Right of Way how to Extinguish the Easement

unforeseen

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Many people would have young children or dogs or the like that would "escape" if a gate was left open though.....:cool:

Then it is up to the service t tenement to ensure that their charges are kept under control and not liable to escape.

moneyistooshorttomention

Cakeguts wrote: »

Who owns the land that they park on?

I wouldnt mind betting you've hit the nail straight on the head here - as initial post (indicating they are parking opposite OP's front door) would seem to indicate it's likely they are parking on the ROW (ie they are most definitely legally in the wrong if so).

If that is the case - then don't block the ROW - but do put up a bollard to prevent parking.

Davesnave

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I wouldnt mind betting you've hit the nail straight on the head here - as initial post (indicating they are parking opposite OP's front door) would seem to indicate it's likely they are parking on the ROW .

Do you really think the OP would have this neighbour parking on their land as an added inconvenience and yet not mention it in their post?

Annie35

Davesnave wrote: »

Do you really think the OP would have this neighbour parking on their land as an added inconvenience and yet not mention it in their post?

Because it's a ROW dave! It's important! They drive down it & it can't be removed, because it's a ROW Y'no! A ROW! To paraphrase Richard Burton 'a ROW is a ROW is a ROW' it's very important because it's a ROW, don't you know Dave, a ROW!

& that's why the op may not necessarily know if they have vehicular & parking rights.... cos it's a ROW (Just in case we'd forgotten) :rotfl::rotfl:

ROW threads are always so serious

Davesnave

Annie35 wrote: »

ROW threads are always so serious

Oh, this one's funny all right. The OP's main question was:


"I wonder if we can use lack of necessity (used in the Public Highway Act 1980) as a way to extinguish their easement?"



Did the OP quote the relevant section of the Act? No, they expected respondents to search through the whole blooming thing!

That's hilarious.

unforeseen

I ignored that bit as the Highways Act didn't apply unless the OP was hoping to get the road adopted.

If they were then a ROW and it's limitations would be pointless.

moneyistooshorttomention

unforeseen wrote: »

I ignored that bit as the Highways Act didn't apply unless the OP was hoping to get the road adopted.

If they were then a ROW and it's limitations would be pointless.

I'm not clear what you are saying here??

shortcrust

I thought it was pretty simple. You can't really get a right of way that's in use removed without the consent of those who benefit. Is that not the case?

xylophone

Any advise about our legal rights to get our drive back would be welcome... Thanks

Your drive is not being taken away!

Your neighbours are exercising their legal right to use your drive on the basis of the RoW - (presumably they are not parking on your drive but on their own land)?

What puzzles me is the fact that you bought this property knowing that the RoW was in existence (and even that the neighbours had approached the previous owners with a proposal to give up their rights for the sum of £25,000 (not £250,000?) and the transfer to them of the two acre paddock.

They're "avin a larf"?

It is unfortunate that they choose to behave in an unneighbourly (even deliberately provocative?) fashion but you did purchase in full knowledge of the situation.

I don't see however that they have the right to damage your drive
in using it for access and I should think that you could seek legal redress if they do?

bouicca21

It's all speculation until OP tells us the exact terms of the RoW.