Historical lender archive · Absence of easements
Historical mortgage lender requirements: absence of easements
Lexsure has tracked how mortgage lenders treated absence of easements since 2007. Choose the date your transaction completed and the lender concerned to check what was recorded at that point.
For homeowners · the plain explanation
The issue
Why missing easements mattered to mortgage lenders
An easement is a legal right over someone else’s land: a right of way over a shared drive or access strip, a right to drain into a neighbour’s sewer, a right to run water, gas, electricity or telecoms cables through adjoining land. Properties often depend on rights like these, and the deeds do not always grant them, or grant them in terms that bind future owners.
The first question is whether the necessary enforceable right actually exists. Missing express wording in the deeds does not by itself mean there is no easement: rights can arise by other legal routes, including prescription through long use, which HM Land Registry addresses in its practice guide 52. How the lender responds is a separate question, which follows from that assessment.
This is a title question rather than a condition question. The general instructions in Part 1 of the Handbook require the conveyancer to take all reasonable steps to check that the property has the benefit of all easements necessary for its full use and enjoyment, that those rights are enforceable by the borrower and their successors, and, where they are not, to check the lender’s own Part 2 requirements. So the general obligation is common to the panel; the response to an absent right is lender-specific.
Those Part 2 answers do three different jobs, and it is worth keeping them apart. Documentation may establish the right itself. Indemnity insurance does not create any right; it covers specified financial risks if the absence causes loss. Referral obtains the lender’s own decision on the particular case. A published answer may require any combination of the three.
Put simply: most people buy with a mortgage, so if a property is acceptable to fewer lenders it may also be available to fewer realistic buyers when it comes to be sold. That is why the position across the wider lending market on a given date can matter, even where your own lender was content to lend at the time.
Why the exact date matters
Today’s Handbook cannot answer a historical question
There are two reasons. The first is structural: the Handbook framework itself changes over time, including its question numbering, its organisation and its jurisdictional versions, so the place where a requirement lives today is not necessarily where it lived on the material date. The second reason matters more: the lender’s own answer may have changed.
Today’s lender policy is only today’s lender policy. Individual mortgage lenders amend their Part 2 requirements over time: introducing a new requirement or removing one, tightening or relaxing an acceptance threshold, moving between acceptance, conditional acceptance and referral, adding or removing an indemnity requirement, changing the title rights or covenants they insist on, or changing what must be reported to them. So the correct question is not “what does this lender say about absence of easements?” It is “what did this lender say about absence of easements on the date relevant to my transaction?”
The archive records requirements to the day, and a Part 2 record for one transaction date should not be treated as evidence of the requirements applicable to another; each date of interest should be checked independently. In a contested transaction, more than one date may be material, for example exchange of contracts, the issue of the Certificate of Title, or completion, depending on the instruction or conduct being investigated.
Why a simple Handbook search isn’t enough
A lender’s requirements for one issue may appear across several Part 2 answers. Lexsure maps the issue itself across the complete dated lender record, rather than looking up a single question number.
Before you order
What the historical record can, and cannot, tell you
It can tell you
- What your lender’s Part 2 record said on the date you choose, in its own words.
- Whether that record addressed absent easements on that date, and what it required: referral, documentation, indemnity insurance, or a named contact point.
- What other lenders’ records said on the same date, if you order the Market Context Report.
- The archive reference and capture details behind every record shown.
It cannot tell you
- Whether anyone did anything wrong. That is a legal question, on the facts of your transaction.
- What was actually done in your conveyancing, which is a matter for your file.
- What a lender meant by silence: where no express wording is recorded, that is reported as such and is not evidence the lender accepted the position.
- Whether a lender would lend on the property today.
- What the general Part 1 instructions, the mortgage offer conditions or case-specific correspondence said. Part 2 is the lender-specific component of the instruction framework, not the whole of it.
Lexsure change intelligence
Lenders change their own requirements too
Mortgage lenders do not merely differ from one another. Individual lenders have amended their own absence of easements requirements over time, which is why a lender’s current policy cannot answer a question about an earlier transaction.
Because every capture in the archive is date- and time-stamped, Lexsure’s records make it possible to identify, for a given lender, when the recorded requirements relevant to this topic changed and what the wording was before and after. A capture timestamp records when Lexsure recorded the wording, which is not the same as the date the changed instruction is verified as applying; the archive holds both, and the applicable date is what a historical answer is given against. That change analysis is forensic work: it distinguishes substantive amendments from formatting, contact-detail and administrative changes, and it is produced within the Tier 3 Market Intelligence Report and Tier 4 expert instruction, for the specific lender, topic and dates under investigation.
What counts as a substantive change in Lexsure’s analysis?
A change is treated as substantive where it affects the practical lender requirement for the topic: express or conditional acceptability, refusal, reporting or referral obligations, lender approval, quantitative thresholds, required title rights or covenants, indemnity requirements, valuation or specialist-evidence requirements, documentation, remediation, or other conditions capable of affecting the lending decision or the conveyancing process.
It does not count spelling corrections, formatting changes, contact-detail or telephone-number changes, administrative amendments unrelated to the topic, or wording changes where no practical requirement changed. Lexsure measures substantive topic change, not simply how many versions of an answer exist.
A note on interpretation: that a lender changed its requirements is evidence that requirements evolved, nothing more. It does not by itself indicate that a lender was more restrictive, less reliable or an outlier, that a property was unmortgageable, or that any conveyancer fell short. The direction and consequence of any particular change require separate analysis.
The wider market
How the wider lender market treated absence of easements over time
Mortgageability is a material component of practical marketability. A title characteristic that materially reduces the number of lenders willing to lend may in turn reduce the pool of realistic future purchasers, because mortgage finance is central to a substantial part of the residential property market. It does not follow that a property with a restricted lender pool was defective or unsaleable: it may remain saleable to cash purchasers, or to buyers using lenders that accepted the characteristic.
Individual lender change is one half of the story; the position across the market at a moment in time is the other. Across the lenders represented in the archive, published requirements have varied by lender and moved over time, which is precisely why the requirement applicable to one date is not evidence of the requirement applicable to another.
For a specified date, Lexsure’s contemporaneous records support a market-wide view of published lender requirements. The Market Context Report reproduces each applicable lender’s own recorded wording on this topic as in force on that date, without classification or interpretation. Distribution, outlier and directional trend analysis across the market is forensic work, produced within the Tier 3 Market Intelligence Report and Tier 4 expert instruction.
Get the historical record
Two reports. Two different questions.
Tier 1 · The fact
Lender Snapshot
What did my lender actually require?
One lender. One historical date. Your lender's complete Part 2 record, date-stamped and as in force on the date you choose, retrieved under its archive reference. The historic record, nothing more, nothing less. You receive the complete record whether or not it contains express wording on the issue you are investigating.
Get my historical recordTier 2 · The market
Market Context Report
What did other lenders require on the same date?
Everything in the Lender Snapshot, plus the recorded requirements on your chosen issue of every other lender for which Lexsure holds an applicable record, each as in force on that same specific date. The report displays each lender's own historical wording so you can see whether your lender's position was unusual; it does not classify, grade or interpret it.
Get the Market Context ReportPrices include VAT at 20%. Need something more detailed for an existing dispute or litigation? Professional Services →
Investigating or defending a claim?
Lexsure also provides historical lender analysis for litigation, professional negligence investigations, portfolio reviews and institutional use.
The wording itself
What the Handbook asks, and how lenders answered
Part 1 puts the same question to every lender on the panel. Part 2 is where each lender gives its own answer — and those answers are not alike.
Part 1 · the question put to every lender
6.9.1: You must take all reasonable steps to check that the property has the benefit of all easements necessary for its full use and enjoyment. All such rights must be enforceable by the borrower and the borrower's successors in title. If they are not check part 2 for our requirements.
Part 2 · 6.9.1a · answers
If different from 1.11, contact point if necessary easements are absent:
Selected answers from various lenders
- Providing suitable indemnity insurance is in place on completion there is no requirement to advise us. Provide policy details with the Certificate of Title (see 9 below).
- If the defect in title cannot be rectified by appropriate documentation we will require a suitable indemnity insurance policy to be in place at completion. The conditions in paragraph 9 must also be satisfied. You must record the policy details on the Certificate of Title and retain a copy of the Policy on your file.
- As 1.11a You must also check that the servient and dominant tenements have not at any point come into common ownership so as to extinguish the easement regardless of whether the easement is still noted against the registered title
- As 1.11 If the defect in title cannot be rectified by appropriate documentation we will require indemnity insurance to be in place at completion. You must retain a copy of any insurance policy on your file.
- The solicitor must ensure that the Property enjoys full rights (both pedestrian and vehicular) over any access (private or otherwise) leading to the Property and any areas connected with its enjoyment (for example, but not limited to, car parking areas, separate garage, garden areas). The solicitor must also ensure there are adequate covenants and arrangements in respect of the repair and maintenance of any access or services to the Property and report if any such maintenance liabilities are in excess of £250 per annum in addition to any annual service charge there may be..
- Where the issue relates to the only access to the property, an indemnity policy will not be acceptable where the property cannot be legally accessed at all. In this scenario, please explore all alternate options to formalise access rights. Where you arrange for formal access rights/easements to be obtained simultaneously upon completion of the mortgage or before, this will be acceptable and you do not need to refer this to us. Should no other options to mitigate lack of easements/rights of access exist, and there are no other access points into the property then the instruction should be declined. For all other access scenarios, please report to the issuing office with a full description of the issue, the risk presented and your professional opinion. Please ensure that all lender enquiries are submitted (with full documentation/requirements) at least 2 weeks prior to exchange to allow sufficient time for review and decisioning.
- You should only report issues to us if you are unable to put a suitable indemnity policy in place and/or cannot send us a clear Certificate of Title.
- See 1.11.a You must also check that the servient and dominant tenements have not at any point come into common ownership so as to extinguish the easement regardless of whether the easement is still noted against the registered title.
- As 1.11a. If the defect in title cannot be rectified by appropriate documentation we will require indemnity insurance to be in place at completion. You must retain a copy of any insurance policy on your file. We do not lend on charges of part. If the borrower owns adjoining land and access or services for the Property run over that adjoining land, we will need the adjoining land to be charged to us too.
- As 1.11a. If the defect in title cannot be rectified by appropriate documentation we will require indemnity insurance to be in place at completion. You must place a copy of any insurance policy with the Title Deeds.
A curated sample, shown to illustrate how widely lenders’ answers differ on this one question. Lenders are not named, and these answers are not tied to any particular date: a lender may have given a different answer before or after the version sampled here. To establish what a named lender required on a specific date, order the record for that lender and date — that is what the archive is for.
Coverage
Is my lender in the archive?
169 mortgage lenders are represented across the archive since 2007, including lenders that have merged, withdrawn or ceased lending. Archive coverage is lender-specific and is shown for each lender individually; coverage in the earliest part of the archive period varies by lender. Archive coverage means Lexsure holds that lender’s dated Part 2 record for the period shown; whether a lender expressed a position on absence of easements on a given date is established by the extraction itself.
| Lender | Archive coverage | Jurisdictions | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) | 2008 — present | E&W · NI · SCO | Check record |
| HSBC Bank plc | 2007 — present | E&W · NI · SCO | Check record |
| Santander | 2012 — present | E&W · NI · SCO · IOM | Check record |
| Barclays Bank | 2012 — present | E&W · NI · SCO | Check record |
| Nationwide Building Society | 2008 — present | E&W · NI · SCO | Check record |
| Lloyds Bank | 2008 — present | E&W · NI · SCO | Check record |
| Halifax | 2008 — present | E&W · NI · SCO · IOM | Check record |
| Leeds Building Society | 2012 — present | E&W · NI · SCO | Check record |
Showing 8 of 169 historical and current lenders.
View all lendersFAQ
Frequently asked questions: absence of easements & historical lender requirements
My sale has stalled because the property has no legal right of way or drainage. How does the historical record help?
It establishes what your own lender’s written Part 2 instructions required about absent easements on the date your transaction completed. Part 1 of the Handbook has long required the conveyancer to take all reasonable steps to check the property has the benefit of all easements necessary for its full use and enjoyment, enforceable by the borrower and their successors, and to check Part 2 where they are not. The Part 2 answer is therefore the lender-specific half of that instruction: whether the matter had to be referred, whether indemnity insurance was required, and to whom the absence had to be reported. Two things should be established before a difference in outcome is attributed to lender policy: whether the two transactions concerned materially comparable circumstances, and what each lender’s requirements actually were on the relevant dates.
Does indemnity insurance solve a missing easement?
Not by itself, and the distinction matters. An indemnity policy does not grant the missing right. It covers specified financial risks if the absence of the right causes loss. It does not itself grant or guarantee the right to use, maintain or repair the access, drain or service route, though particular policy terms may assist in specified circumstances.
Whether a lender will accept cover is a separate question again. Part 1 requires title to be good and marketable, free of matters that might reasonably be expected materially adversely to affect value or future marketability, excluding matters covered by indemnity insurance, and it directs the conveyancer to the lender’s own requirements on indemnity. That exclusion does not mean that obtaining any policy satisfies the lender.
Published Part 2 answers may require the defect to be rectified by appropriate documentation where that is possible, with insurance only where it is not; may specify that a policy be in place at completion with a copy retained on file; or may require written referral instead. Whether a particular policy met a particular lender’s published requirements on a particular date is a question the dated record can be checked against.
What if the missing right runs over land the borrower also owns?
That is addressed expressly in the general instructions: where the borrower owns adjoining land over which access to the property is taken or through which services are provided, that land must also be mortgaged to the lender unless all relevant easements are granted in the title being mortgaged and remain enforceable. Some lenders repeat or extend that requirement in their own Part 2 answers, including where they will not lend on a charge of part. What a particular lender required on a particular date is established from its dated record.
What if my lender’s Part 2 record does not mention easements at all?
You receive the complete Part 2 record as in force on your chosen date whether or not it contains express wording on this topic. If it does not, the record evidences that too: what the lender’s published Part 2 instructions did and did not expressly address on that date. Part 2 is the lender-specific component of the instruction framework: a transaction investigation must also consider the general Part 1 instructions applicable at the time, the mortgage offer and its conditions, and any case-specific correspondence. The report establishes what the retained Part 2 record contains; it is not the complete instruction file. Where no express topic wording is identified, that should not be treated as establishing that the lender accepted the circumstance without restriction.
In the Market Context Report, what if some lenders have no wording on easements?
The Market Context Report reproduces, for the single date you specify, the recorded requirements on this topic of every other lender for which Lexsure holds an applicable record. Some will have addressed absent easements expressly on that date; others will not, and for some lenders no applicable record exists for that date. The report shows each lender’s own recorded wording as it stood; it does not classify, grade or interpret it, and where no express wording is identified that is reported as such. Assessing what the contemporaneous market position means for a particular transaction is analysis, and is undertaken within the Tier 3 and Tier 4 reports.
Have mortgage lenders changed their requirements about missing easements over time?
Yes, though the pattern differs from topics that arrived in the Handbook at an identifiable point. The general obligation in Part 1 has been stable for years, while the lender-specific answers beneath it have been amended repeatedly between 2009 and 2026: the contact point for reporting an absent easement, indemnity insurance wording, and requirements about adjoining land and charges of part have all changed. A minority of recorded amendments changed the practical requirement; the majority changed contact or routing details only. Which applies to a given amendment is established from the dated record. What can be said generally is that a lender’s current published policy is not evidence of what it required on an earlier transaction date.
Other issues
Other lender requirements we hold
Ready to check a specific date?
Check the archive, or get your historical record for a specific lender and date.