private road - public liability

Guest101

G_M wrote: »

Wow! Lots of response and lots of views. To fill a few gaps:

* the road is privately owned by a management company owned by the residents. It has its own Land Registry Title held in the Company's name. It is not simply'unadopted'.

* the road was built around 100 years back, along with (most of) the properties. It's cobbled.

* there is no bridle path publicc footpath etc. There is no pavement. Front doors open directly onto the road. It is a nrrow cul de sac leading nowhere.

* There is a fund held by the Manco (from annual payments which most residents pay - another story) to cover maintenance, as well as upkeep of some common gardens road sweeping etc

* there have over the years been regular discussions about a gate or other access system - primarily to deter parking by non-residents (this is London), but agreement can never be reached (dustmen, guests, grocer deliveries blah blah)

* Maintenance has been on hold due to long dispute with the water board over liability for the drains beneath (possible collapse which may be the cause of deterioration in road surface. Water board finally agreed to adopt the drains this year

The link seems basically related to claims against the LA, other than the single line:
Dear Mr Taxi-driver,
Thanks for your £1000 claim. Would you like to pop round for tea and cake next Tuesday at 4?
:rotfl:

ps - I know no one ever believes it when posters say this, but - asking on behalf of a friend (I don't live there)!

Is it clear that the road is private - with signage?


Did the taxi driver have legitimate business there?

bouicca21

Confusing or not, Money, that's what the covenant says. Frontagers are responsible for maintaining the road, but with no provision to say how this is to be done, to what standard etc. The covenant was put there a hundred years ago when the first development took place. The properties have electricity, sewers, mains water and street lights (not sure about gas) but the road and what passes for pavement is unadopted and a mess. Maybe it is also a private road, but heaven knows who the owner would be (descendants of the original landowner?)

G_M

Guest101 wrote: »

Is it clear that the road is private - with signage?

Did the taxi driver have legitimate business there?

No sign.
I don't know but assume so.

Which then brings you onto the question of whether all the residents belong automatically to the management company or have to opt in deliberately to being a member.:cool:

(Surprised you had that problem with the Water Board - as, when I bought my house in unadopted road a few years back - I had already found out that things had been changed legally a year or two before that to make it the case that Water Boards now own all the pipes in the country - unless they are on an individual householders private personal land). That was a relief to me to know I couldnt be made to pay up for any pipe repairs outside my own garden.

As hinted at previously, there are also issues with the way the Mgmt Co was initially set up, with a couple of residents refusing to contribute. That is a whole other story.

When the law changed a few years back making water companies responsible for 'shared drains', they decided to exclude the road on the basis that the road is a 'single curtillage' property and therefore their responsililty commenced where the private road met the public drains. It took some considerable time and argument to get this decision reversed.

But we digress.........

Guest101

G_M wrote: »

No sign.
I don't know but assume so.

As hinted at previously, there are also issues with the way the Mgmt Co was initially set up, with a couple of residents refusing to contribute. That is a whole other story.

When the law changed a few years back making water companies responsible for 'shared drains', they decided to exclude the road on the basis that the road is a 'single curtillage' property and therefore their responsililty commenced where the private road met the public drains. It took some considerable time and argument to get this decision reversed.

But we digress.........

Ok if he had legitimate business there, then the owners are liable. Given the owners live there they must be aware of the road - so negligence in maintaining it is easy to prove.


Had he not had legitimate business, it could be claimed he was trespassing. So a counter suit would be possible

Lord_Baltimore

If I am the 'owner' of the unadopted road frontaging my property, can I put down double-yellow lines (or a physical obstruction) to stop people parking there? Can I refuse entry to my land (frontage)? Sorry G_M .

What about counter-suing the taxidriver for driving without due care and attention to the existing road conditions?

moneyistooshorttomention

bouicca21 wrote: »

Confusing or not, Money, that's what the covenant says. Frontagers are responsible for maintaining the road, but with no provision to say how this is to be done, to what standard etc. The covenant was put there a hundred years ago when the first development took place. The properties have electricity, sewers, mains water and street lights (not sure about gas) but the road and what passes for pavement is unadopted and a mess. Maybe it is also a private road, but heaven knows who the owner would be (descendants of the original landowner?)

I've long since come to the conclusion that there is a good chance that any owner that exists for an unadopted road isn't going to admit they are and will hope they're never found out as being the owner. I'd be willing to bet the owner of my own unadopted road wishes it wasnt down there quite clearly on their Title Register as theirs...

Who would want to identify themselves as "target" for any claims that come through ever?

Guest101

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

If I am the 'owner' of the unadopted road frontaging my property, can I put down double-yellow lines (or a physical obstruction)- probably not, as there will be a right of way on the land. to stop people parking there? Can I refuse entry to my land (frontage)? - probably not for the same reason. Sorry G_M .

What about counter-suing the taxidriver for driving without due care and attention to the existing road conditions?

Driving without due care and attention is a criminal matter, a private prosecution would cost tens of thousands of pounds.

davidmcn

Guest101 wrote: »

Had he not had legitimate business, it could be claimed he was trespassing. So a counter suit would be possible

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

What about counter-suing the taxidriver for driving without due care and attention to the existing road conditions?

What's all this "counter-suing" business about? Have people been watching too many US court dramas? What's G_M's loss? The taxi driver can at least point at a garage bill, no matter whose fault it is.

Guest101

davidmcn wrote: »

What's all this "counter-suing" business about? - ok, counter claim. I was using common terminology. Have people been watching too many US court dramas? - Probably. What's G_M's loss? - none, since they're asking for a friend. But the taxi driver would sue the landowner, which is a corporate entity, the loss would be the value of the claim. IE yes the road was not repaired, but the damage occurred as a result of trespass. The taxi driver can at least point at a garage bill, no matter whose fault it is.

I don't understand what your point is

davidmcn

Guest101 wrote: »

I don't understand what your point is

I suspect you just mean a defence to the claim. A counterclaim would be if the taxi driver owed G_M's friend £1000 for something.