Dont own driveway!

[Werehalfwaythere]

Looking for some views please.

We're in the process of buying a probate home. For context, it's a detached home with a long driveway leading up to it. The driveway only leads to our new home. When we viewed it (multiple times) we were assured by the estate agent that the drive is owned by the property. However it's a probate house, so really I think they were just assuming that.

In the deeds, it's turned out that the driveway is owned by next door, who originally owed the land our house was subsequently built on. We have shared access which the solicitor has assured us can't be removed without our consent and there's no reason why they'd need to use it. It's on the deeds that the responsibility for maintenance of the space is with us as a return for using the driveway. It's in great condition.

I'm now not sure what we should do.

A) not worry about it. We have access and it doesn't really matter who owns it

B) move in and later on ask the neighbour if we can purchase it, although they're old so presumably in the next 10 years it would be likely they'll sell to new buyers.

C) drop the offer price

D) withdraw from purchase

I'm leaning towards either b or c. We love the property but it just feels very strange. We're also maxing out our borrowing potential, it won't be easy for us to raise funds to purchase the land later IF they let us. And if for any reason we need to sell in the coming years, we can't afford to lose money on it if this is what puts people off. I also find it very controlling that the neighbour owns our driveway, I prefer to own all of what I use.

What would you do?

No it wasn't. It's a probate property; estate agents and inheriting children thought the house owned the land. It's the deeds that have shown otherwise.

OK, thank you for that. This is some extra information that you haven't mentioned before now.

The reason why the ownership of the drive was retained by the other property is still valid and I understand why this was done in the first place; they don't want whoever buys this house to stick up some huge fence in front of their property.

However, with this extra information that you have now supplied I can quite understand why you may wish to go back to the sellers and offer a lower price.

Frankly, when you first posted, I thought you were being a bit YABU, but now, with this extra information, I think that perhaps, yes, you should go back to the sellers and suggest a lower price.

So, to answer your initial question, I would go for option C.

We own our drive and our neighbours have pedestrian access to it so they can go in and out of their back garden. We can't remove this access. It's on both of our deeds. I think you would be safe to buy it as you have the documented access. That can't change without your legal agreement.

I'm a solicitor and I wouldn't have an issue with this at all. Listen to your own legal adviser rather than a bunch of randoms on the internet who know nothing about the law.

Sorry but I did supply the information. I literally put this in my opening post:

"When we viewed it (multiple times) we were assured by the estate agent that the drive is owned by the property. However it's a probate house, so really I think they were just assuming that."

Thank you.

As a solicitor, could you give me your view on another covenant we have; that we need the other houses permission when looking to make alterations or extensions.

We have no plans at all to extend, it's already a sizable property. But we may want to convert some of our front garden into more parking space at some point.

Whats your view on this type of "permission" clause? I feel like it could limit our freedom to treat our property as our own. Our solicitor isn't concerned at all, but it makes me feel almost like a renter or a child asking my parent for permission. We're paying a lot for the house and I'm worried this could be a bit annoyance if we want to make subtle changes...

Is this type of covenant common?

Thanks, I know I need to ask my solicitor questions but it's helpful having more than one perspective.

Totally agree. A friend of mine is in a similar set up but she is the person who owns the drive. She can’t park a car or caravan on it as she needs to keep it clear for the other house as they have access.

Sorry, I missed that. I withdraw what I said, I didn't mean to cause any offence.

"...that we need the other houses permission when looking to make alterations or extensions."

That one is a lot more serious and could really cause you problems. Speak to your solicitor about what needs to happen to remove a restrictive covenant if you are at thinking about making alterations and you worry that they may not agree.

Basically, the owners of the other house get an absolute veto over any external alterations or extensions to your house (depending on the actual wording of the covenant).

It may be that you would need to consult with a solicitor who has specialist knowledge of this area.

If you cannot forsee making any changes to the exterior of the house while you own it then don't worry about this now, but if you do have plans then you do need to get this sorted.

Thanks, I'll call our solicitor tomorrow.

It’s not landlocked - the house has a right over the driveway, which is sufficient for access. It would only be landlocked if no such right existed.

My house is landlocked - I think the original neighbours wanted to ensure it wouldn't be over developed.
We have a right of easement to the drive, shared between my house and Nextdoor. They have a duty to repair the drive. We have to keep a fence.
No problem.

That’s not what landlocked means. Landlocked means there is no rights of access within the title.