Access to rear gardens under one ownership.

Jeepers_Creepers

Little update. Sis was talking to one of the affected neighbs, and she said her deeds state that she's allowed 'fair and reasonable' access to that rear path. (Sorry, I don't have the complete wording as written, but that's the stand-out phrase).

At first glance, this seems like yet another messy term that is open to interpretation; what's considered 'fair & reasonable' by one person, ain't necessarily so by another. Why are these things written so carply, as if they are intended to be clarified only by an actual legal case when 2 neighbs fall out over it...

Up until the gates were padlocked (by the way, these gates were fitted by the developers and were present from day one), the 2 affected neighbs have used this access to get their garden and recycling bins out to where they can be collected, and one neighb's new partner was using it to get his bike out which is kept in the rear garden - there is no room at the front for a bike shed.

Thoughts? 

bouicca21

The question is, fair and reasonable access to do what?

Mojisola

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Little update. Sis was talking to one of the affected neighbs, and she said her deeds state that she's allowed 'fair and reasonable' access to that rear path.
Up until the gates were padlocked (by the way, these gates were fitted by the developers and were present from day one), the 2 affected neighbs have used this access to get their garden and recycling bins out to where they can be collected, and one neighb's new partner was using it to get his bike out which is kept in the rear garden - there is no room at the front for a bike shed.

There's no way that this usage would be considered anything other than 'fair and reasonable'.

NameUnavailable

There could be a case for criminal damage as the neighbour has no right to interfere with the other properties and damaging their gates fitting padlocks.......

Norman_Castle

Its pointless having a path if its only purpose is to allow maintenance. If it wasn't intended to be used for bins, bikes etc extending the gardens over it would have been done with the current owner having no access.

As the properties are only 13 years old is there access to the planning application. This may have insisted on rear access possibly due to wheelie bins becoming commonplace. If it is mentioned its intended purpose may be better worded than in the lease.

Jeepers_Creepers

Thanks all.

Bouicca - sorry I don't have the full text, but I assume it's 'fair and reasonable' access to the path for gaining access to the gardens. 

I tried a quick LA search for planning for that estate, but it doesn't appear. I'll suggest they try contacting the council directly instead to see if they can shed any light on it.

I agree Mojisola - getting your garden waste out via the rear path is the only sensible way. 

And NameUnavailable, I'd be quite happy to go there with a cordless grinder and do the deed for them - that aspect of her actions is definitely unacceptable regardless of what the deeds say about access.

greatcrested

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Little update. Sis was talking to one of the affected neighbs, and she said her deeds state that she's allowed 'fair and reasonable' access to that rear path. (Sorry, I don't have the complete wording as written, but that's the stand-out phrase).

Thoughts? 

So more supposition and guesswork based on a 3rd party's possibly accurate/inaccurate quote fron the deeds....

I really don't understand the reason for not examining the actual deeds, nor don't see the point in speculating without that.

Jeepers_Creepers

Yeah yeah, I know I know... :-(  I keep asking her if they've examined it further, but just keep getting drips. So I thought I'd pass them along on here as I know it annoys folk so much :-)

I promise only to come back when I have proper stuff :-D

Jamaicanmelaff

In all honesty, if I were you or your friend and were this curious I'd have already downloaded the LR deeds for all of those properties so I could see the wording myself. 

Jeepers_Creepers

One of the affected house owners do have their deeds, apparently - it's just that I'm getting bitsy third-hand info... 

Damn, I promised not to reply.