Treacodactyl
|
Access track liabilitiesI have a question I'd like some advice on. Although it's a specific example it's quite a common question so any general help would be much appreciated.
I'm looking at buying a small patch of land that is accessed by a private road/track. I'm trying to sort out the maintenance obligations as I don't want to be liable for large amounts of money as the land isn't worth that much.
The track is a hardcore surface that's suitable for 4x4s and serves other fields and properties so is used a fair bit. At the moment they want to put something like this in the contract (I've rephrased it a fair bit so don't worry if it's not legally correct):
"the owner shall contribute a fair contribution to the maintenance costs of maintaining that standard of the road pro-rata to the use shared in common with other users"
What I would like to know is how the fair contribution will be worked out.
Will it take into account actual use or damage done? Or will the costs simply be divided amongst the people who use it, so if there's five people that's a fifth each? Or will it take into account the costs of the properties served by it?
Many thanks for any help.
|
RichardW
|
I think the normal way is a simple 5 way split. That wording "implies" a split between the 5 but biased to who uses the tract the most. I dont think property values have any place in this.
Sort of a pay per use thing.
Richard
|
Treacodactyl
|
What concerns me is that the road/track provides access to the bit of land I'm after, a few fields and several houses. So I might only use it a few times a year while others use it daily. That might be ok but I expect the houses will want a better road surface than I would so I can see a simple division of costs not being that fair.
|
gil
|
I lloked at somewhere [up a dead-end track] with a similar issue, and the impression I got was that for road upkeep as far as the first property, costs were divided among all properties on the road. Then costs were divided between successively fewer properties as you went further up the track, so that the household at the very end paid all costs of road upkeep from their nearest neighbour to the end (their house).
It all seemed a bit complicated.
|
Treacodactyl
|
I've looked at a property like that, luckily it was the first one so would pay 1/4 costs of 1/4 of the road. The one at the top would pay 1/4 x 1/4 + 1/3 x 1/4 + 1/2 x 1/4 + 1 x 1/4, or roughly 6% vs 52% if I've got that right!
I've also looked at one where the access was over another persons field and you just had to repair any major damage yourself.
This is there first one I've looked into where all the users of the track will not be using it for similar things though.
|
ariana
|
I don't know if our experience could be repeated in your situation but I thought I might as well add my two pennyworth.
About fifteen years ago we bought 50 acres of land from a neighbouring farmer, approached by a half mile track which also served another two properties. At the same time another neighbour bought the other 50 acres on the other side of the track. He (the other neighbour) wasn't keen on buying the track, but offered to be responsible for half its upkeep. There was a covenant which said that the owners of the farmland had to maintain the track for the people living in the first house with 20 acres. The owners of the second house with five acres (at the far end of the track) had a right of way over the track but that was all, they neither contributed to the cost of maintenance, nor did the landowner(s) have to maintain the track for them.
All was well and good for ten years or so. We and the other landowner maintained the track between us, there was hardly ever any traffic on the track, it didn't cost a lot and everyone was happy.
However, now things have changed considerably. The first house converted their barn and sold it off separately (without making provision for the new owners to contribute to the upkeep of the track) The second house built stables with D.I.Y. livery. The other landowner now rents his fields out to three different people.
The upshot is that there is now MUCH more wear and tear on the track and yet we are still 50% responsible for the upkeep. The irony is that we ourselves hardly ever use the track as the land can be accessed from the rest of our farm.
Be aware that things can change.
|
Treacodactyl
|
Thanks for the comments ariana. I do sometimes feel as if I'm being too cautious but then it does seem as if many people have problems with shared drives/tracks etc. In your circumstance if there was a method of working out a 'fair' contribution I would have thought you wouldn't have had to pay much at all. Is there no way your terms can be changed as there are now more people using the track?
|
ariana
|
| Treacodactyl wrote: | | Is there no way your terms can be changed as there are now more people using the track? |
In relation to new barn conversion access, possibly. But our solicitor says it is not clear cut and would probably be a lengthy and drawn out case. For what we'd get out of it, it is hardly worth the legal costs.
In the case of the 50:50 agreement with the person who owns the rest of the land (and who now rents it out to three different sets of people), he is still responsible for half the upkeep, but in the case of the house (which now has the DIY livery) at the far end of the track and who has no obligation to contribute [or demand] anything, apparently not 
There were no stipulations for future change made at the time the contract was drawn up and the legal wording is something like "a right of way for the occupiers, his servants in common, and his successors, with or without vehicles" which means in effect that they can allow as many different tenants/friends/family/visitors/"servants" [meaning anyone working for them]uncle Tom Cobbly and all to trample roughshod over our track and there is diddly squat that we can do. Be warned. 
|
