Q&A: Signs and rights of way
Oliver Park and Brooke Lyne field a pair of queries relating to the wording of signs.
Question
I own a property which includes an external staircase that for many years led to a walkway, which allowed me to gain access to the ground floor of my property. The staircase also operated as a shortcut for neighbours to access their properties. During this time there was a sign on the wall that said: “This staircase and forecourt is private property – no public right of way.” Would that sign have prevented a private right of way being acquired by my neighbours?
Answer
Possibly
Explanation
A right of way may be acquired by prescription if the user can show at least 20 years of interrupted use “as of right” ie without force, without secrecy and without permission. A landowner may demonstrate that the user was contentious (which is sufficient to amount to “force”) by showing that signs were present (as per Winterburn v Bennett [2016] EWCA Civ 482; [2016] EGLR 35).
In Nicholson and another v Hale and another [2024] UKUT 153 (LC); [2024] PLSCS 112 the Upper Tribunal considered an appeal involving a right of way claimed over land where there had been a sign that said: “This staircase and forecourt is private property – no public right of way.”
The staircase had previously provided access to a raised walkway that ran along the front of a row of terraced properties. The walkway allowed access to the (elevated) front door of several terraced properties. Following the demolition of the staircase, a neighbour sought to register a right of way arising from routine use of the staircase as a shortcut for a period in excess of 20 years. The sign was small and located on a wall towards the top of the staircase but could be read by anyone going up it.
At first instance, the First-tier Tribunal had concluded that the wording of the sign had been insufficient to prevent the acquisition of a private right of way, because the sign expressly prohibited a public right of way only.
On appeal, the Upper Tribunal accepted that the question of whether a particular sign is effective to render use contentious is a fact-sensitive one, but when deciding if the wording of a sign is sufficient it is necessary to consider how the relevant sign would have been understood by the reasonable user of the land. It is an objective test.
The sign made clear that the land was private property and was sufficient to indicate to the reasonable observer that it was not to be used by others. While the sign had referred to a public right of way only, the reasonable user was not to be treated as making legal distinctions between public and private rights of way. The reasonable user would have understood that they had no right to use the forecourt or staircase and therefore no prescriptive right of way could have been acquired.
Question
Signs saying “No public right of way” are present in two places along a private road. Would those signs be insufficient or too ambiguous to prevent the acquisition of a right of way over the driveway of another neighbour further along the road?
Answer
While it will be fact-dependent, where there is ambiguity in the wording on a sign, it will generally be insufficient to prevent a right accruing.
Explanation
Where a landowner wishes to rely on signage to prevent the acquisition of a right by prescription, the wording must be unambiguous – as has been recently considered by the Upper Tribunal in Sagier v Kaur [2024] UKUT 217 (LC); [2024] PLSCS 141.
The case involved a housing development that had a private road, where a low wooden barrier had been erected at one end to stop traffic. The road was a convenient cut-through, and for just over 20 years pedestrians used it for access on foot. The route used crossed over the front drive belonging to Harbans Kaur. At various times there had been signs along the road saying “No Public Right of Way” but these had been repeatedly removed.
Kaur and her late husband had erected a more substantial barrier, effectively stopping access, which was challenged by one of the other houseowners on the road who made an application for the registration of a right of way over their land.
The matter was referred to the First-tier Tribunal, which found that the user had been contentious because of the presence of the signs and one instance of oral protest.
On appeal, the Upper Tribunal concluded that signs were insufficient to prevent the acquisition of an easement because, on the facts of the case, the wording was ambiguous. The signs referred only to there being no public right of way but, given the road was itself private, a neighbour could reasonably conclude that, while there was no right for the public at large to use the way, there was nothing to stop private use for nearby houses also situated on the private road.
The tribunal considered Nicholson discussed above, and while both decisions involved signs referring to “No public right of way”, the absence of a reference to “private property” in Sagier and differences in the factual background were the key reasons why it ultimately came to a different conclusion.
Oliver Park is an associate at Charles Russell Speechlys and Brooke Lyne is a barrister at Landmark Chambers.
This article was first published in Estates Gazette on 28 October 2025.
