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.

@AmalaJae

"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…😉)."

They can be but if you post it here we can have a look. I have nearly 40 year's experience of reading deeds! You can retract any outing info if there is any?

I do think you will all end up having to ask for legal advice however...

Re last para ie 20yrs

It sort of does but the owner of the land can deny access if land registry can find them.
This is an adverse procession issue. So your use rights are not automatic.

@Kandalama
No it isn't adverse possession as the hotel already own the land.
They are simply obstructing the legal beneficial right of access of OP and others.

I was referring the the PP saying if you use it for 20years you have automatic right to carry on doing so.
You can’t claim any right due to use as the owner would be contacted and prevent that. Just as they are with adverse possession. There is nothing automatic about long term use that can’t be automatically and legally quashed in court if the owner objects.

Thats a completely seperate issue to OPs who has access and use rights through her deeds.

Have lived in houses before and now where land is owned but can't be blocked.....
Not sure if there are a local council department you can contact about the nuisance behaviour of residents of the rental property. Especially if covenants are being breached.
Personally I would go down the legal route (try to get some financial split with neighbours,) and challenge on both parking and non single family occupancy. The hotel have no regard for the disruption they are causing and need to know that it is an unacceptable situation.

It’s not an issue of adverse possession, it’s to do with having an established right of way, which is 20 years of continuous use.

I ve already responded to this
The PP noted 20yr use……that’s an adverse possession issue, ie people trying to claim adverse possession due to use.

Read above
I wasnt referring to OPs situation in that comment . See my previous posts on OPs situation.

Page 1 of this thread 22:15 onwards……

OP have you seen the deeds for the other five houses to see if any of the other properties have red outlined areas of the courtyard?

I am the PP who has experience of this. We bought a house on a private road where the deeds didn’t show access rights over the whole road. We were advised by our solicitor that it was an established right of way issue. You do not have to own land to have right of way over it. If you have had right of way over land for over 20 years, then you have established right of way.

Try googling established right of way.

Just picked up on this query.
If it goes to court the judge obviously looks at everyone’s ownership and deeds but then
will consider whether the hotel are actually blocking your rights of use. By that I mean are they actually stopping other people or vehicles from manoeuvring.

I know this seems weird but if it’s deemed possible for all to use the space regardless of the parked cars and irrespective of your deeds then it is likely he / she will allow parking. It’s happened in cases before.eg A car parks to the side of a drive and other drivers and emergency vehicles can still get around.

You’ve said cars can’t turn and emergency vehicles can’t get access so it doesn’t seem to be the situation in your case.

So if the hotel owners are ordered to stop parking but continue to do so, no they won’t get a fine just like that. You will have to get an injunction out on them to stop the parking. Think between £20,000 to £60,000( if it’s an emergency). You can claim that back of course but then that’s another civil court case.
Crap isn’t it.

I’m an architect I know what a right of way is. Thanks.

Really?

You keep confusing adverse possession and established right of way. They’re two totally different things.

OP s case is not a right of way issue
A right of way is a route from one place to another.
OPs case is a space with no through place of origin or destination.

In OPs case also the land in question has a dedicated owner and dedicated users.
Your case is very different.

No
I was referring to irrelevant issues raised re 20 yr rule on rights of way.
OPs issue isn’t a right of way issue.
( OPs issue is also documented )

Adverse possession is completely different. That’s ‘squatters rights’ and claiming ownership. The hotel don’t need to squat, they already own it. So irrelevant here.

@Kandalama

"ve already responded to this
The PP noted 20yr use……that’s an adverse possession issue, ie people trying to claim adverse possession due to use.

Read above
I wasnt referring to OPs situation in that comment . See my previous posts on OPs situation."
It's not called adverse possession when you are discussing easements although you can claim a right by prescription.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/easements-claimed-by-prescription/practice-guide-52-easements-claimed-by-prescription

But this is all irrelevant as the right of access (over the red edged land) is clearly mentioned in the OP's deeds.

Exactly.
Thats why I couldn’t work out why a PP was even mentioning it…..

@AmalaJae had an interesting conversation about your issue with colleagues today. Including two planners.

It occurred to us that the cars are not owned by the hotel but by the employees.
whilst you should still follow procedure and write to the Hotel you should definitely do the same to the car owners. They are the ones in breach.

They also won’t ( assume ) be able to afford legal battles unlike the Hotel.

So get the car reg noted
Write to them.
Hand or if you can’t then put a letter on their cars but you’ll need evidence that they actually receive the letters. So it’s cameras or someone handing the letters over directly. Suggest you record on camera or phone this happening.

It’s no wonder the hotel aren’t doing anything about it as technically they are not doing anything wrong and so technically taking them to court could be a huge financial mistake for you OP.

Thank you, I have posted them here

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/thirty_days_only/5064859-land-registry?reply=134898872

as I really don't want them here on the internet ‘forever’

Happy to answer any questions!

Great thanks @AmalaJae

I've had a look and the hatching differs on each plan which I'm sure is incorrect as the right is in common with others according to the deed. Developers often use architectural plans instead of OS mapping which often leads to such errors. That plus bad conveyancing!

The deed to no 6 also mentions that there should be no obstructions to the hatched brown and therefore they shouldn't be parking there.

You are also jointly responsible (along with your neighbours) for maintenance of the hatched area, but which extent?

It's going to be tricky to sort. I think you need to get your neighbours on board with this. The deeds of no 5 and no 7 would be particularly useful to check the extent of the brown hatching.

Thanks so much.

Your advice sits with my thoughts that the owner and tenants have incorrectly interpreted the red outline as their parking.
‘Proof’ sent to me by the hotel is only the letting agents detail sheet, (with the red outlined), which I know has no legal standing.

Am I correct in the ‘one family’ only - or does that mean only for business purposes?

Just to clarify, the hotel don't own anything. This property is about 4 miles from the hotel. The hotel rent the house from the owner as a ‘staff house’ for some of their individual staff members. Unfortunately they have chosen a three bed house, for three individuals, all with cars ( necessary to get to work), when the property has ( according to my deeds) parking for one car outside of their garage.

Ok, I didn’t pick up on that
This makes things even easier as you know where those staff members live and who owns the cars.

Just serve the letters on the car owners.