Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

adriandilly

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Greatgimp

Would the new surface be better or worse on your land? If it's better, I'd let them do it and prove it's yours if and when you ever need to.

princeofpounds

The key to title plans is that you don't get out a measuring tape. It doesn't work that way. You identify boundary features on the ground that match up with the general boundary indicated on the title plan.

It appears that the orange area is partially bounded by the driveway tarmac itself, which appears to roughly match the plan - I assume the layout is still original. The front of it is bounded by the pavement - also quite clear.

The dividing line with the blue area does not really match up to any feature, so I don't think there is really anything to assume except that it's a halfway split. It appears to be sited halfway across the width of the tarmac entrance, which it roughly the same as halfway across the upper mouth of the dropped kerb. 

As for the edge of the orange area that joins up to the main part of the neighbour's property, that appears to be defined by the straight line of the side boundary between the two properties.

Yes, in practice, it looks like the orange area is actually relatively narrow as reality doesn't quite match up to the title plan. Specifically, the long side boundary between the two properties appears on the plan to intersect the very corner of the mouth of the driveway/dropped kerb. In practice, it is actually a few feet across to the 'right' as observed from your photo. 

It is odd to have areas defined by a feature like a tarmac driveway where the layout is actually rather discretionary.

davidmcn

It looks like the neighbours are occupying an area further to their side than is shown on the plan, and the area "shared" in practice appears to be minimal. Do you know whether the layout was changed since the date of your deed plan?

getmore4less

Have a look at the planning as well of 9ten that can be a little more obvious where things should be. 
Orange bit looks like the left side is roughly in line with the property boundary and the right side around 1/2 way to your front windows, dropped kerb lines up about the same 

Was the white path original, looks like that is parallel to their house wall. 

The orange bit includes part below the white path and would be a lot more than 12" on that plan/pic. 

Needs a more aerial view to confirm. 

leonj

I think the orange bit goes to where there is already a mark on the drive

Black_Cat2

Don't want to alarm you but there's some large black unidentified (possibly alien) blobs from another dimension congregating outside your house 👽👾

Black_Cat2

adriandilly said:

Black_Cat2 said:

Don't want to alarm you but there's some large black unidentified (possibly alien) blobs from another dimension congregating outside your house 👽👾

If they leave some of that blob on the driveway so we don't have to surface it, then I'd be very grateful to them. 

Lol!  I'm sure you'll get more constructive comments than mine and good luck 🐈

Petriix

It's incredibly simple: the orange and blue areas each represent half of the driveway opening measured from where it intersects the pavement. Ignore the position of the houses, it's just the driveway opening.

You each own your half, even though the centre line doesn't align with the rest of the property boundary. You each have access to the whole width of the driveway opening. There is nothing ambiguous about that whatsoever.

princeofpounds

adriandilly said:

 If that line were to be moved over in line with where the blue and orange meet, then the plan makes a lot more (but not total) sense, albeit not in my favour.

In essence:
Is the shared section the orange and the neighbour's responsibility? [Dropped kerb drawn wrong. No need for a blue area] 
Or
Is the shared section the orange + blue (me blue, them orange) ? 
[Where is the blue area? Orange area is very narrow]

On a plan with very little clarity, I believe the only real clue is the midpoint of the dropped kerb (if drawn correctly). 

First, your questions. If what you have related about what your solicitor said is trur...

You own and are responsible for surfacing the blue section. Your neighbour owns and is responsible for surfacing the orange section. You both have rights to use both sections. Ownership and responsibility is not at all shared, but the right of access is shared across both areas. 

(To further confuse matters, you probably both have rights to repair - but not to change - each other's blue/orange section if it falls into disrepair, but we can ignore that for now.)

Yes, it appears there is no boundary feature that relates to the dotted line between the blue and orange sections, so it is probably the correct assumption that it is at the midpoint of the dropped kerb (or more specifically, where your driveways open onto the dropped kerb, which happens to be the same).

As I stated earlier, because the distance between this line and the main boundary line that runs down the side of the properties (that determines the other side of the orange space) is quite small, then yes, the orange space is fairly narrow. A bit more than the foot you keep suggesting, from a quick eyeball, but still nowhere near as large as the blue space would be.

That does not matter! Yes, the orange and the blue space seem similarly-sized on the plan. But as I said previously, you do not get a ruler out and measure from the plan. Legal boundaries are determined by the reality of boundary features on the ground, not by scaling from the general boundaries on the plan. 

The reason for the discrepancy between the plan and the ground is quite clear. On the plan the middle of the dropped kerb is directly in front of the side wall of the front projection of your house, but in reality it is much closer to the side wall of the main part of your house. The council basically came along and built it in a slightly different place to where it is on the plan - moved to the left in your photo - and the builder presumably then moved the driveway entrance to match. The plan was never amended.

I do understand the confusion. There is an argument that could be made that other features should be used to define the boundary between the blue and the orange, such as that side wall of the front projection of your house that I just mentioned. That would make the orange area very large, and the blue area very small. I do not believe that in a legal dispute that view would win out (but that is just a lay opinion). That's because those features are not proximate to or clearly aligned with the boundary being discussed, and because the original intention appears to have been specifically to split the driveway mouth in half.

I know you don't want a red/black line in the wrong place. Ultimately, this is not something worth getting into a big dispute about. A few inches of shared driveway here or there have no particular value. Nor would they affect either party's use of the whole area because, if nothing else, we can say that the shared rights of use certainly span the whole mouth of the dropped kerb. They are not affected by the position of the boundary between orange and blue because you can both use both sides.

This is why your talk of 'not in my favour' and 'false impression of rights' doesn't make much sense. A couple of feet to the left or right have little practical effect on either party.

A court would not look kindly on a dispute like this coming to their attention. At the very worst, you could jointly instruct an experienced boundary surveyor to given their expert opinion (they know all about the legal conventions for interpreting plans that are a bit awry) and settle on that basis.

So I hope you work it out ok.

greatcrested

Since you get on well, can you not just agree to tarmac both your drives at the same time in the same colour, and not get into a slanging match about "that bits mine" Vs "No the border here here!"

And if "The neighbours seem much more skilled at this than us," can they not do the whole lot? Bung them a few quid....