Anonymous nasty neighbour...

GreenNinja

privatepath wrote: »

Thanks for your posts. It could be a pre-existing problem with the previous owner/tenant - which would explain things.

However, I really don't think that it is one of the people entitled to access, as surely if they needed access they would have come knocking, or at least have cleared their portion of the path?

I'm thinking it might be someone else entirely who knows about this access path, and is trying (and succeeding) in making me feel v. uncomfortable for their own reasons. Paranoid maybe, but possible.

I am alone with 2 small children, so maybe I'm worrying more than necessary, but I just cannot imagine writing such a note - which would be very publicly seen, without having an enormous grudge against someone.

Hiya,

I used to work in a bakery and the woman who owned it would always leave us notes about stuff that she wanted us to do, or answers to questions previously asked, even if she was about that day. Basically she was so unsure of herself and non assertive that this was how she dealt with talking to people about things. Sometimes the notes came across as curt but they were never meant to be. Maybe the person that put it there, is scared of confrontation and therefore found it easier to leave a note?

Melissa177

The person who left the note is clearly quite anally retentive.

If the bike was genuinely in the way, any normal person would have stopped by and asked to move it. It sounds like the person was trying to make the point ("If I have no use for the communal access, I'll make sure no-one else makes use of it"). I've met people like this before, they are generally very tedious.

webhamster

Wig wrote: »

Hamster,
I read half of your waffle.

there in lies the problem , half the information.

Wig wrote: »

I do think the situation changes when the path in question is a path to nowhere except PPs property.

Thats an assumption just like the op based on what exactly , a bad pic from an anonymous someone whom also assumes its theirs to do as seen fit in the first place.Where you "think" it leads is based on half reading at least my posts by your omission.

Wig wrote: »

What you seem to be waffling is that whoever wrote the note (assuming they are from one of the 4 groups entitled to use the path) should have a right to use the path in order to clear the weeds. I would agree with that, but seeing as the path is not in common useage by anyone other than PP, it is a really obnoxious thing to do in the manner they did it. Especially as they have so far not turned up to actually clear the path for their use since leaving the note.

Whether it has weeds or not noticably used its still communal , or there would not have been a problem with blocking it , now would there?.If it only had one entrance and its to our anonymous entity then it would be their property ...... not communal , and therefore no note would have arisen at all.So why was it stated as communal if it was in fact not , and if the op knew it was communal then why block gate by chaining a bike to it?

Wig wrote: »

It is clear that whoever left the note was doing it just because they are a grumpy obnoxious sod. And I have no sympathy for someone like that. On the other hand for PP I have every sympathy, they and they alone use this path. Of course PP would have moved the bike if the person had said I would like to go and clear the path for my own use.

What are you talking about , its got nothing to do with only access to clear weeds , so the other users of this area need to ask if they can weed it ie permission to acess what they already have a right to .... should they even ask nicley with the word please just in case.

I do agree the poster of the bike note might be lacking in social graces ....... is there any "please" from authority they just impound or fine for doing this sort of thing , or where they just showing the same contempt shown to them.

Wig wrote: »

So you tell me, what possible reason could someone have legitimately left that note?

Once again their acess was blocked and to a communal area , admitted by the op and that they had did it. I really doubt it was a first and only time seeing as how the next topic by the op mentions blocking the path day later and having burst tyres fuelling the belief it was sabotage by the noteman.

Suggest it would be best if you read through it , even ignoring mine and only read the op uneditted comments.

thanks for the original agreement though.

Melissa177

Anyway, as I was saying about anally retentive types....

Debt_Free_Chick

I hope my comment adds to the general discussion, as I happen to think it's relevant ..... but then, I would, wouldn't I :rotfl:

It is this .....


This is not about a "public right of way" or a "communal right". This is about a right of access which is in an easement to the deeds of neighbouring properties - very common in terraced houses. Where three, four or more properties are terraced, those not "on the end" cannot get from the front of their properties, to the rear. Their only access [STRIKE]if [/STRIKE] is via an alley, in between the terraces.

The deeds to their properties will - 99.99999% of the time - give them an unencumbered right to acces the rear of their properties, via the alley. And the deeds to the property which "owns" the access will place an obligation on the owner (transferred to any tenant) not to interfere with that right of access.

This is not about NIMBYs or Ramblers claiming a Public Right of Way - this is about a perfectly lawful right of access, which was probably established more than 50 or 100 years ago.

Or it would be, if the OP would be clear. However, that is how the situation appears to me.

Debt_Free_Chick

Melissa177 wrote: »

Anyway, as I was saying about anally retentive types....

I need to ask this ....


If you bought a property with no direct access to the rear garden - but with an unencumbered lawful right to use an alley two doors down - would you be peeved if you found that you could not use that alley, because the owner (the very person who gives you the lawful right to use the alley) then physically prevented you from doing so?

Would you not be posting on here about how your lawful right had been infringed? Would you not be asking our help so you could enforce your rights?

Please - don't just diss those whose opinions you happen not to share. Please, post comments that are either useful - and useable - to the OP, or to others who may be in a similar situation.

It seems that the owner of the property that the OP is renting has a lawful obligation to allow certain neighbours access via the alley/path. The OP, as a tenant, cannot interfere with that right, no matter how much they might dislike it.

Doozergirl

Did they invent a new kind of English language for this thread?

PasturesNew

taxi97w wrote: »

maybe the landlord left the note.

roflmfao

Debt_Free_Chick

Doozergirl wrote: »

Did they invent a new kind of English language for this thread?

Which bit? :rotfl:

privatepath

I blocked the alley once without thinking. I will not do it again. Repeat ad infinitum.

When I first posted, I was upset and angry, and I blew off steam here by explaining the problem.

You all replied and gave me a different perspective, and I took all the comments on board (even yours hamster), and I've slapped myself on the wrist and will be a model neighbour from now on, not blocking the path, or parking on the pavement.

What am I not saying that is so getting up your nose hamster? I think the only thing that would satisfy you is if I committed hara-kiri.

I have checked my ta, and there is no mention at all of the path. It looks like a very generic lease (i.e. it could apply to any property). I cut back the vines overhanging from neighbours side for my own ease of use.

Only thing is, that some 'neighbour' saw fit to deflate my tyre. There is no puncture and nothing wrong with the valve, as I was told by the bike shop this afternoon. But I suppose I deserve it for my crime, don't I.

Hamster I hope your raving was cathartic. There's a lot of angst in there methinks.;)

Thanks to everyone for rational replies, whether agreeing with me, or telling me off.