What does this easement actually mean?

ChrissiC

tyllwyd wrote: »

The easement is very difficult to understand. Is this something that was in the deeds of her property when she bought it years ago? I read it as saying that the two properties were originally owned by the same person, but that person sold it to your friend (or someone who owned it before her) and at that time gave her rights to have her water, drainage etc pass through the ajoining property? Is that anywhere near right?

If it is a conservation area, I guess that means that these are old cottages - they might easily have funny things like windows opening onto someone else's garden, and it does seem unreasonable to suddenly object. Is there an obvious reason that it causes them a problem?

Yes this was in the deeds, and as far as I can say yes, but to be honest have no experience of these things myself. I would post a picture of the document but dont know how.

Imp

Editted to add that I started writing this after Clutton's post, before the OP gave some responses.

Clutton, we only ever get one side of a story on an internet forum. Based on this one sided view, it is very easy to jump to conclusions and give bad information.
From what the OP has said, I have assumed

1) The old lady's kitchen is extended from the line of the house, with one wall running along the boundary between the two properties.

2) The old lady has a window in the wall (referred to as a party wall by the OP) facing out onto the neighbour's garden (probably, rightly or wrongly, perceived by the neighbours as an intrusion on their privacy).

3) There is a tap on the party wall which is in the neighbour's garden.

4) The neighbours have put up a fence on their own land parallel with the boundary.


Background

1) For the old lady to have had use of the tap, there must have been access to the tap. Either there was no fence, there was a gate between the gardens or there was some other access for the old lady.

2) If there was a fence and no access to the tap, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the clause found in the deeds referred to the water travelling through the old lady's property and was in fact a water supply for the neighbours.

3) If neighbours put up a fence to block a window, there must be some background to this. Is there something the old lady has said/done to the neighbours to cause them to put a fence up? It might be something very small, or just said in passing.

4) It is natural for people to get stressed when they cannot control their own environment. The old lady appears to have moved away from her home, suggesting she is stressed, possibly because change is happening over which she has little control. Moving out gives her control.

ChrissiC

Imp wrote: »

It sounds like the old lady is tresspassing on her neighbour's property by placing an outdoor tap over the neighbour's property and allowing her window to open out over her neighbour's property. The new owners are aware of the major difficulties which this could cause, and have asked her to stop tresspassing, which she should do by carrying out the actions suggested by the neighbour. The neighbours appear reasonable.

They are not new owners, they have been neighbours for a long time. They have plans to do stuff I'm not sure what, but she definitely has a right of way on foot!

laurel7172

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/news/2010/june/22/museum_forced_me_out.aspx

ChrissiC

Imp wrote: »

Editted to add that I started writing this after Clutton's post, before the OP gave some responses.

Clutton, we only ever get one side of a story on an internet forum. Based on this one sided view, it is very easy to jump to conclusions and give bad information.
From what the OP has said, I have assumed

1) The old lady's kitchen is extended from the line of the house, with one wall running along the boundary between the two properties.

2) The old lady has a window in the wall (referred to as a party wall by the OP) facing out onto the neighbour's garden (probably, rightly or wrongly, perceived by the neighbours as an intrusion on their privacy).

3) There is a tap on the party wall which is in the neighbour's garden.

4) The neighbours have put up a fence on their own land parallel with the boundary.


Background

1) For the old lady to have had use of the tap, there must have been access to the tap. Either there was no fence, there was a gate between the gardens or there was some other access for the old lady.

2) If there was a fence and no access to the tap, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the clause found in the deeds referred to the water travelling through the old lady's property and was in fact a water supply for the neighbours.

3) If neighbours put up a fence to block a window, there must be some background to this. Is there something the old lady has said/done to the neighbours to cause them to put a fence up? It might be something very small, or just said in passing.

4) It is natural for people to get stressed when they cannot control their own environment. The old lady appears to have moved away from her home, suggesting she is stressed, possibly because change is happening over which she has little control. Moving out gives her control.

The are two windows now covered. The past history, prior to the fence, they had started to build a structure that required planning permission and the local residents association asked the council to take a look. The planning dept said no way and they were forced to remove it. It is since then they they have become like this. Its not her fault that they decided to erect a 4 metre high steel structure without permission or that it was reported.

ChrissiC

The deeds and other things are online, if this link works, the deeds and photos are available. you can find them on a google search using the words Shame on You Deal Maritime Museum, its an open facebook group trying to help her.

laurel7172

It's hard not to feel sorry for an 82 year old in distress, but it isn't the first time this has been posted.

All the museum trustees I've ever met have been reasonably decent people who often give up their time for free. It would be a rare museum whose board had a majority of people who liked disturbing elderly women for kicks.

As far as the other party is concerned, as far as I can reconstruct it from the link above, the lady in question kicked up a fuss about preservation work the museum was carrying out on its own property.. The investigation led to the discovery that it was illegal for the museum to be renting her the land she regarded as her garden. She was given six months notice. There may, for all we know, have been other attempts at negotiation.

As has already been pointed out, there are always two sides. And i sincerely doubt this lady is the victim of baseless spite in the way that has been portrayed.

Imp

ChrissiC wrote: »

The are two windows now covered. The past history, prior to the fence, they had started to build a structure that required planning permission and the local residents association asked the council to take a look. The planning dept said no way and they were forced to remove it. It is since then they they have become like this. Its not her fault that they decided to erect a 4 metre high steel structure without permission or that it was reported.

It sounds like they need to talk, can she bake and you and her take a cake around?

If they think she objected to their plans, it is relatively simple to get the records of their planning application and show that she didn't comment on their plans, let them know how much she admires what they tried to do, how she would like something similar on her house, and how she thinks the planners were silly to object to it.

I take it other residents alerted the resident's association to the steel structure, and voiced their concerns?

I doubt that you have a battle you can win, so don't treat it as a battle but a psychological experiment. Get some negotating books such as "Getting to Yes", read them and plan how you can get the neighbours to give you what you want, without them realising it.

Mum_of_3_3

One interesting thing to consider - Do the neighbours need to get planning permission to erect a new fence in a conservation area?

If this was my grandparents this was happening to then I think I would do away with the outside tap (if it's overlooking a neighbour's garden then how would you access it anyway?), but keep the window opening the same way.

M_o_3

ChrissiC

laurel7172 wrote: »

It's hard not to feel sorry for an 82 year old in distress, but it isn't the first time this has been posted.

All the museum trustees I've ever met have been reasonably decent people who often give up their time for free. It would be a rare museum whose board had a majority of people who liked disturbing elderly women for kicks.

As far as the other party is concerned, as far as I can reconstruct it from the link above, the lady in question kicked up a fuss about preservation work the museum was carrying out on its own property.. The investigation led to the discovery that it was illegal for the museum to be renting her the land she regarded as her garden. She was given six months notice. There may, for all we know, have been other attempts at negotiation.

As has already been pointed out, there are always two sides. And i sincerely doubt this lady is the victim of baseless spite in the way that has been portrayed.

No it was never illegal for hr to rent the courtyard, this was inp;ce from the start of her occuping the property before it was ever involved with charitiees commision. She has a lease tha tlapsed over time. She hadn't paid it fro about 18 years prior to them wanting to take the rented area away. She did try and keep her garded as she was told that would always be the case. The museum could have took it back anytime priot to whnen they did. Her solictors said what about adverse possesion and was told no, because she payied for work instead of rent 4 years ago. If that was the case, this would amount to 137 years rent taken and agreed as rent 4 years ago.