Land Registry - courtyard development issues.

[AmalaJae]

We are a group of seven house centred around a shared drive and central courtyard. Built 2000.

All house deeds state in the covenants that there is agreed full and free access at all times across the shared drive way and central courtyard area.

Except one property has a ‘red outline’ on the plan, in the centre of the courtyard which the owners have taken to mean that this is owned by them and means they can park two cars, across the centre of the courtyard.

This blocks access, prevents other residents turning and prevents access by other vehicles including emergency services. ( ambulance prevented from accessing a child)

Land registry have suggested I seek legal advice around the inaccuracy in the deeds for the other house and the inconsistency between the houses in the development.

Is that correct?
Surely, I can't legally change someone else’s deeds?

I'm confused, should I be expecting more from Land Registry?

Thanks.

Sorry another query…if it went to court and a judge ruled that they need to park elsewhere.…andbthey continue do they risk a fine?

The owner of the house would be liable and not want to pay, but if the multi-million pound hotel agree to legal costs and fines….

No idea, but you are getting way ahead of yourself by the sounds of it.

See if you have legal cover on your buildings insurance, if so speak to them and follow their advice, failing that go and see a solicitor in person and get them to read the various deeds for the affected properties and go with their advice. It’s likely that a solicitors letter clarifying everyone’s rights and responsibilities is all that is needed. The hotel is trying to bully people into submission and likely knows it is wrong. (This is entirely dependence on what the deeds may actually say).

edit to add. If a solicitor writes to both the landlord and tenant, it may well transpire that the landlord will put pressure on the tenant to either comply with keeping the area free of vehicles or possibly reconsider and start looking for a new tenant. It sounds like the hotel needs the property more than the landlord may need this particular tenant - especially if the hotel has based its wages on the fact that free lodgings are a perk of the job. Whereas families are always looking for property to rent theses days a so might be an easy property to relet.

We have a shared drive with shared and free access but each house owns a part for someone needing to own the land and be responsible for it but you can’t park on your but if the shared bit. Except our dickhead neighbours to, so I’m going to happily park 2 caravans on our bit one day to show them.

@plantlight. I would do that too. Only I have access to a hgv and 48ft trailer … mwah ha ha! Shame tacho law means I can’t move it for several hours…….

shared access is a nightmare if you get a twatty neighbour who thinks they can do as they please.

If I were you .. I'd meet with the hotel and point out that their usage of the property is not in line with the covenant of the house (single family dwelling) and tell them that you could make their lives difficult by enforcing this covenant. So if they don't want to have this and would prefer to retain this as a shared property then it would be in their best interests to sort out the parking situation sharpish. Because if you are employing a solicitor there's very little extra cost in enforcing all covenants not just the access one.

That may get them to the negotiation table

Thanks, but as I said above, we have already met with the hotel and shown them my deeds. They are choosing to ignore.

@Alphabet1spaghetti2 - no the owner says there is parking for two cars too. ☹️

Have you checked their deeds? Does it say there is parking? As I’ve said before - this needs a solicitor to check through everything and advise accordingly.

Can you post a copy of the plan? Have you had a look at the actual deed if a copy of that is available on the Land Registry website?
It's strange that there would be a red outlined area in the middle of a parking/access area.
Land Registry plans can be incorrect so it's worth accessing the original source of their plan.

I don't know if this helps but near me a row of houses own via red outline some bits of road in front of their houses. For decades they've parked there with signs saying for number 1/2/3 etc. Turns out highways designated them as public highway without telling them and technically anyone can park there. Even though they own them on the Land Registry. Bonkers right? So it is possible to override what's on the Land Registry.

In theory you own up to the centre of the highway (ad medium filum) and the surface of the highway is 'adopted' by the Local Authority.

Actually highways just can’t do this and the hse owners should get together and talk to a solicitor. Firstly each house should send their deeds to highways as proof. Highways are always stealing bits of land. One day it’s your grass verge the next highways are tarmacing over it. They aren’t doing this legally. It’s usually someone down the line not having a clue. So I would advise those house owners to tell highways. Also If you own half the road then it will be on your deeds. Usually that’s for unadopted roads. If your property outline doesn’t go to the middle of the road then the road is owned by highways or a developer. Owning half the road is extremely rare.

Yes but that was.in relation to parking. You are.upping the anti by informing them that you will pursue breach of covenant on usage as well as parking

It's a niche situation because it's a cul-de-sac but their legal advice said it was the case and there was nothing they could do about it. I was flabbergasted but that's the legal advice.

They have nothing to lose from not settling on the parking OP, the longer it drags out for them the better, they can ignore till it gets to court with no costs, but they do have something to lose if you get the single family occupancy clause enforced. It might bring them to the table, not necessarily from you just showing them the deeds but from you including it in a letter to show you are serious about legal action.

"Actually highways just can’t do this and the hse owners should get together and talk to a solicitor. Firstly each house should send their deeds to highways as proof. Highways are always stealing bits of land. One day it’s your grass verge the next highways are tarmacing over it. They aren’t doing this legally. It’s usually someone down the line not having a clue. So I would advise those house owners to tell highways. Also If you own half the road then it will be on your deeds. Usually that’s for unadopted roads. If your property outline doesn’t go to the middle of the road then the road is owned by highways or a developer. Owning half the road is extremely rare."
It's usually in a covenant when the house is first built that the road will be adopted. However a lot of older properties have private unadopted roads. If this is the case then yes, the LA should be approaching landowners to inform them of the intention to adopt. There is a formal procedure that needs to be adhered to.

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00402/SN00402.pdf

Why don’t all the other houses affected just get a legal opinion and share the cost?

nobody on here can help

I don’t really get why anyone would believe they have any right.

You have deeds and a plan showing your right of way. They just have a red line showing ownership, and nothing showing any reason that your right of way has been negated (unless I am missing something).

I would tell the hotel (copied to the landlord) that they have a certain amount of time to move the vehicles (not very long) before you enforce both the right of way and the single family occupancy clause.

I don’t know what the laws are around emergency vehicle access but I would check these and see if you have any rights.

I would make sure the landlord knew that once the single occupancy clause was enforced, he would struggle to let again, as it would come up on future letters enquiries. Let him enforce the parking.

I am not sure why you are being so passive, especially if all the other occupants agree? I would investigate the practicalities of moving the vehicles (maybe go in front of the hotel) and leaving the onus on them to sue you.

This is one of those situations where I suspect that legally you are in the right but enforcing it legally will be more effort and money to you than them. So you have to find a way to reverse that situation.

@AmalaJae

"I had hoped the Land Registry department would have ensured that the deeds issued are correct."

It's not up to the Land Registry to make sure Deeds are correct. That is the responsibility of the land owner/lease holder and their solicitor when purchasing a property.

@AmalaJae
Does their deed have a subjective entry in the Charges (C) Register over the access area?

Thank you to you all for your support and thoughts.

I know legal advice has to be a next step as we have exhausted everything( have copies of my and the other properties deeds, have emailed the hotel, met with the hotel, spoken with the tenants, spoken to the LA, spoken with the letting agent and a neighbour has met with the house owner). I think I just wanted to know what to expect from going down the legal route.

@Anameisaname The hotel have seen my deeds, including the covenant about ‘one family occupancy’ and are choosing to dismiss. I haven't yet presented them with the deeds of the property they rent. I wanted to be accurate. They have already decided that my information is inaccurate, I don't want to get this next step wrong.

@Newbutoldfather - I can't put cars in front of the hotel as it isn't here, the hotel is about 4 miles away. The landlord/owner of the house doesn't live here either, so neither parties care about the disruption to us. The staff in the house are young, with frequent changes and really not bothered about doing the right thing. Residents have always respected each other over 20 years, we have never had any issues.
I have made sure that I contact the hotel everytime we need the cars moving ( and extra just to make a point) (deliveries, building work) and gone back to them when the cars have not been moved in time, complaining about the disruption caused.

Not a great situation to be in.

I'm not sure, I will look. Deeds are quite technical to read aren't they?

In fact LR sent me a link to the document that conveyancers use…and that was even more unintelligible (to me as a none legal person…😉).

This is exactly why you need to get a solicitor involved. Due to not having all the correct information to hand, and relying on you to interpret it for us, means not one of us can definitely tell you what may happen next - for all anyone knows, the hotel may have taken legal advice re covenants and seen they are no longer enforceable for instance and this is where a solicitor can be best for advice. Get your affected neighbours together and see if they are willing to split costs if your own house insurance doesn’t provide legal cover for this.

I really hope it is resolved quickly and in your favour, as I loathe bullies and irresponsible people in general - and that’s what the hotel is doing along with its staff and the landlord.

This.

I live on a private road. All of our houses have red lines the length of our properties up to the middle of the road. Technically we do own it, but no-one is going to park vehicles all along their part as the road would be completely blocked. As a pp said, usually someone has to own the land for land registry purposes, but it doesn’t mean that you can park all over it, especially if it’s designated as access/turning space.

Also, if you can prove that you have had vehicular access across the land for 20 years that legally prevents someone from blocking your access anyway.

I realise the hotel have seen the deeds but you stated at the beginning you were not pushing the occupancy point.

You need to spell it out. No uncertain terms. Either fix the parking situation or I will employ a solicitor to enforce the covenants which will include ALL infractions including the occupancy. Be explicit not expect them to understand

Presumably in that case you'd be within your rights getting them towed...?