Shared driveway ownership model

[mahec]

I am in discussions regarding a shared driveway for a plot of land I am purchasing.

The seller's solicitor is proposing offering right of way over a shared driveway. This would give me access to my property. I would be liable for 50% of maintenance costs for the driveway, but would not own the driveway, nor have a say in how it is maintained. There are standard covenants attached here, e.g. not parking on/obstructing the driveway in any way by either party.

I understand the model above is fairly common and works for many people. However, I would prefer to have the driveway as a separate deed, whereby we equally share ownership, jointly agree any maintenance work, and jointly pay for costs. I don't like the idea of not having any say in how a driveway (that is the only access to my property) is maintained that I will use multiple times a day.

Is this a reasonable request? Is there any reason why such a model would not be suitable?

Any advice greatly appreciated!

[des8]

Really don't understand why you aren't happy with a tried and tested system.
You say you "don't like the idea of not having any say in how a driveway... is maintained " .
If this because you are concerned it may not be maintained up to the same standard as made, you will as the dominant landowner have ways of making the servient landowner maintain the access.

However I can see a number of problems with the solution you propose:
1) is the owner prepared to sell the access way to you/
2) if so has the price been negotiated & who pays the costs
3) this will involve separate conveyancing costs and solicitors costs drafting a one off agreement
4) you will both own the land as tenants in common and so both be liable jointly and severally for the property
5) when you come to sell, why would any prospective purchaser wish to buy your share of the access as they could probably claim access rights across that parcel of land without the cost of purchase or the liability to maintain it (which would remain yours!)

What does your solicitor advise?

[mahec]

des8 Thank you for taking the time to consider my query.

I appreciate that there are ways of making the servient landowner maintain the access, but I will have no say in the precise details e.g, materials, planting etc.

The seller is happy with my proposal, but their solicitor is advising against it (they feel the current model is adequate and that everything has already been drafted). I understand the joint ownership model will require additional costs, which I am happy to cover.

If my suggestion is unsuitable - which I still cannot see that it is - would it be better if I requested the parcel of land be part of my title, and offer the seller right of way over it (for their access)?

I understand your point regarding a prospective purchaser, but it does not concern me. I would only sell the titles jointly.

My solicitor seems to think either model is acceptable, but understands why I would prefer joint ownership.

[des8]

So there are three solutions:
1) neighbour owns land , you have easement
2) you own land, neighbour has easement
3) joint ownership

1) & 2) are the traditional methods
3)I didn't say it was unsuitable, but just indicated where I thought problems might arise.

A s your neighbour is content with 3), which is your preferred option and your solicitor thinks it acceptable, persuade your neighbour to instruct his solicitor that this is the way you both wish to proceed. His objections seem to be based on a desire not to have to do any work!

[mahec]

If I did manage to persuade the seller to go down the shared ownership route, would we need to set up a company?

[des8]

No, you could own the freehold jointly as tenants in common