Parking in a reversing bay; help needed!

gettingtheresometime

whilst I appreciate the van, where it's parked now, is a pita surely the buyer's searches will reveal that the spot isn't owned by the seller & at the moment, people are getting worked up potentially over nothing?

Cosmos12

gettingtheresometime said:

whilst I appreciate the van, where it's parked now, is a pita surely the buyer's searches will reveal that the spot isn't owned by the seller & at the moment, people are getting worked up potentially over nothing?

With luck, that'll be the case! Thanks for the image as well, Seradane. What's curious is that when I was chatting to my neighbour this morning, she mentioned that the council told her last year that they could potentially put down double yellow lines, but that we would have to pay for it as a shared expense with her. I wouldn't be averse to that, although I'm not sure the legality of getting anyone moved if it's considered private land and they are parked on the lines. Presumably it would be more of a visual deterrent that anything else, but if it would help I'd be up for it. 
I am currently drafting a letter to send to the estate agent advising them, but will first check if there is legal protection on mums insurance. 

Section62

Cosmos12 said:

gettingtheresometime said:

whilst I appreciate the van, where it's parked now, is a pita surely the buyer's searches will reveal that the spot isn't owned by the seller & at the moment, people are getting worked up potentially over nothing?

With luck, that'll be the case! Thanks for the image as well, Seradane. What's curious is that when I was chatting to my neighbour this morning, she mentioned that the council told her last year that they could potentially put down double yellow lines, but that we would have to pay for it as a shared expense with her. I wouldn't be averse to that, although I'm not sure the legality of getting anyone moved if it's considered private land and they are parked on the lines. Presumably it would be more of a visual deterrent that anything else, but if it would help I'd be up for it.

Do you know who owns the area of land which is brown hatched on the plan?  You would need their consent before making alterations to it (such as painting yellow lines).

Although yellow lines would be a good visual deterrent (more effective than a sign) you also need to bear in mind the negative visual impact on the properties - yellow lines don't look pretty, and nothing screams "Problem! Avoid!" more to a prospective purchaser than blatantly obvious parking issues/disputes.

If you were able to, and decided to go ahead with some form of markings then you don't need to limit yourself to using the council to putting them down if the land is private and you have the owners consent.  I would get a quote from the council, but then also get quotes from reputable line marking contractors operating in your area (including the one the council uses if you can find out who they are).  The council will likely add a percentage for supervision/admin, which you may feel is unnecessary.  On the other hand they might have negotiated contract rates which are far cheaper than anything you could get by going direct.

If the land is private there is nothing the council can do in relation to enforcement, even if they have painted yellow lines for you.

moneysavinghero

Does the van owners house not have any parking spaces on that side? Is it because they have cars parked in those spaces and they need an extra space for the van? Chances are the next owners won't have the van and so won't be a problem anyway.

But as someone else has suggested just tell the EA that they have two options:

1. Remove the parking space from the advertising for the property
2. Have to declare a neighbour dispute to the potential buyers

I am sure that would have it removed.

Cosmos12

moneysavinghero said:

Does the van owners house not have any parking spaces on that side? Is it because they have cars parked in those spaces and they need an extra space for the van? Chances are the next owners won't have the van and so won't be a problem anyway.

But as someone else has suggested just tell the EA that they have two options:

1. Remove the parking space from the advertising for the property
2. Have to declare a neighbour dispute to the potential buyers

I am sure that would have it removed.

I think the issue with parking is simply too many cars. As far as I know, they do have spaces assigned to them in a courtyard around the side. However, it may only be one space per home; of course, most of the properties have at least two cars to each house. I think someone is parking their car in his assigned space. 

Section62

HampshireH said:

I'm assuming 167 do not have right of way over this area if that is their back garden. But that's potentially a whole different problem (i.e. when their visitors start parking there)

I tend to agree with gettingtheresometime's view that number 165's parking in this spot is probably not much of an issue for now.  Once the van owner has moved away the problem will either disappear, or else it should be relatively easy to resolve by examination of the legal paperwork.

I also think you have identified what might become a more serious problem HampshireH.

The footway in front of 163/167 is clearly not included in the brown hatched area so presumably has different ownership/access rights associated with it. It also appears not to be part of 163/167's property - although it is difficult to tell for sure as the OS base of the plan the OP has downloaded for 167 is different to that of 169.

At a guess, it may be that 163/167 only have rights of access (on foot) using the strip of land demarcated on the ground as a footway.  If so, then habitual use of the brown hatched area by 167 to gain vehicular access to their 'parking' on their front garden might become a problem in the longer term.

I also agree that it is very important not to refer to any part of the brown hatched land as a 'bay'.  I would refer to it as 'manoeuvering space' - the intention likely being so 169 and the neighbour can turn around and either reverse onto their private parking area/garage, or turn around after reversing off their private parking.  In either case so they are then able to drive onto the public highway facing fowards, rather than having to reverse out onto the public highway.

For that reason I would also check the planning consent for the property/development to see if there are any conditions requiring this (and possibly similar) area(s) to be kept free of parked vehicles to ensure they can be used for their proper purpose.  That could give additional weight to the argument nobody should be parking there.

edgex

How is the maintenance of the roadway & pavement funded?
Do you all pay into one pot, or are there different charges for different properties (ie. are your Mom & the neighbour charged for the parts outside theirs, & the house that backs onto it not charged)

I wouldn't be happy with that garden opposite being used for parking, & I doubt the freeholder of the pavement would be happy with it being driven over.

princeofpounds

Section62 said:

The footway in front of 163/167 is clearly not included in the brown hatched area so presumably has different ownership/access rights associated with it. It also appears not to be part of 163/167's property - although it is difficult to tell for sure as the OS base of the plan the OP has downloaded for 167 is different to that of 169.

At a guess, it may be that 163/167 only have rights of access (on foot) using the strip of land demarcated on the ground as a footway.  If so, then habitual use of the brown hatched area by 167 to gain vehicular access to their 'parking' on their front garden might become a problem in the longer term.

I don't think there is any way you can conclude there is a problem with this.
- It's absolutely not clear that the footway is not included within 163/167's land. The footway, or indeed the turning space, does not even appear as a marked feature. 
- The outline plan on the land registry may differ from the original conveyance, in the same way that they do for the OP.
- If they have been accessing their land with a vehicle for 20 years they will have created an easement by prescription.
- There are potentially arguments for easement by implication depending on how their driveway/garden was originally constructed.
Anyway, this is all a matter for 163/167 and doesn't affect the OP in any great manner.

Section62

princeofpounds said:

I don't think there is any way you can conclude there is a problem with this.

Quite. Hence the use of the words "appears", "guess" and "might".  I'm not stating there is a problem as a matter of fact, just that this is something the OP needs to be aware of, and perhaps investigate further.

princeofpounds said:

- It's absolutely not clear that the footway is not included within 163/167's land. The footway, or indeed the turning space, does not even appear as a marked feature. 
- The outline plan on the land registry may differ from the original conveyance, in the same way that they do for the OP.

Agreed. Hence the reference to the difficulty of comparing plans using two (or three) different bases.

The reasoning behind my thoughts that the footway might not be within the property of 163/167 is this -
a) Projecting the line of the 'road' feature on 167's plan shows that it doesn't intersect with the front boundary line of 167. Although rather weak evidence, it does hint at the possibility of a strip of land in other ownership.
b) The plan in the OP's first post shows the green shaded area of number 169 extending at least half way across the end of the footway area. Leaving a gap perhaps equivalent in width to the concrete flag path to the side of 167.  If the footway belongs to 167 then you might expect 169's land to stop where the turning area touches the footway, rather than putting an unnecessary dog-leg in the boundary.  Again, weak evidence, but it points to a less than straightforward situation.
c) This is pure speculation, but there are other paths within the development such as the 'Y' shaped one in front of 165. I would be open to the possibility that paths/footways serving more than one property - but not adopted - might collectively be in the ownership of A N Other, who may in turn (possibly) be the freeholder of the turning area(s). I would be really surprised if 165 owned and was responsible for maintaining that 'Y'-shaped path.

The OP would need to do more research to find out.

princeofpounds said:

- If they have been accessing their land with a vehicle for 20 years they will have created an easement by prescription.
- There are potentially arguments for easement by implication depending on how their driveway/garden was originally constructed.

The OP said this was a recent change.  If so, the time to act is now.  Rather than waiting until the use has been established and/or the window for planning enforcement (if any is possible) has closed.

princeofpounds said:

Anyway, this is all a matter for 163/167 and doesn't affect the OP in any great manner.

If there was the potential for a third party to gain rights they don't currently have over an area of land I had an interest in (i.e. the turning area), then I would see it very much as an issue of concern to me.

Ultimately parking problems on the estate are unlikely to get any better - especially if residents want to park as close as possible to their house to charge an EV.  Given the difficulty of enforcing against parking on private land, the best solution is often to physically defend the boundary of the land to prevent unauthorised vehicles gaining access - for example by using a bollard to block the entrance.

If 167 has - or gains - access rights over the turning area then any opportunity 169 and the neighbour might have to defend this area with a bollard (or similar) will be lost, unless 167 is then also included in the arrangement.

Personally I would want to identify that as a risk, explore the different factors, and then take any appropriate action now.  Better that than it blow up in the middle of a conveyancing process at some point in the future.

Irishpearce26

I used to live in a similar property with shared access, no one owns it but everyone is responsible for its upkeep/repair. The access has two entry points, one neighbour always parked their car in one of the entry points which didn't obstruct us getting onto our driveway but it was annoying at times.

Make sure the EA is aware that this is ROW easement and no one should be parking on it nor should it be advertised within a sale of property. You want this nipped in the bud before a new owner comes in as they will just park there on the assumption that they own it.