Taking legal action against property developer

G_M

I've said it before but been ignored (not to worry - I'm used to that):

The deed says

or all purposes in connection with the use of the Property and every part thereof as is a residential development

A lorry delivery to a shop is not a 'purpose in connection with...... a residential development'.

A court order prohibiting the shop from using the road should do the trick.

Gorideb4

Really appreciate your time on this. I will pick this up with my solicitors next week. Will update once progress has been made.

BTW thanks to everyone who has contributed here today, you have all been a great help.



Have

moneyistooshorttomention

AdrianC wrote: »

Whether they do or not is irrelevant. The shop is not using the road. The trucks delivering to the shop are. The shop is not telling them to use it.

I would say that's semantics.

The shop isnt using the road directly - but the shop is using the road indirectly. If that shop wasn't there - then there wouldnt be a shop there telling the drivers to use the road.

Many of these truck drivers have specifically told OP that the shop told them to use the road.

Therefore if the shop-owner starts "behaving themselves" - then they will stop telling these drivers to use the road. In fact - they will specifically tell those drivers not to use the road. Equals - end of problem and all resolved.

It's clearly the shops fault.

Analogous situation to the fact that when I employ workmen to do work on my house - then I am responsible for what they get up to and it's my duty to tell them not to upset neighbours (which is what I do do...and have told them to stop immediately if they are doing something that directly affects neighbours).

EDIT; So - yep....GQ's "court order" against the shop if need be - if the solicitors letter to them doesnt work. Personally - I think such a letter should be sufficient to stop them though.

davidmcn

Gorideb4 wrote: »

The deed I quoted was taken from an addendum on the deeds, this addition is dated around the time when the land was split in two. It also has an up to date site plan with the new housing on. The current owners bought the shop whilst the new houses were being built.

The change in ownership of the shop isn't relevant to the rights and obligations you've quoted (which appear to be from the deed splitting ownership before the houses were built).

G_M wrote: »

I've said it before but been ignored (not to worry - I'm used to that):

The deed says

"for all purposes in connection with the use of the Property and every part thereof as is a residential development"

A lorry delivery to a shop is not a 'purpose in connection with...... a residential development'.

Yes, but you're quoting from the rights which the houses have.

The shop is part of the retained land, so it has:

a right of way over and along the estate road at all times and for all purposes for the benefit of the retained land

G_M

Ah!




:doh:

AdrianC

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Many of these truck drivers have specifically told OP that the shop told them to use the road.

Yes, they would say that. It gets the irate bloke off their back for long enough to finish unloading, and get on with their day.

moneyistooshorttomention

AdrianC wrote: »

Yes, they would say that. It gets the irate bloke off their back for long enough to finish unloading, and get on with their day.

Sounds like time for OP to take down their details then and, once he has a list of several that have said that to him, go down the shop and say "The following firms have said 'you told them to'. What have you got to say about that?" and then provide a list of times/dates/name of firm on vehicle/vehicle numberplate to find out the truth of the matter on that.

Cakeguts

When the land was split into an orchard for building on and a shop was the right of access granted to the shop at that time? Because at that time there wasn't a road there was only an orchard.

Can you grant right of access over something that isn't already there?

Gorideb4

Cakeguts wrote: »

When the land was split into an orchard for building on and a shop was the right of access granted to the shop at that time? Because at that time there wasn't a road there was only an orchard.

Can you grant right of access over something that isn't already there?

Good point.

Just checked back at the documents, the site was split in May 2011 but right now do not have the date the shop owners bought. I movedin at the beginning of 2013. The deed addendum shows the site plan submitted in the planning submission, this is colour coded to illustrate access rights.

Gorideb4

davidmcn wrote: »

The change in ownership of the shop isn't relevant to the rights and obligations you've quoted (which appear to be from the deed splitting ownership before the houses were built).



Yes, but you're quoting from the rights which the houses have.

The shop is part of the retained land, so it has:

Ok this part of the deeds prevents me challenging them:

Rights reserved

There are reserved out of the property for the benefit of the whole and every part of the retained land of the following tighten favour of the transferor the owner or owners for the time being of the Retained land and any part or parts of that land intended to be benefited and all other part sons having the like right or so,liar rights a right of way over and along the estate road at all times and for all purposes for the benefit of the retained land and every part thereof subje t to the tranferor paying one sixth or such other fair proportion according to user of the cost of the maintenance and upkeep of that part of the Estate road as may be reasonably required by the Transferee (but not so as to place any liability to the Tranferor to contribute towards the cost of constructing the Estate road of subsequently upgrading the same.

Apart from selling up does anyone have any recommendations for other ways to deal with this? Remembering I have previously tried on many occasions to deal with this diplomatically, citing safety concerns etc....

Feel really annoyed we were not told about any of this before buying.