Opinions on this boundary required please.

leonj

Its not shared at all. Everything included in the red line is theres, which is in line with the garage. The other house has a narrow strip maybe for pedestrian acces?

leonj

Its not shared at all. Everything included in the red line is theres, which is in line with the garage. The other house has a narrow strip maybe for pedestrian acces?

Jeepers_Creepers

That's how it looks - No1 has what appears to be clearly a car-width space within their boundary line and it heads straight to the garage behind their house, but No2's boundary line only encompasses a marrower strip, so is possibly just to allow pedestrian and bin access to their garden. 

HOWEVER, the deeds for both might make it clear that both have rights of access over the whole width if required.

I suspect No2 is legally ok in parking their bike on their side, but it mustn't interfere with No1's access to their garage - it would be a shame if their car accidentally nudged the bike off its stand. And if they allow their kids to play on the whole drive - it would be a shame if... 

But, it's wot is in the deeds. 

princeofpounds

Jeepers is right. The boundary appears to be defined by a line that runs from the side wall of no. 1's garage. A boundary is (with some less usual exceptions) defined by physical features on the ground which the general boundaries on a title plan are intended to help identify. In the absence of a fence or kerb or similar feature, the garage is clearly quite fundamental to the boundary line. Just to be clear - no-one should be tempted to get our their tape measure and scale from the plan - it doesn't work that way!

Equally clearly, however, no. 2 does own a strip of land, presumably smaller, along the outside of their house.

It is impossible to say whether this is a shared drive or not based on this plan alone. Normally, if it is, there will be coloured/hatched area on the plan. The title deeds will contain a paragraph outlining the terms of shared access. You also must download the title plan and deeds for no. 2. It may contain important information relevant to this. Given the limited evidence you have shown so far it does not look likely that it is a shared drive, although the lack of coloured hatching is not at all definitive without examination of the text in the deeds, and this tentative conclusion could easily be overturned with new information from no. 2's deeds.

Assuming that is the case for now, it's very easy to see why this misunderstanding is arising. Both parties appear to believe something incorrect. No 1. is incorrect to believe they own the whole space. No 2. is incorrect to believe it is a shared drive (at least, anything beyond the strip that they own). They need to have a calm discussion with the evidence in front of them. Then they either agree to keep things as they are, but use the space consistently with respect for the other's ownership of their respective parts, or they erect a boundary feature. Then No. 2 can park their bike, move their bins, and have their children play as much as they like, but on their own side. The fact that there appears to be a single gate spanning the whole width is a problem (and a hint that a share drive is still a possibility) but as things stand No 1. should not deny No 2 access through that gate. 

But I'll say it again - that's all just an assumption for now. 

It does not sounds right that you are being asked for the title deeds at £7 a page. I don't know where you are looking so it's hard to suggest what's going on, but it's always been £3 for the electronic copy whenever I've had cause to use it.

Davesnave

I think someone had better get over the coronary risk and download the relevant documentation to find out what's really what. Everything else is mere speculation and the cost for peace of mind (or otherwise!) is minimal.

zagubov

princeofpounds said:

Jeepers is right. The boundary appears to be defined by a line that runs from the side wall of no. 1's garage. A boundary is (with some less usual exceptions) defined by physical features on the ground which the general boundaries on a title plan are intended to help identify. In the absence of a fence or kerb or similar feature, the garage is clearly quite fundamental to the boundary line. Just to be clear - no-one should be tempted to get our their tape measure and scale from the plan - it doesn't work that way!

Equally clearly, however, no. 2 does own a strip of land, presumably smaller, along the outside of their house.

It is impossible to say whether this is a shared drive or not based on this plan alone. Normally, if it is, there will be coloured/hatched area on the plan. The title deeds will contain a paragraph outlining the terms of shared access. You also must download the title plan and deeds for no. 2. It may contain important information relevant to this. Given the limited evidence you have shown so far it does not look likely that it is a shared drive, although the lack of coloured hatching is not at all definitive without examination of the text in the deeds, and this tentative conclusion could easily be overturned with new information from no. 2's deeds.

Assuming that is the case for now, it's very easy to see why this misunderstanding is arising. Both parties appear to believe something incorrect. No 1. is incorrect to believe they own the whole space. No 2. is incorrect to believe it is a shared drive (at least, anything beyond the strip that they own). They need to have a calm discussion with the evidence in front of them. Then they either agree to keep things as they are, but use the space consistently with respect for the other's ownership of their respective parts, or they erect a boundary feature. Then No. 2 can park their bike, move their bins, and have their children play as much as they like, but on their own side. The fact that there appears to be a single gate spanning the whole width is a problem (and a hint that a share drive is still a possibility) but as things stand No 1. should not deny No 2 access through that gate. 

But I'll say it again - that's all just an assumption for now. 

It does not sounds right that you are being asked for the title deeds at £7 a page. I don't know where you are looking so it's hard to suggest what's going on, but it's always been £3 for the electronic copy whenever I've had cause to use it.

According to this webpage , it looks like it's £7 for a physical copy by post and still just £3 for an electronic version.

SameOldRoundabout

Looking at the plan I would agree that house 2 only has pedestrian access. Doubtful wide enough for a motorbike. Like everyone else has said you need to see the deeds for right of way etc. If there is not right over the whole driveway (ie if next door may use it solely for pedestrian access to their back gate) and I was house 1 I would fence off my section and change the gate at the bottom to get the same width, therefore no more neighbour issues. If they have rights over the whole width even without owning more than a strip then it becomes more blurry.