Access to rear gardens under one ownership.

Jeepers_Creepers

Update.
One of the affected neighbours took the path owner ('bad' neighbour) to court to regain access to their back alleyway as it their right. 'Bad' neigh was ordered to remove the padlocks and allow all the affected neighbs their unfettered access back. Padlocks finally removed.

Just been told that this sorry behaviour has cost the 'bad' neighbour in excess of £35k to defend, and she is now having to sell her house.
This is all tragic, since this neighbour clearly has some significant emotional and behavioural issues, and her action in locking off all the gates was clearly ultimately untenable. What manner of solicitor  would take on such a case, and end her up with such costs? I guess they'll argue that it isn't for them to 'judge', but to simply act for their client. If it's as simple as that, what a flawed system. You'd hope there would be an overseeing body to whom you could refer your client for such blatantly 'nutjob' cases - "If you don't believe me when I say you shouldn't pursue this, then listen to them..."?

Reginald74

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Update.
One of the affected neighbours took the path owner ('bad' neighbour) to court to regain access to their back alleyway as it their right. 'Bad' neigh was ordered to remove the padlocks and allow all the affected neighbs their unfettered access back. Padlocks finally removed.

Just been told that this sorry behaviour has cost the 'bad' neighbour in excess of £35k to defend, and she is now having to sell her house.
This is all tragic, since this neighbour clearly has some significant emotional and behavioural issues, and her action in locking off all the gates was clearly ultimately untenable. What manner of solicitor  would take on such a case, and end her up with such costs? I guess they'll argue that it isn't for them to 'judge', but to simply act for their client. If it's as simple as that, what a flawed system. You'd hope there would be an overseeing body to whom you could refer your client for such blatantly 'nutjob' cases - "If you don't believe me when I say you shouldn't pursue this, then listen to them..."?

Sounds like a good outcome, especially if she must move away.

I wouldn't be feeling too sorry for her. She has caused the whole row significant issues in a really selfish way for some time.

Thanks for the update/s.

Gavin83

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Just been told that this sorry behaviour has cost the 'bad' neighbour in excess of £35k to defend, and she is now having to sell her house.

On the plus side at least that resolves the issues.

It is sad she’s having to sell her home but she only has herself to blame. There are always consequences to your actions.

Section62

Jeepers_Creepers said:

This is all tragic, since this neighbour clearly has some significant emotional and behavioural issues, and her action in locking off all the gates was clearly ultimately untenable. What manner of solicitor  would take on such a case, and end her up with such costs? I guess they'll argue that it isn't for them to 'judge', but to simply act for their client. If it's as simple as that, what a flawed system. You'd hope there would be an overseeing body to whom you could refer your client for such blatantly 'nutjob' cases - "If you don't believe me when I say you shouldn't pursue this, then listen to them..."?

This is the problem whenever someone thinks 'going legal' is the best way to deal with their issue.  You can usually find someone willing to represent you, they start billing you, you get more 'invested' in your case because you've spent money and so less willing to drop it.  Whilst common sense would say 'give it up', people in this situation just keep on going until the bitter end.  For some the bitter end will come when they run out of money and the solicitor drops them just like that... with no options left for recovery of what's been spent.

Hence the flavouring of the advice I'd always give to people to only consider starting the 'legal' route (which includes sending letters before action/claim) if they have given thought to whether they have all that it takes (money/time/emotional strength) to see it through.  The consequences of ill-advised litigation can be serious (like losing your home).

The 'overseeing body' is effectively the judicial system - setting the rules in such a way that no-hope cases are often dropped long before court.  Or requiring mediation before starting a legal case.  But at the end of the day we do need to let 'nutjobs' have their right to access the legal system.  One person's 'nutjob' could be another person's new case law.  We have a legal system in which a lot of the law is based on the outcomes of cases that were pursued by people who could easily have been dismissed as 'nutjobs' at the time. That should never be forgotten.

canaldumidi

As I've always advocated:

Jeepers_Creepers

canaldumidi said:

As I've always advocated:

Of course, cana, but if you've read this thread, you'll know that this person is very disturbed.

The neighbs have tried to be understanding and tolerant, but she is off the scale. Anyone sitting in a car for a few minutes once parked up, is often confronted and accused of 'casing the joint'. Neighbs walking past her parked car is usually followed by her running out and checking her car for 'vandalism'. Two people chatting within 30 yards are confronted as to what they are saying about her. Cat sh**t being thrown and posted through letterboxes. Stones being thrown at cats. 

Please post your address and a suitable time for tea and cakes. I'll pass on your invite

Jeepers_Creepers

Section62 said:

The 'overseeing body' is effectively the judicial system - setting the rules in such a way that no-hope cases are often dropped long before court.  Or requiring mediation before starting a legal case.  But at the end of the day we do need to let 'nutjobs' have their right to access the legal system.  One person's 'nutjob' could be another person's new case law.  We have a legal system in which a lot of the law is based on the outcomes of cases that were pursued by people who could easily have been dismissed as 'nutjobs' at the time. That should never be forgotten.

Yes, I see your point.

The system has surely failed in this case, tho'. 

robatwork

canaldumidi said:

As I've always advocated:

I now realise who you are!

bouicca21

robatwork said:

I now realise who you are!

Shhh!  

canaldumidi

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Please post your address and a suitable time for tea and cakes. I'll pass on your invite

The Mad Hatter's House

The Garden

The Rabbit Hole

TE3  0FF

(and it's always tea time, though there's never wine.)