Neighbour dispute?

moneyistooshorttomention

AineS77 wrote: »

Yes, exactly right. He wants us to give him full vehicle access through our garden to his house. He spent 6 months doing this to the previous owner (according to neighbours) and they didn't disclose his 'unloading/loading' schtick (ie parking on our drive and blocking our access) to us when we bought the property.

He just ain't living in the real world then - trying to get a bit of your garden!!! - and one presumes he's trying to get it for nothing too (ie rather than buying it off you).

Nerve of the blimmin' devil:eek:

For that - I would be investigating him a good deal further - to find out whats what about someone that can try and bully another person into just handing over their land.

Davesnave

Surely the "at all times and for all purposes" description is used precisely to show that there aren't restrictions on the mode of transport. That's certainly how the use of the private road I use is described and how we interpret it.



I'd think arguing that it doesn't include a certain class of vehicle would be very difficult.

AineS77

Davesnave wrote: »

Surely the "at all times and for all purposes" description is used precisely to show that there aren't restrictions on the mode of transport. That's certainly how the use of the private road I use is described and how we interpret it.



I'd think arguing that it doesn't include a certain class of vehicle would be very difficult.

I agree, from my own research I think he can drive onto our driveway in any vehicle that fits but he is probably pushing the definition of loading/unloading!

Davesnave

AineS77 wrote: »

I don't know what he does for a living - we have never gotten to the stage of discussing that! He is around a lot so suspect maybe a developer and seems to be doing most of work himself. Yes when I definitely need to go out in the car, I've been parking on the main road as can't be sure that I will be able to leave via car otherwise.

If he is developing the property, then he must eventually sell it to someone else, or put tenants in it.

Either way, they are unlikely to act in the same manner, so this problem might solve itself.

Blocking someone out of their driveway isn't an offence, but blocking them in is, so you would be justified in calling the police if your car was trapped by his van for any appreciable time. Dashcams make evidence easy to collect too.

YoungBlueEyes

A small point, but for him to claim he's loading and unloading - don't you have to be actually loading and/or unloading?

Sitting there for a few hours with his hazards on, isn't that just, well, sitting there with hazards on....?

AineS77

YoungBlueEyes wrote: »

A small point, but for him to claim he's loading and unloading - don't you have to be actually loading and/or unloading?

Sitting there for a few hours with his hazards on, isn't that just, well, sitting there with hazards on....?

Not a small point at all. He is abusing the loophole! He shuffles stuff around a bit and occasionally puts some wood in or takes a hammer out but he leaves it for long periods (today he left van completely for 2 hours, for instance).

YoungBlueEyes

Maybe his loophole is your loophole - taking 2 hours to take a hammer out (effectively) is not what is meant by loading/unloading.

Is there a definitive definition? Might that be the way to go...?

xylophone

On our SPIF form, there were no neighbourly disputes recorded and the box asking if there was anything that could lead to a dispute with a neighbour was ticked no. We also had a letter from their solicitor saying no disputes had occurred and a statement from the former owners declaring no access issues during his ownership.

Surely you can sue for false representation?

YoungBlueEyes

To answer my own question - there is no definition yet.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmtran/748/74813.htm

229. There is a pressing need to clarify the rules surrounding loading issues in the forthcoming statutory guidance. The Minister told us that the Department for Transport had decided not to undertake a consultation on the definition of loading in developing the new guidance on parking. There are currently no universally accepted definitions of 'loading' and 'unloading' however, and such definitions are required. The Department should therefore reverse its position and take the lead on clearing up the confusion through consultation with the haulage industry, police, residents, and local authorities. That definition must elucidate precisely what activities are covered. Once arrived at it should be widely publicised in the Department's guidance and by local authorities, and applied consistently across the country. Clearer guidance on a standardised 'observation period' (used by parking attendants to confirm loading and unloading activity) would also be helpful.

AineS77

xylophone wrote: »

Surely you can sue for false representation?

Yes that is what we are wondering. There were no legal disputes where a solicitor sent a letter but neighbours have all told me stories about the shouting matches and the owner of no 3 told me that our estate agents were fully aware of his rights and how long he was parked there each day.

We were completely led up the garden path by the sellers and estate agent. They both said that the neighbours were all lovely and that there was no trouble from anyone, when we enquired early in the conveyancing. Surely something of this magnitude constitutes a dispute even if they kept it out of legal circles (probably as they both wanted to/plan to sell at some point). Problem is the SPIF form is dated 2015, not 2018 so was true then but not now. Don't think my solicitor requested a declaration that info was still true. So not sure where that leaves us.

We do however have a letter from their solicitor stating that there were no disputes within the ownership of the house.