Driveway right of way EDITED PLAN AND INFO

moneyistooshorttomention

silvercar wrote: »

I'm guessing that garage size is not sufficient for big cars.

Really that whole shared driveway should be kept clear. What happens if there is a fire at number 90, fire engine needs access, not to weave between flower pots and parked cars.

Which is a valid point and one that has struck me with a similar set-up here - which involves a household that regularly parks where they shouldnt and causes inconvenience because of it. As I understand it - fire engines will just literally "smash their way" into access to any bit of road they should be able to get on (but can't) and the onus will be on the "guilty party" car-parker to cover the costs of the Fire Service having done that.

DTDfanBoy

Cakeguts wrote: »

Yes but that is not part of accessing their property that is part of accessing the public road.

That is irrelevant, the deeds make it quite clear that the driveway must be kept clear, 90 has no rights to park on the shared driveway and 89 should not be placing planters on it either.

moneyistooshorttomention

It does look, from what we can see, that both houses are "in the wrong" on this.

It seems there shouldnt be parking in front of the garages and nor should there be planters/other obstacles put there.

metamatic

Apologies if this has been stated already but is this a new development or is this an issue that has been simmering for some time?

If its the former then can you not get the developers involved so they can clarify what can and can't be done?

warby68

Mmm read it again

Builder tried to change No 89's rights to use some of No 90's land after No 89 was sold? Sounds more like builder error of some sort. Did 90's solicitor query it and what were they actually told when No89 said no?

Having absolutely nowhere to halt a car other than in a garage does not seem a reasonable prospect for No90, as a detached property with double garage these days. Hard to imagine plans like that being passed - although I'm no expert.

Am guessing OP is either 89 or 90 ? Looks a nightmare either way

chris_m

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

It does look, from what we can see, that both houses are "in the wrong" on this.
It seems there shouldnt be parking in front of the garages and nor should there be planters/other obstacles put there.

That would be my take on it too - both in the wrong.

Of course, if the developer had done the sensible thing in the first placeand put the plot 90 garages on the LH side of the plot's front garden, with a non-shared (angled) driveway leading from the shared one to the front of the garages, there would have been no problem.

AnnieO1234

warby68 wrote: »

Mmm read it again

Builder tried to change No 89's rights to use some of No 90's land after No 89 was sold? Sounds more like builder error of some sort. Did 90's solicitor query it and what were they actually told when No89 said no?

Having absolutely nowhere to halt a car other than in a garage does not seem a reasonable prospect for No90, as a detached property with double garage these days. Hard to imagine plans like that being passed - although I'm no expert.

Am guessing OP is either 89 or 90 ? Looks a nightmare either way

I'm neither, I'm in 88. And this is causing me a headache.

I'm unsure of what was said to 90 by their solicitor other than 89 refused to change their deeds. At the end of the day, we bought first, then 89, 90 and finally 88.

At the end of the day 90 has the opportunity to briefly park to access their garages. There is some visitor parking about 5 minutes walk away. We all tend to just allow our visitors to park on the driveways and block our own homes in iyswim.

We're responsible for all of the shared driveway up to their garage doors which 90 are parking on. 89 are having problems with them parking not only on the bit that 90 own but also in the way they overhang onto 89 and anything big like say a larger Transit blocks 89's car space bit too.

90 are operating an office from their home so there are plenty of deliveries coming up and down (something in the deeds they're not supposed to do but hey ho). 90 can't access the boots of their cars (a Mokka and a Vectra) without parking at least half on the land belonging to 89 but that does also mean they come across the front of 89's parking space. They do tend to unload and then move back right against their garage doors, but obviously it depends on the vehicle.

There is enough room with two cars parked upto the garage doors at 90 for someone to use the driveway at 89 and turn it's tight but do-able. However, if they've parked like t*ts or have parked a big car, then you can't turn and sometimes can't access 89.

89 are now escalating this with putting the flower pot things there, they say that 90 have access to the garages and driveway and that they're not preventing them from doing what they are allowed to do in the deeds. (Which I guess they're not).

The big problem 90 has is that if 89 erect a fence or wall around their garden (they can do in the deeds and don't need permission because they're 3 houses back from the road) then 90 will only have a path width and no height to take in any large items. I can see this happening unfortunately.

Now don't get me wrong, I run a business myself from home albeit without the same level of deliveries, I'm not moaning for the sake of it but at the moment we're supposed to amicably deal with problems on the shared driveway and because of 89 and 90 that simply isn't going to happen.

=( xxx

AnnieO1234

chris_m wrote: »

That would be my take on it too - both in the wrong.

Of course, if the developer had done the sensible thing in the first placeand put the plot 90 garages on the LH side of the plot's front garden, with a non-shared (angled) driveway leading from the shared one to the front of the garages, there would have been no problem.

The developer wasn't able to because of an existing tree line which isn't marked on the map. They're not under a TPO but they had to leave them be in accordance with the planning permissions.

xxx

moneyistooshorttomention

I shall be watching this thread with even greater interest then - being in a very similar set-up.

The selfish parker household dont half end up creating a lot of problems and I get a bit of the "blow off" from that. The main thing is "selfish parker" and "A.N. Other neighbour" seem to have virtually daily parking wars with each other. "Selfish parker" makes an absolute habit of blocking "A.N. Other Neighbour".

I just leave them to it and think "Let them battle it out between themselves" - as both households are nfh. If the parking wars mean any of my visitors vehicles cant get into my property ever (where I certainly have sufficient room for parking) - no problem = I shall just tell my visitor to park right there in the road right behind these other characters. I've not had to do it yet - and it's probably because they both know that's exactly what I would do and they would be blocked in.

I am astonished at watching the interplay between those two households though - and would be being a LOT "firmer" with "selfish parker" if I were the "A.N. Other Neighbour".

But I can see how a lot of stuff like this going on between two competing neighbours does impact back on the rest of the road - so I can understand how you got drawn into it. As someone without a car - I can afford to sit back and watch them slug it out between them - but its harder if your own car has having a bit of the fallout from this.

silvercar

As I see it, flower pots cannot be parked on the shared road, just as much as cars cannot.

Obstructive move by 89 would be to park a car on their bit of the shared drive and tell number 90 they have room on the far side of the driveway!