Trespass

Davesnave

There are mad people wherever you go. Rising to the bait is pointless and counter-productive. If you feel threatened at any time, report to the police, but otherwise ignore, look at your phone and carry on as if she's not there.

Falafels

bouicca21 said:

It can be a privately owned road and still be a public highway - we have loads of them round my way.  The frontagers hate people using the roads and get very bad tempered, but there’s not a lot they can do about it.

By definition, a private road can't be a public highway, i.e. a road which is maintained at public expense.

However, it can certainly have a public right of way on it. We've recently moved to a house on a private road which has one; the RoW is signposted at one end, and the other end peters out into a track leading onto open countryside and is used by dog walkers. It's all very nice!

Sandtree

Murphybear said:

Are the postmen trespassing?  Perhaps the RM should write to the owners saying they would have to collect their post in future 

People acting in certain roles, police, fireman, postman etc are licensees by virtue of performing their role and so do not trespass 

Section62

Ms_Chocaholic said:

Yeah I can't see it on a public right of way, is there a good website I can use to search.

The local Highway Authority has to keep a record of public rights of way. Most of them publish a copy of the information on their website. Google "Definitive Map" or "Rights of Way" ("PROW") with the name of the local council with responsibility for roads in your area. That will usually either be a country council, or the unitary authority.

FaceHead said:

I'd propose trying to get the public right of way formally recorded. It sounds as if the public has had 20 years of access. Indeed a condition of the transfer could have been a continued public right of way. There should be a process with your local authority for unrecorded rights of way.

Removing public rights and making a road 'private' is a rare thing - usually it only happens if a new alternative route has been built or provided, or if the whole road is being removed as part of a development. If there was a public right on foot then it is very unlikely that was removed, unless there was a suitable alternative, and if it remains a public right of way then by now it should be recorded on the definitive map and have signposts where it leaves the public highway.

Because removing public rights is a rare thing, it is highly unlikely that the council wouldn't be aware of a remaining public right on foot, if one existed.

Falafels said:

Unless there is a public right of way on a private road, the latter can only be accessed with the consent of the landowner.

As the OP is accessing the portion of the road with the actual consent of a landowner, and the others don't seem to care, there shouldn't be a problem. The neighbour with the camera can be safely ignored.

I think what matters here is the nature of the agreement between the people who own the road. They have, presumably, given each other like rights to pass over each other's land which makes up the private road, or possibly only that part which needs to be used to access their own property. The specific wording of that agreement is important. E.g. if it says the road can only be used by the owner and their visitors then Mr Johnson cannot give Ms_Chocaholic permission to use it as she is, as she would be using it as a 'cut through' rather than for the purposes of 'visiting' Mr Johnson. If Ms_Chocaholic uses the road to (genuinely) visit Mr Johnson that would be fine, and she doesn't need to leave the way she arrived, so using the 'cut through' would be Ok so long as the principal purpose had been to visit Mr Johnson.

Even though he is the landowner, Mr Johnson's right to grant other people rights will be constrained by the pre-existing agreement.

What also matters is the nature of the 'cut through'. Does it connect one public right of way to another, or is it being used to access private property?

[Deleted User]

She is within her rights to film in a public place.  
Neither of you appear to be breaking any laws so just crack on with it and let her do whatever she wants to do

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q717.htm#:~:text=It is not illegal to take photographs or,to ask permission or may be prevented altogether.

Jeepers_Creepers

Falafels said:

FaceHead said:

I'd propose trying to get the public right of way formally recorded. It sounds as if the public has had 20 years of access. Indeed a condition of the transfer could have been a continued public right of way. There should be a process with your local authority for unrecorded rights of way.

That's the point. There ISN'T a public right of way, but one of the landowners has kindly granted access to the OP; the fact that the OP is using the road as a short cut hardly constitutes 'the public having 20 years of access'!

OP - I suggest that if you want to avoid all the landowners telling you to keep off, as they are legally entitled to do, you leave it right there. 

Cool! Sorted!

Enjoy :-)

sheramber

 In this case the land owner has given permission
 https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land
You have the right to access some land for walking or certain other leisure activities.

You can:

• use public roads and pavements or public rights of way, for example footpaths or bridleways
• use your right to roam on open access land including mountains, moors, heaths, downs, common land and some land around the England Coast Path

If neither of these apply, you may still be able to access private land if:

• the land was used as a public right of way in the past - check old maps and documents
• the land was accessed by the public for at least 20 years and nobody has asked them to stop
• the landowner has given permission (‘permissive access’)

Weathergirl_76

Does she know you are there with permission of one of the landowners? Trespass is civil, so if she wants to prosecute, she will need to get a solicitor etc.

Ms_Chocaholic

Yes she is aware

lincroft1710

The woman can only sue and unless she can prove the OP's "trespass" caused damage to her property any case would be dismissed