving her something that is of no value to me, and so I can't afford to do it. I think that just about sums it up, doesn't it?

For what it's worth I used to own a house that had a backyard where the only access into it was through my back door. This was due to the yard being surrounded by a 6ft wall on all three sides.

The negatives were I had to bring my bin through the house, window cleaners and any other people doing odd jobs had to come through the house, I had bugger all view of anything unless I was in my bathroom upstairs.

Someone mentioned that there is relatively little fire risk if there's no access through the back garden, this is not true because if your house is on fire and your nearest available exit is your back door you'd go out the back door, and if you have a small fenced in back garden you might not be able to get far enough away to be at a safe distance. My backyard was only a few ft wide.

Someone mentioned that there is relatively little fire risk if there's no access through the back garden, this is not true because if your house is on fire and your nearest available exit is your back door you'd go out the back door, and if you have a small fenced in back garden you might not be able to get far enough away to be at a safe distance. My backyard was only a few ft wide

OK, but rights of access don't really have much to do with fire safety. You would be perfectly within your rights to escape through her garden (climbing the fence) in the event of a fire, easement or no easement. Additionally (except in the case of certain types of accommodation), there is no law stating that every property has to have a clearly defined fire escape route. That has nothing to do with an easement.

I have a mid terrace house with no access from the garden and I don't think if you have access at the moment you should give it up.

It actually doesn't bother me that much as the neighbours are lovely, unlikely to be moving anytime soon and I know if we were desperate they would give us access (both neighbours would, we are two down from the end terrace) but that might change one day. It's actually worse for us because our main storage is our basement so bikes have to be carried up stairs from the garden into our kitchen then through the house.

You do get used to it though and it didn't strike me as an issue when we moved in and I liked it when the DCs were small as I knew they were completely contained.

However, it did stop us getting free cavity wall insulation as they couldn't get the pipe through. I think the guy doing it wasn't that bothered though - on another occasion a scaffolder worked it out. We are getting building work done soon and it will be more complicated as again everything will have to come through the house through the builder seems ok with that.

I'd buy another house with the same restriction without a second's through as it hasn't been a big problem for us but that may not be the case for everyone so protect your interests and retain the right.

Ah, okay, I apologise - just saw your comment that you no longer lived anywhere near, and thought she was being! In that case she just sounds confused, yes. But there is no reason at all you should damage your own position, when you both bought the house understanding what it was.

I wouldn't do it. We have access through our neighbours garden and it is useful for deliveries of large items and for our oil delivery as tank is in back garden. We never use it except for these issues and if I can I usually pop round and let them know we are awaiting delivery etc. your neighbour will make it harder to sell your house and is just being a pita. The access rights are there for a reason. We are not terraced but the way the houses are built means we need this access. Most terraced houses do have this arrangements as standard. Be firm with her.

"The consensus here seems to be that a house with access is better than a house without access, so I wouldn't be giving her something that is of no value to me, and so I can't afford to do it. I think that just about sums it up, doesn't it?"

Yes - a right of way has financial value and is part of the value of your property. Whether you can afford to effectively pass on that financial value to her is irrelevant - she's only your (soon to be ex) neighbour, not your first-born!