Misrepresentation AND failed local searches

Ozzuk

Do you have legal cover on your house insurance...they will be all over this. We used them to sue our solicitor over a similar access issue - though it sounds like it isn't your solicitor's fault. You should however make sure you are talking costs with your solicitor if they are investigating it - these issues can run into tens of thousands so be clear who is paying.

Slinky

Ozzuk wrote: »

Do you have legal cover on your house insurance...they will be all over this. We used them to sue our solicitor over a similar access issue - though it sounds like it isn't your solicitor's fault. You should however make sure you are talking costs with your solicitor if they are investigating it - these issues can run into tens of thousands so be clear who is paying.

OP has already stated they didn't put legal cover on their insurance.

tom9980

The easiest solution is bung the neighbours some cash to change deeds and split the maintenance three ways to keep them onside. otherwise even though you are likely in the right and have access and most definitely are not landlocked you are looking at upset neighbours and a long dispute costing much more in the long term.

My in laws are in the process of selling a similar property with almost identical issues but they have instead negotiated the purchase of land to build a new access. They were definitely in for a fight with a neighbour who was adamant they were not going to let them rebuild a track to their home along the old route over land the neighbour owned despite it being on maps, and there being evidence of over 70 years of use.

The solution needs to be cheap because you have no guarantee that you will be able to reclaim the money from any insurance or from the vendor.

moneyistooshorttomention

tom9980 wrote: »

The easiest solution is bung the neighbours some cash to change deeds and split the maintenance three ways to keep them onside. otherwise even though you are likely in the right and have access and most definitely are not landlocked you are looking at upset neighbours and a long dispute costing much more in the long term.

.

Bunging them some cash is probably precisely what they want and why they are being Awkward Squad in the first place. !! If they realise you realise what they're up to - and aren't going to give in to pressure they'll stop hoping for it OR decide you're too obtuse to "take the hint", so they might as well stop "hinting (ie being awkward)".

Neighbours do sometimes try it on with a new home-owner and one sometimes just has to ignore them and carry on exactly as per the last house owner did. Which is what Davesnave did for instance.

moneyistooshorttomention

I guess they'll be along shortly - to say whats what re this frontager situation on the road....

tom9980

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Bunging them some cash is probably precisely what they want and why they are being Awkward Squad in the first place. !! If they realise you realise what they're up to - and aren't going to give in to pressure they'll stop hoping for it OR decide you're too obtuse to "take the hint", so they might as well stop "hinting (ie being awkward)".

Neighbours do sometimes try it on with a new home-owner and one sometimes just has to ignore them and carry on exactly as per the last house owner did. Which is what Davesnave did for instance.

All well and good ignoring the situation but when the time comes to sell you have a massive problem as my in laws found out. They ignored the situation for 30 years, its cost them a 6 figure sum and lots of stress over the last year and that is with having good relations with the neighbour and them being willing to find a solution.

Davesnave

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Neighbours do sometimes try it on with a new home-owner and one sometimes just has to ignore them and carry on exactly as per the last house owner did. Which is what Davesnave did for instance.

The essential difference, however, was that the people seeking to control our use of the private road had no right to do that. Once I discovered that, the way forward was clear.

In the OP's situation, I'd be seeking to ascertain what the neighbours grievance is, and if it turned out that they were seeking a more equitable sharing of costs, rather than just being obstructive, I might look at that. The exact legal position would be key, just as it is here.

The bigger picture is that the OP has to live alongside these people, who appear unwelcoming and difficult, but as yet, we only have part of the story and none of the history. As others have said, they may also wish to sell the property one day.

moneyistooshorttomention

Davesnave wrote: »

The essential difference, however, was that the people seeking to control our use of the private road had no right to do that. Once I discovered that, the way forward was clear.

In the OP's situation, I'd be seeking to ascertain what the neighbours grievance is, and if it turned out that they were seeking a more equitable sharing of costs, rather than just being obstructive, I might look at that. The exact legal position would be key, just as it is here.

From what OP said it was coming over that these neighbours are also trying to control use of a private road.

Surely if what they want is for OP's house to also become liable (for the first time by the sound of it) for paying a share of maintenance costs - then why don't they just say so and request it - rather than playing silly b&ggers? At which point they say "Will you?" and it's to OP to decide whether they will or won't go along with that? Trying to bully OP (which is what it sounds like) is just going to put OP's back up.

Comms69

I think the key thing is what are the consequences for the OP? Well really none at the minute. This is a civil trespass, with little/no quantifiable loss.

EachPenny

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Surely if what they want is for OP's house to also become liable (for the first time by the sound of it) for paying a share of maintenance costs - then why don't they just say so and request it - rather than playing silly b&ggers?

Because claiming the OP has no access rights puts the neighbours in a stronger bargaining position.

Rather than hoping the OP will be willing to share costs they are seeking to force his hand into 'buying' the right to use the road.

I'd like to understand more about the nature of this 'road' and why the Council thought they might maintain it. Is it really "road-like", or is it just a driveway/track?