Who is responsible for advising purchasers that a road is private/unadopted?

[Clitheroekid]

There is a letter from the solicitor which says it encloses a copy of the Land Registry plan of the property, a copy of the Fittings & Contents Form, the Village Planning Policy Statement and Management Scheme *, the result of the Environment Search, the result of the Planning Search (Plansearch Plus).

There should also be another letter enclosing - and commenting on - the Seller's Property Information Form, which, as I explained in my last post, contains a question about liability for road maintenance.

It all sounds a very unusual situation. I can't ever recall of land being owned by `the village'. What does this actually mean? Who, or what is `the village'?

If there's some form of local management company, as there seems to be, then if they own any land in the village one would expect them either to have the title deeds or for the land to be registered at the Land Registry. There shouldn't be any doubt as to whether or not they actually own the road.

So if I were you I would ask them what, if any, land they do actually own, and ask to see proof of ownership, either by title deeds or by a Land Registry entry.

The fact that they haven't accepted ownership of the road would seem to imply that they don't own it.

Nevertheless, none of this affects the basic point - that it was your solicitor's duty to advise you who was responsible for maintaining the road. It's one of the fundamental points that needs to be covered if the house doesn't abut an adopted road.

It wouldn't be enough for the solicitor just to send you a copy of the Local Search, as most people wouldn't understand it, or know what they were looking for.

So you should go back to the solicitor and ask for clarification of the position. Unfortunately, because of the 10 years that have elapsed they may have destroyed the file, but it's worth asking.

If you were prepared to name the village it might be possible to obtain some further information via the Land Registry website.

[Bouleversee]

Clitheroekid -

I'd rather not name the village on here. There is a management company but the manager fobbed me off on the phone after telling me the road was unadopted so I will go to the office next week, having now collected various documents (including a letter dated 1999 from the council saying they will be resurfacing the road), ask some pertinent questions and then contact the solicitor though I expect he will say the file no longer exists. Also waiting to hear what the councillor who has been approached has to say about it all. The Land Registry says my road is not registered. I don't know about the ownership of the roads in the village itself but they are certainly not maintained by the council. The management company does own some flats and other properties which are let out at very low rents. It would seem that the company did do some maintenance many years ago (though it is not clear whether the reference is to the road or the footpath between it and the village) but ran out of money; the same thing seems to have happened with the council. Since I have been here, they have only done the minimum when prompted. All plans given to us at the time show the lane as a bridleway but I can see nothing indicating that it is private, as has now been claimed, and there is no residents association. Today a plan was pushed through my door that says the lane is unadopted but I have no idea when this was produced. It looks rather modern and may be a recent concoction.

I am feeling more like Miss Marple every day. The only thing I am sure of is that whoever handled the sale of the leasehold houses in my lane and didn't sort out the maintenance situation has a lot to answer for. It is ludicrous that the residents of one side of this lane should be obliged to pay quite substantial and ever increasing sums to main the infrastructure inside the village which does not benefit us directly though anyone can visit the village and make use of its school, village hall, shop etc. without any payment, and yet be told we have to maintain our own road ourselves because it is not in the village and nor is it adopted.

Reading the Wikipedia definition of a bridleway, it would seem that we (and all the tradesmen, delivery vehicles etc.) are breaking the law. What a nonsense it all is. One has only to read 1.4 Highways Act 1980 (which was in the document IIRC you kindly referred me to and which I think is responsible for sparking off the lists of roads for which councils are responsible) to realise how poorly our legislation is drafted, viz:

"Under what is now the 1980 Act the ownership of highways maintainable at the public expense rests with the local highways authority (usually the county or unitary council), or, if a trunk road, with the Department for Transport (in practice Highways England).'' Translation, please!

"Most roads are thus subject to a public right of way, are publicly owned and publicly maintained. They are referred to as private or 'unadopted' roads. These can still be subject to a public right of way, but the public generally do not contribute to their upkeep."

So (pace PinkDalek) is this not an invitation to councils to opt out of maintaining roads they have hitherto maintained, albeit minimally which applies to most roads these days? Why should they have this option? We all pay our council tax. Why should the council not be responsible for maintaining all roads, apart from those enclosed by gates on private estates at their own request, especially when in reality the fact that it is a private road means sweet Fanny Adams insofar as keeping out any undesirables; just google the subject and read the police answers to questions on the subject. If this means we have to pay a bit more council tax, so be it. At least the burden would be distributed more fairly. However, if the repairs and resurfacing were done better, the cost would reduce dramatically. The potholes outside my house were repaired earlier this year but after all the rain we had subsequently are worse than ever. I reported them again and was told "not our responsibility; private road" but bizarrely (I have saved the best bit till last) today another resident told me that he had also reported all the potholes in the lane and had subsequently been advised that they had been inspected and there was no planned repair recommended at this stage "but we will continue to inspect in line with Highways Safety Inspection Policy". Now, does that mean that when they get really, really bad they will do them at public expense or they will do them and charge the frontagers for the repairs?

[GoSeigen]

"Under what is now the 1980 Act the ownership of highways maintainable at the public expense rests with the local highways authority (usually the county or unitary council), or, if a trunk road, with the Department for Transport (in practice Highways England).'' Translation, please!

"Most roads are thus subject to a public right of way, are publicly owned and publicly maintained. [missing text???] They are referred to as private or 'unadopted' roads. These can still be subject to a public right of way, but the public generally do not contribute to their upkeep."

It's hard to comment when the quote is incomplete and makes little sense as it stands. Would you mind quoting in full and/or linking to the original?


GS

[johnhemming]

I am still trying to establish the facts which is by no means easy.

In the end there are two separate things
a) Getting the road maintained
b) Finding out if you can get someone else to pay (or at least contribute something).

a) is in your control

b) requires a copy of the conveyancing file. If you don't have this then you won't be able to prove a case sufficiently to get any cash.

[Bouleversee]

"Under what is now the 1980 Act the ownership of highways maintainable at the public expense rests with the local highways authority (usually the county or unitary council), or, if a trunk road, with the Department for Transport (in practice Highways England).'' Translation, please!

"Most roads are thus subject to a public right of way, are publicly owned and publicly maintained. [missing text???] They are referred to as private or 'unadopted' roads. These can still be subject to a public right of way, but the public generally do not contribute to their upkeep."

It's hard to comment when the quote is incomplete and makes little sense as it stands. Would you mind quoting in full and/or linking to the original?


GS

You are quite right. (As mentioned on the computer board, I am having problems with mine in that the cursor keeps jumping around and inserting text in the wrong places and sometimes deletes chunks of text or occasionally the whole item, or perhaps it was just my mistake when copying it as "referred to" occurs twice and it was very late). What it actually says is:

"Most roads are thus subject to a public right of way, are publicly owned and publicly maintained. They are referred to in the 1980 Act and in other legislation as "highways maintenable at public expense". Local authorities must keep a list of all such roads. Those roads that are not maintainable at public expense are referred to as private or 'unadopted' roads. These can still be subject to a public right of way, but the public generally do not contribute to their upkeep."

Thank you for drawing the omission to my attention. I see I have also typed "main" instead of "maintain" in one place and failed to mention that the Wikipedia definition says: "Highways are vital for tenants and landowners because most property needs a means of access from the public highway. A property with no such means of access is called "landlocked", which has serious consequences for its value or use. The main statute governing highways is the Highways Act 1980. This gives responsibility for most highways to local councils, although trunk roads lie directly with the Secretary of State. It says that a highway may be created by law by 20 years' uninterrupted use by the public, which there certainly has been, so presumably this is a highway, or does it have to still be a through road to somewhere else? Early this morning I was looking at the Village Directory (2011) and noted the plan in there shows the first bit of the lane (including the bit which is fronted by my house) as a road and later on as a bridleway. I have yet to discover whether the fact that it is no longer a through road is due to a legal stopping up or simply neglect.

[PinkDalek]

... What it actually says is:

"Most roads are thus subject to a public right of way, are publicly owned and publicly maintained. ...

For ease of reference, I think your earlier mention of One has only to read 1.4 Highways Act 1980 relates to the paragraph numbering in the following document:

House of Commons Library
BRIEFING PAPER
Number CBP 402, 10 April 2018
Private, or 'unadopted' roads in England and Wales

http://researchbriefings.files.parliame ... N00402.pdf

[Bouleversee]

Thanks, PD. Enjoy, everyone!

[PinkDalek]

O/T - Not that it matters but I've realised that Briefing Paper is the same one mentioned by supremetwo earlier in the thread. I didn't spot it before, as I thought you were saying it was within one of the links Clitheroekid had posted.

[Bouleversee]

I did say IIRC and sadly I didn't RC, so the thanks were due to Supreme 2 but all comments gratefully received.

[AF62]

is this not an invitation to councils to opt out of maintaining roads they have hitherto maintained, albeit minimally which applies to most roads these days? Why should they have this option? We all pay our council tax. Why should the council not be responsible for maintaining all roads, apart from those enclosed by gates on private estates at their own request, especially when in reality the fact that it is a private road means sweet Fanny Adams insofar as keeping out any undesirables; just google the subject and read the police answers to questions on the subject. If this means we have to pay a bit more council tax, so be it. At least the burden would be distributed more fairly.

As is mentioned in the document linked to by PinkDalek, it is possible to get the road adopted by the council and them to take on the maintenance going forward. However the road needs to be up to an acceptable standard before they will do so. This happens with all new housing developments, whilst the estate is being built the roads are 'private' and not adopted until signed off by the council.

I was very interested to see the section in that document which mentions the council has the power to carry out repairs to a private or unadopted road which are "needed to obviate danger to traffic" and then to recover that cost from the frontagers.

There are two streets in the town I live in which are not adopted and the roads have deteriorated to such an incredible degree that nobody in their right mind would drive a car down them and even the council can no longer access the properties with a standard refuse truck. The local councillor (on behalf of the residents) keeps pressing for the council to repair the roads, but obviously the council is refusing as not their responsibility.

It would be somewhat of a Pyrrhic victory for these residents if the council did decide to repair the road to "obviate danger to traffic" under Section 230 of the 1980 Act so the residents were charged.

[Bouleversee]

I shouldn't think there is much chance of getting roads adopted in the present stringent economic conditions. My best hope is to persuade the council that they have de facto adopted the road by laying the tarmac originally and carrying out repairs subsequently but till I can find out more about the circumstances surrounding that, I don't know whether that is any more than a pipe dream.

As there is no sign saying it is a private road, I should imagine that the frontagers would be liable for any damage to vehicles or persons caused by a pothole; no idea whether that would be collective or the individual outside whose frontage this occurred, however. Having said that, the council is not accepting responsibility and awarding compensation for damage caused to vehicles on the adjacent highways. My son wrote off 2 new tyres on a wet day when the deep pothole wasn't visible on his way to visit me, and had to have a transporter, but didn't get anywhere with a claim.

[AF62]

I shouldn't think there is much chance of getting roads adopted in the present stringent economic conditions.

Roads are being adopted all the time, with every new housing housing estate being built. The issue is the road must be up to standard before it is.

My best hope is to persuade the council that they have de facto adopted the road by laying the tarmac originally and carrying out repairs subsequently

Not a bet I would place money on you succeeding.

[Bouleversee]

So why have the unpassable streets you mentioned not been adopted, then? And why are there so many unadopted streets/roads? Ours is not in bad condition; just a few potholes which wouldn't cost the earth to repair. It's not the immediate expense that worries me; it's the messy bureaucratic situation and lack of any known arrangements which might foul or hold up a sale and lead to contention. What about the verges? Who is responsible for those? I keep my own (which is quite narrow) weed free and planted but nobody else does anything to theirs so far as I can see. The ones opposite are much wider and on a steep slope and the one immediately opposite (an empty plot behind it) has a forest of baby trees growing on it again since it is about 10 yrs since I persuaded the council to cut it. There are areas of scrub on each side of the lane where it adjoins the main road which are shown on a plan as common land (though a resident claims to own one of them); nobody maintains those and they look a mess, yet this is a very expensive area.

[AF62]

The unadopted roads which are like the Somme have not been adopted because they are private and don't belong to the local authority.

It is the owner's responsibility to maintain them and they have not.

If the owners wanted them adopted and the council take on future maintenance that could be done, but the owners would have to pay to bring the road up to standard first. It isn't the council's responsibility to pay for something the private owners should have done but didn't.

[Bouleversee]

I know all that but it doesn't explain why they didn't get them adopted after they were first laid and so in good repair if it is so easy.

[johnhemming]

Often when a new estate is built the developers pay the council a sum of money and part of the arrangement is that the road is adopted. In the end this is all about cash really.

[quelquod]

Councils have nothing to gain by adopting new roads of course unless perhaps they serve council-owned premises? They're hardly money-spinners and are certain to have long-term costs so I'd suppose it would cost the developers a fair whack.

[SteelCamel]

I am feeling more like Miss Marple every day. The only thing I am sure of is that whoever handled the sale of the leasehold houses in my lane and didn't sort out the maintenance situation has a lot to answer for.

I'm not sure you mentioned it being leasehold before - that could make a difference. Does the lease say anything about road maintenance? I would expect it would. Who is the freeholder? They may well own the road, even if they haven't registered it.

[Bouleversee]

I am feeling more like Miss Marple every day. The only thing I am sure of is that whoever handled the sale of the leasehold houses in my lane and didn't sort out the maintenance situation has a lot to answer for.

I'm not sure you mentioned it being leasehold before - that could make a difference. Does the lease say anything about road maintenance? I would expect it would. Who is the freeholder? They may well own the road, even if they haven't registered it.

The houses were originally leasehold (before my time), owned by the village company, who say they don't know who owns the road, and some of them were sold off following the leasehold reform act, AIUI. I own the freehold but am obliged (as previously stated) to pay towards maintaining the roads and infrastructure of the village proper though my property is not in it per se but technically at the boundary which does not include the road. Uou'll have to read previous posts if you want any more.

[supremetwo]

The houses were originally leasehold (before my time), owned by the village company, who say they don't know who owns the road, and some of them were sold off following the leasehold reform act, AIUI. I own the freehold but am obliged (as previously stated) to pay towards maintaining the roads and infrastructure of the village proper though my property is not in it per se but technically at the boundary which does not include the road. You'll have to read previous posts if you want any more.

Do you know how old the houses are?

Is the payment on your Council Tax bill and if so exactly how is it worded? Parish?