possible site, but id only have a right of way

A country home

hi guys, A friend has asked me to post a question about right of ways and sites.

he has been offered a site, but its not on roadside, but would be offered a right of way. ..

1, is this a good idea?
2, is it acceptable by law?
3, is this acceptable for a mortgage?
4, if he was to create his access road which it would be only a right of way to his site/house, on this road in time, could the owner of the adjacent fields sell sites on the road that you would have a right of way over?

this is completey new to me and i have no knowledge on it.

I think both opinions or experiences would help, I for one think it could be complicated now, and could even be worse in the future should something happen. .
maybe this is not unusal, but i have no info for him.

A country home

i should add, if, now just if he managed to get the access and site in to his name, he they would have to give the land owner right of way to shed/land. but i dont know which is a safer bet. . .

if ( call him John) was to get the access in his name, then a right of way would have to be given to the land owner (i would assume then that sites could not be sold along this access road which john will own.

but if the land owner doesnt sell the access route, and only allows the right of way, who knows, you could have 20 houses along that route.. or even other access points taken off this one. . . .

im still hinting to him to either buy the access route or walk away. . .:pac:

muffler

To state the obvious - in these cases one party owns the lane/road and the other has a ROW over it. The person owning the lane is responsible for it so there is an automatic liability there.

A Right of Way is to be avoided if possible but at times its the only way a site can be accessed. From a mortgage point of view John would indeed be better off owning it.

I can only suggest that he discusses this with his solicitor as there are a lot of ifs and buts in these situations.

A country home

muffler wrote: »

To state the obvious - in these cases one party owns the lane/road and the other has a ROW over it. The person owning the lane is responsible for it so there is an automatic liability there.

A Right of Way is to be avoided if possible but at times its the only way a site can be accessed. From a mortgage point of view John would indeed be better off owning it.

I can only suggest that he discusses this with his solicitor as there are a lot of ifs and buts in these situations.

Rowing??? did i not mention thats what this post is about . .

I can recall something similar with my grandparents and a right of way to there house, , the owner tried everything to put them off it.. . lost of course. . .. but always argued.. even when passing on his bike, always shouting. . . I can remember at 10yrs of age, , , we called him the crossman . . :rolleyes:

cheers for the info. .

muffler

The abbreviated form of Right of way is "ROW" and whoever thought up the abbreviation never anticipated how true that word would become