Splitting a right of way maintenance obligation - is it just a matter of division?

Our solicitors want big bucks for this question so I thought i'd see whether anyone on here had come across the same issue

We own a concrete farm track that runs through to a main road. By the road, the land on both sides of the track was owned by a neighbour - lets call it title 'A'. He uses the track 'at all time and for all purposes' to access his house which is set a little way back from the road and pays 10% from time to time of reasonable maintenance costs. Last year he obtained permission to convert an old shed to a dwelling. This was on the opposite side of the track but still on 'title A'. Now (via estate agents) he's offering to sell or rent the plot / converted building and it has a new title number - say 'title B'.

The question is does he, or someone who rents or purchases the land or barn conversion, because of 'title B', now have to contribute their own 10% to maintain the road which they too will use or do they each now contribute 5%?

The new title mentions the maintaining obligation when quoting the 'at all times and for all purposes' right of way but despite the usage possibly doubling if an additional family move in, he says the contribution for the total land was only ever 10% and now they have had an 'agreement' drawn for the proposed tenant or purchaser that they will each contribute 5% of the obligation.

Perhaps I do need to use a solicitor but it's a few zeros for something that is minimal return but I'd like to understand the procedure for splitting titles as a general rule and in case we ever wanted to do something similar.

HK

 

[ISCO]

The ROW is for all purposes and I believe that the 10% contribution will be the only legal obligation to contribute to maintenance no matter what the use. If he got planning for 10 houses then still only 10% contribution in total.

I think the 5% each is legally correct, although you would have hoped a reasonable person would have re negotiated contributions. Trouble will be that for you to enforce covenant to pay you will need to be a party to any deed of variation.

 

[fieldfarmer]

The ROW is for all purposes and I believe that the 10% contribution will be the only legal obligation to contribute to maintenance no matter what the use. If he got planning for 10 houses then still only 10% contribution in total.

I think the 5% each is legally correct, although you would have hoped a reasonable person would have re negotiated contributions. Trouble will be that for you to enforce covenant to pay you will need to be a party to any deed of variation.

Get in touch with the solicitors, I think he will need a new right of way egrement. He has a right of way for all purposes but shouldn't have any rights to transfer any of those rights to a third party, only you as the owner can do that. Example, I own a right of way down a lane to a block of ground, I purchased a field next to my ground but beyond it and only access is down the lane and through the feild I already owned but I had no right to use the lane to enter the new feild although I had full access rights, I had take on a bigger percentage of the maintenance payment.

 

[Andy26]

Get in touch with the solicitors, I think he will need a new right of way egrement. He has a right of way for all purposes but shouldn't have any rights to transfer any of those rights to a third party, only you as the owner can do that. Example, I own a right of way down a lane to a block of ground, I purchased a field next to my ground but beyond it and only access is down the lane and through the feild I already owned but I had no right to use the lane to enter the new feild although I had full access rights, I had take on a bigger percentage of the maintenance payment.

This example is different, land that already enjoys an access right has been sold, unless there is a clause to limit this right being transferred to successors in title then land or parts of land can be sold and utilise the right of way.

@fieldfarmer example is using a lands access right as a 'bridge' to another parcel, this is not possible unless all parcels are vested in the same ownership.

 

[nonemouse]

Legal minefield with solicitors, beeb through this , basically if person owning title A has a significant increase in use of Lane ( as in building extra houses) it can make original agreement null and void ( can’t think of correct legal phrase at the moment) just been through this, where neighbouring farm had access down our lane, farm was split up, most of buildings and land sold off another house built etc. Purchaser had to put in his own new lane in the end.

 

[fieldfarmer]

This example is different, land that already enjoys an access right has been sold, unless there is a clause to limit this right being transferred to successors in title then land or parts of land can be sold and utilise the right of way.

@fieldfarmer example is using a lands access right as a 'bridge' to another parcel, this is not possible unless all parcels are vested in the same ownership.

I here what your saying but my original access way for " all reasons" but was told all reasons, didn't include the land bridge part so his all reason might not include developments.

 

[ISCO]

This example is different, land that already enjoys an access right has been sold, unless there is a clause to limit this right being transferred to successors in title then land or parts of land can be sold and utilise the right of way.

@fieldfarmer example is using a lands access right as a 'bridge' to another parcel, this is not possible unless all parcels are vested in the same ownership.

This is correct legal position.

 

[ISCO]

I here what your saying but my original access way for " all reasons" but was told all reasons, didn't include the land bridge part so his all reason might not include developments.

If the new house is on the land which benefits from the original easement/right of way then it has a right of way also.
It is correct that if you have a right of way to field A and buy field B next door without a right of way you cannot use the access to A to access field B

 

[fieldfarmer]

If the new house is on the land which benefits from the original easement/right of way then it has a right of way also.
It is correct that if you have a right of way to field A and buy field B next door without a right of way you cannot use the access to A to access field B

So if I had a access to a block down a shared drive not owned by me for all "agricultural activities" , if I was to get planing for a bungalow with a ag tie would my access cover this due to the ag tie on the new bungalow?
Edit, apologies for going of topic.

 

[mo!]

I've asked the wife, who is a specialist in this area. The short answer is "it depends". Her estimate is that it would cost in the region of £750+ to give you an answer. PM me for her details.

 

[ISCO]

So if I had a access to a block down a shared drive not owned by me for all "agricultural activities" , if I was to get planing for a bungalow with a ag tie would my access cover this due to the ag tie on the new bungalow?
Edit, apologies for going of topic.

Good question.
Without researching the subject my initial thought would be no. The ag tie means it must be lived in by a person involved in ag however the use of the property would be residential not ag. May be wrong on this.

 

[fieldfarmer]

I've asked the wife, who is a specialist in this area. The short answer is "it depends". Her estimate is that it would cost in the region of £750+ to give you an answer. PM me for her details.

Thanks, it was thinking out load really as it might be needed in the future if both of me kids want to come into farming. Cheers.

 

[possumbility]

I've asked the wife, who is a specialist in this area. The short answer is "it depends". Her estimate is that it would cost in the region of £750+ to give you an answer. PM me for her details

is that 2 hours work for her, or less

 

[mo!]

is that 2 hours work for her, or less

2 hours for London clients, a good bit more for further north.

Most of her work in on a fixed fee basis as that's how her company works, so the hourly rate is her concern, not the clients.

 

[MRT]

2 hours for London clients, a good bit more for further north.

Most of her work in on a fixed fee basis as that's how her company works, so the hourly rate is her concern, not the clients.

"knowing where to tap"

 

[mo!]

"knowing where to tap"

It's just what the market will stand. Ultimately London rates will drop as the market will realise that it doesn't matter where your lawyer is located as you won't be having face to face meetings anyway.

 

[Surgery]

Wouldn’t think there’s much you can do as he had a right to access the old building anyway

 

[ron mcp]

the right of way is only for existing access,you would need a new agreement for increased capacity
not just for maintenance but for access to the new house

 

[HolzKopf]

Hmmm, interesting. Is that definite reply based on experience or knowledge?

HK

 

[ISCO]

Whether the right of way covers the new house is all in the wording of the grant. If it grants rights ' at all times for all purposes' then it will cover additional properties.