Neighbour blocked garage with fence

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Badger50 wrote: »

True, but if the pair of garages was built later than the houses I think it would still imply a common intention on the part of the two owners at the time. Perhaps even more so because they must have actively cooperated on the project and shared the cost.

Does an Implied Easement by Common Intention not require a transaction? The only case I see a reference to is where a parcel of land has been sold between the parties. In this case, there has never been any transaction between the neighbours. If it was nothing more than a private agreement between the owners at one time I am not convinced that that can be held to transfer down to subsequent purchasers.

Te fact remains that when the OP made his transaction; ie, buying his house, it was quite clear that there was no right of access over the side in place. It is something that we can assume was known by his neighbour. He simply failed to find out. To grant him such rights over the property of his neighbour, who has done things properly and has certainly not profited by any original transaction, seems neither fair nor legal to me.

pimento

Reminder to self - when you next move, avoid any property with shared access like the plague.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

victoriavictorious wrote: »

I feel it's reasonable to suspect that had the neighbour driven a Mini like OP does, which would have made his garage more usable for its intended purpose, he might have been perfectly happy to share the access, instead of suddenly erecting a fence down the middle, Steptoe & Son style, where Harold and Albert divided their living room in half after an argument so each could only sit on half the sofa, and view half the tv.
I agree with Badger that this was probably originally intended as a shared driveway.
Either way, seems quite a bizarre thing to do, I doubt it would do either of them any favours if they ever sold, and I too feel there must be a pretty interesting back story to this.

It's hardly the same thing. The neighbour has ended up with a perfectly usable private garden which is exactly what they want; they are hardly cutting off their nose to spite their face as in your example.

They may not plan to sell and not be too bothered about a few thousand pounds on the value of the house twenty or thirty years down the line.

mrschaucer

pimento wrote: »

Reminder to self - when you next move, avoid any property with shared access like the plague.

Or indeed any property with a 1.25m drive.

hazyjo

pimento wrote: »

Reminder to self - when you next move, avoid any property with shared access like the plague.

I've always avoided them - wouldn't touch 'em with a bargepole. Seen far too many probs with family/friends over the years. Okay usually until someone new moves in. There's no bigger niggle than parking when it comes to property lol!

Johnny123123

The garages were in place since house was built and most the houses on the street have the same layout. 2.5/3m between most semi datched houses on the street and double garages at the end. Some of you have made it seem as if I was driving through his living room and doing donuts in his back yard! Most houses on the street have similar setup and no one has put up a similar fence.

I have never done anything to annoy the neighbour or cause arguments or anything like that. Im in work most days from morning till late at night and when I see my neighbour we always wave and say hi. I talked to him again today about it and he said his wife wanted a fence up because it would be more privacy for when they go in and out of their garage to get stuff.

It pretty much seems as though im legally stuffed really and cant do anything about it :j

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Have you asked the other neighbours whether there are any rights of access attached to their properties?

Johnny123123

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Have you asked the other neighbours whether there are any rights of access attached to their properties?

Yes I saw one of my neighbours deeds from across the road and they had the same legal wording. Deeds dont mention at all any shared driveway/accessway or give reciprocal rights to cross eachothers halves.
Im never buying another semi detached or shared driveway house again, learnt my lesson :j:j:j

happyandcontented

Johnny123123 wrote: »

The garages were in place since house was built and most the houses on the street have the same layout. 2.5/3m between most semi datched houses on the street and double garages at the end. Some of you have made it seem as if I was driving through his living room and doing donuts in his back yard! Most houses on the street have similar setup and no one has put up a similar fence.

I have never done anything to annoy the neighbour or cause arguments or anything like that. Im in work most days from morning till late at night and when I see my neighbour we always wave and say hi. I talked to him again today about it and he said his wife wanted a fence up because it would be more privacy for when they go in and out of their garage to get stuff.

It pretty much seems as though im legally stuffed really and cant do anything about it :j

Did he say anything about your car access?

It is all very odd to me. I would take legal advice especially as all the other properties have the same layout.

Johnny123123

Badger50 wrote: »

I'll try again.Implied Easement of Common Intention. My case would be that the original owners, on any reasonable assessment, cannot have intended anything other than to grant each other rights of way over the drive. The physical set up speaks for itself. The land is a drive which is only one car wide. There's a double garage astride the boundary. What else could their intention have been? It is very unfortunate that it is not documented.

So because theres no easment recorded I cant really prove otherwise right? Theres no legal way to fight this is there? I mean it also pretty much states in our deeds they have the right to build anything they like along their land border. Im just doubl echecking so I dont get egged on by a soliciter to try and fight a silly case. :rotfl: