Shared Drive Maintenance Costs

jody62

I've just bought a house which has a maintenance covenant concerning the shared drive - I'm liable for a certain percentage of the costs. This percentage was calculated when all the properties were private homes. The property at the far end of the drive a now a business which I estimate is responsible for 98% of the traffic.

Does anyone know if / how I can get my liability reduced (assuming the business owner is uncooperative)?

G_M

Who own the drive?


Irrespective, I imagine you'll need the agreement of each property owner since all their %s will have to alter. How many properties?


You might also need consent from your mortgage lender. As well as the lenders of all the other properties.....

Tom99

I doubt it. That would only be possible if the right of way had some sort of restriction on it.
Have you looked at the exact wording of the ROW for this end property.

jody62

G_M wrote: »

Who own the drive?

Irrespective, I imagine you'll need the agreement of each property owner since all their %s will have to alter. How many properties?

The house owner at the far end owns the drive.

Obviously we'd all need to agree any change in the percentages, but that's the problem. The major user of the drive is unlikely to willingly increase their liability from 50% to say 95%.

I guess what I wanted to know was whether there was an independent (legal) arbitrator who could rule that the existing arrangement was no longer fair, and that the major user must accept a change.

J.

davidmcn

Not unless there were already something along those lines in the title deeds. Didn't this come up during your purchase? Is there any sign of it even needing maintenance?

spadoosh

jody62 wrote: »

The house owner at the far end owns the drive.

Obviously we'd all need to agree any change in the percentages, but that's the problem. The major user of the drive is unlikely to willingly increase their liability from 50% to say 95%.

I guess what I wanted to know was whether there was an independent (legal) arbitrator who could rule that the existing arrangement was no longer fair, and that the major user must accept a change.

J.

But you signed up to it, presumably thinking it was fair. How do you now go about arguing that it is unfair? What material changes have happened between you finding out what you where agreeing to and signing and now has there been? Apart from the fact that youve now moved in and decided you dont want to pay for what you agreed to?

Sea_Shell

Has the business at the end of the drive actually got permission to run a business? Was it originally a private dwelling.

Has the use been officially changed?

You could use a different tactic of trying to stop them running a business from the premises, if it's not got permission.

Although that could cause you other problems instead.

Has damage to the drive actually occurred yet, or is it something you're anticipating?

jody62

spadoosh wrote: »

What material changes have happened between you finding out what you where agreeing to and signing and now has there been?

Despite viewing the property three times before buying we didn't appreciate the extent of the traffic until afterwards.

Even if we were aware of the traffic issue before we made the offer it doesn't change the fact that the land owner is an indifferent third party.

jody62

davidmcn wrote: »

Is there any sign of it even needing maintenance?

They have just unilaterally resurfaced two corners where pot holes had formed. I don't know how often partial repairs are deemed necessary. I'm expecting a bill any day...

jody62

Sea_Shell wrote: »

You could use a different tactic of trying to stop them running a business from the premises, if it's not got permission.

Rather than interfering with their business I'm considering refusing to pay unless they agree to a more favourable split...

spadoosh

jody62 wrote: »

Despite viewing the property three times before buying we didn't appreciate the extent of the traffic until afterwards.

Even if we were aware of the traffic issue before we made the offer it doesn't change the fact that the land owner is an indifferent third party.

Just to clarify. Land owner and business owner are different people but both on same street.

So the land owner is in the same position as you, ie disadvantage by disproportionate repair costs.

I cant imagine most people would be agreeable with this? Id assume they either arent that bothered (ie it doesnt actually require that much maintenance and costs are relatively low and infrequent) or they are unable to. Considering, your almost certainly going to have to get the business to relinquish what they have at their expense, i just dont see this getting anywhere.

Have you spoken to the landowner/neighbour?