Shared drive with neighbours - Am I not allowed to block my own half of the drive?

greatcrested

OP talks of a 'shared drive', but it's really not clear if that is the case. He also says ownership is divided down the middle (with space for 2 adjacent vehicles each side).

Nowhere does the OP say that either has a ROW (or ROA) over the other's land. It sounds more likely that these are 2 adjacent drives that happen to have no physical divide between them.

The dropped kerb seems to span the centre of the 2 drives ie one car's width for each drive.

So unless the Deeds of either or both houses specify a ROW/ROA over the other's drive, they should (legally) access their own drive via the half of the dropped kerb in front of their own drive.

In practice, this is difficult for the neighbour because of the lamp post, and any reasonable neighbour would allow/facilitate his neighbour to use his own drive briefly for access on an informal basis.

As someone who has had to pay a ticket for parking across a dropped kerb, I would advise the OP's guests not to park there a) to avoid tickets and b) in the interests of being a good neighbour.

DiamondLil

muffingg said:

Even if the person they are blocking in allows them to park across their drive? Surely it's only annoying the person who is getting blocked?

Where I live, the parking control unit make regular checks and will ticket a car across a dropped kerb. Regardless of 'permission' granted or not.

numbercruncher8

Barny1979 said:

numbercruncher8 said:

PCN code 27 covers parking in front of a dropped kerb. In practice though, if you owned the dropped kerb/property it provides access to, the guest could get the ticket cancelled on appeal as you have given permission.

Often Local Authorities now want permission in writing to issue PCNs made from the resident, but it is caveated that permission to issue a PCN covers any vehicle, so residents or owners could be issued and an appeal would be unsuccessful.

Invariably I have found traffic wardens are pretty much of the 'shoot first, ask later' type. There is no real downside for them to write a ticket, even if it is incorrect as most don't end up being appealed at Tribunal (when it costs them money).

The relevant exemption to code 27 is:

A vehicle parked outside a residential premises by or with

the consent of the occupier of the premises (but not in the

case of a shared driveway).

So if you lived there that and conferred permission you could easily get a ticket (the traffic warden isn't going to know from your car whether you have permission or not). But it would be scrubbed once you proved you occupied the property.

Not sure this helps OP much though. In theory, the neighbour could report the cars and they could be ticketed if it is deemed the access is shared.

muffingg

numbercruncher8 said:

Would it just not be easier to tell your guests to park somewhere else?

I visit someone with a similar set up, except that the dropped kerb runs double length, and there is no lamp-post. I don't park on half of the dropped kerb and think it's a bit disrespectful to the neighbours. There is ample space for the neighbours car to enter/leave the drive if I parked there, but I am mindful with my car there they would have to take a tighter turn into the drive, or restricts their view when leaving.

Ideally, I always try that my guests park as much to the right side as possible. But this isn't always possible because the road I live on has very few parking spaces (everyone has off-street parking) and the nearest space to park is often a good few minute walk away and my parents can't walk much. I would've thought it's no issue if they block the front of my own house. Surely the only person to complain about that is me as it's my house. And if I give permission to them to do so, it's no problem for anyone is it? The neighbours are just unlucky with the lamppost being there but that's not really our fault. Their workaround is to take a few seconds extra and squeeze into their drive still relatively comfortably. But they're making a fuss out of it...

couriervanman

OP needs to post a couple of photos 

trex227

couriervanman said:

That picture looks to me that 
1....you could put a fence down the middle as it doesn't look like a shared driveway rather a modern house where the developers couldn't be bothered with the extra expense
or
2....The neighbour originally had a single driveway but knocked down a bit more wall to make a double driveway either way it doesn't look like a shared driveway

Exactly this- I live in a 1930s semi where there is nothing separating our drive and our non-attached neighbour's drive. The previous owners of both properties got both drives done at the same time, I assume as it was cheaper. It makes getting the bins out from the side of the houses etc a bit easier. We get on great with our neighbours. We don't have any lamppost restricting either side, although on their side the dropped kerb only covers half of their drive due to there having been bushes and a fence across half their drive when the kerb was dropped.

All the other identical houses have fences between them and their neighbours. There is nothing in our title that would prevent us putting a fence between our houses if we wished. You really need to check your title documents.

muffingg

Stratus said:

I imagine when these houses were originally built they each had a front garden which has since been paved over to provide additional parking. The original drive may have been shared in order to access garages behind each house. This would explain the limited length of dropped kerb.
Living in a community involves a bit of give and take. I think a bit more giving by the OP is required here.

I don't understand why everyone is so against us. Couldn't one also argue that if it's only a matter of taking 5-10 seconds extra for them to park in their drive, they should just put up with it and not make a fuss about it? It's not even an everyday occasion. It's only happened  2-3 times in the past 6 months.

Barny1979

numbercruncher8 said:

Barny1979 said:

numbercruncher8 said:

PCN code 27 covers parking in front of a dropped kerb. In practice though, if you owned the dropped kerb/property it provides access to, the guest could get the ticket cancelled on appeal as you have given permission.

Often Local Authorities now want permission in writing to issue PCNs made from the resident, but it is caveated that permission to issue a PCN covers any vehicle, so residents or owners could be issued and an appeal would be unsuccessful.

Invariably I have found traffic wardens are pretty much of the 'shoot first, ask later' type. There is no real downside for them to write a ticket, even if it is incorrect as most don't end up being appealed at Tribunal (when it costs them money).

The relevant exemption to code 27 is:

A vehicle parked outside a residential premises by or with

the consent of the occupier of the premises (but not in the

case of a shared driveway).

So if you lived there that and conferred permission you could easily get a ticket (the traffic warden isn't going to know from your car whether you have permission or not). But it would be scrubbed once you proved you occupied the property.

Not sure this helps OP much though. In theory, the neighbour could report the cars and they could be ticketed if it is deemed the access is shared.

Traffic Wardens no longer exist, disappeared as part of change from DPE to CPE. They are Civil Enforcement Officers and if they generate lots of PCNs and subsequent appeals, this is not cost-efficient. As I said authorities in some areas ask for written permission to enforce, therefore if the residency has a request to enforce, it can be issued a PCN.

swingaloo

Is the neighbours  view obstructed when they try to get or out of the drive when you have guests parking there. You have already said that parking is an issue in your road. As you have 2 cars parked on your drive on the front of the house why not move one of those a bit further away from the house when your parents are coming. That way your parents can park on your frontage and they will have no walking to do and your neighbour's wont get irritable about having to maneuver to get onto their frontage. I suspect that from you saying you have a lot of guest and that parking is an issue in your road that maybe your neighbour's are just a bit fed up especially if you are giving them the 'I can block my side if I like' attitude.

Soot2006

muffingg said:

Stratus said:

I imagine when these houses were originally built they each had a front garden which has since been paved over to provide additional parking. The original drive may have been shared in order to access garages behind each house. This would explain the limited length of dropped kerb.
Living in a community involves a bit of give and take. I think a bit more giving by the OP is required here.

I don't understand why everyone is so against us. Couldn't one also argue that if it's only a matter of taking 5-10 seconds extra for them to park in their drive, they should just put up with it and not make a fuss about it? It's not even an everyday occasion. It's only happened  2-3 times in the past 6 months.

You haven't responded to the ROW/ROA query.

It would be helpful and would change the way people are viewing the situation I think.

Basically, in my eyes: if there is a ROW/ROA then you're the annoying one.  If there isn't, then the neighbour is the annoying one. Do they actually cross your driveway or just your half of the dropped kerb? My neighbourhood is full of geometrically interesting parking situations from converted front gardens, etc. Where there are fences/hedges blocking a bigger access across someone else's dropped kerb or driveway, people just have to live with it, playing musical cars, etc ...