Nightmare Neighbour parking dispute

Grumpy_chap

If the OP takes this via the legal route, they will have to declare a dispute whenever they eventually sell and move, even if many years from now.

DayDreamerandGeneralWaster

Personally as annoying as this can be if they aren't stopping you from accessing your property l wouldn't worry. There is a real possibility of this escalating and you ending up you had left it alone in first place.

Slithery

Grumpy_chap said:

If the OP takes this via the legal route, they will have to declare a dispute whenever they eventually sell and move, even if many years from now.

It's too late for that, the OP will already have to declare it.

Greymug

What if you hit his car with your car by going in reverse? Would he be liable to pay for the damages because he's parked somewhere he shouldn't?

If so, problem solved.

user1977

Greymug said:

What if you hit his car with your car by going in reverse? Would he be liable to pay for the damages because he's parked somewhere he shouldn't?

Don't be silly. The courts generally take the view that stationary objects are to be avoided when you're manoeuvring..

user1977

letsbetfair said:

if things go improbably well, you'll get an obscenely expensive and almost impossible to enforce piece of paper asking your neighbour to move his car 1m.

Quite, what's the next step if the injunction is breached? You still have to phone 101 and hope the police are any more interested than they otherwise would be. They might prioritise the "ex-partner not to come within 100 metres of the matrimonial home" type of injunctions, but this is still just a neighbour parking dispute.

GixerKate

So in summary you want to take your neighbour to court because a bit of his car is in front of your house?  Its not blocking your access, just doesn't look very nice?  Am I missing something because although vaguely annoying it doesn't sound like something that can be actioned...

Chandler85

I understand that it might be trivial, but these kind of disputes tend to be the ones that balloon over time and can end up much worse unless it is nipped in the bud early on.  Like bin disputes etc, people ignore them as trivial and no one should concern and people have ended up murdered over what was a petty argument, not saying this will happen in this case but trivial now, does not mean trivial forever.

Police enforce dropped kerbs when you are blocked into your drive though, if you can get out then they won't have the car removed.  They often won't even have it removed if the person is blocking you from entering your driveway more often then not, as those powers have been removed and given to the local authority traffic officers.

Section62

AdrianC said:

Highway Code rule 243 is advice only, with no legal weight behind it.

Rule 243 is an example where localised changes to legislation have made the UK-wide Highway Code out of date and potentially misleading.

The legal basis for the rule "Do not park in front of an entrance to a property" depends on exactly where you are in the country.

Section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 prohibits parking (with exceptions) adjacent to [dropped] kerbs (or raised carriageways) but applies only in Special Enforcement Areas (SPA).  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/86

So in some areas the "Do not park..." rule for entrances to properties is enforced as a parking contravention by the local authority (as per tasticz's example).

To accurately explain the rules on parking in front of dropped kerbs would require a couple of pages in the Highway Code, not a single bullet point in one rule. It also isn't clear how a motorist is expected to know whether they are in a SPA or not, as there is no signage stating "You are now entering/leaving a Special Enforcement Area".

Edit: Also worth noting that not all property entrances have dropped kerbs, the specific wording of S86 refers to where "the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway"

Marija_1

Thanks everyone for your responses. There’s conflicting info from the various authorities regarding this and the last thing I want to do is commence down a civil action route if it’s counterproductive.

To reply to an earlier poster - I’m in north of England, not London.

It seems that the parking encroachment may be unenforceable. It is disappointing that the local council and police provide advice regarding this inferring that an obstruction, even partial, of someone’s property entrance or partial parking of a vehicle over a lowered kerb is enforceable….with the council stating the parking over a lowered kerb “is illegal” and to report this to the police.

Just to clarify, the parking issue may seem trivial in isolation to some, but this has only been part of a wider nuisance campaign. I omitted the below from my OP to specifically question the parking aspect.

Within the past 3 years, this neighbour committed a series of trespasses on to the rear of my property and without my permission : dumped a large quantity of sawn wood planks on my decking, when I was recuperating from serious injuries, and refused to remove it, sawed up the side of my decking next to where he was to erect his fence, defaced my light-coloured rear fence with black paint, laid paving stones under his fence which encroach onto my side, erected a hard-wired security camera on my rear wall, and to run his wire through cut into and damaged my soffit exposing it to the elements/birds etc…

But the worst by far was his prolonged torturous 7 days a week industrial machinery noise. He effectively uses his property for vehicle bodywork repairs (mainly on his own vehicles which he has under some form of commercial motor policy) – hence why he uses his driveway to work on one vehicle at a time, and his vehicle ends up encroaching onto my space. This prevented me from being able to home work and I almost lost my job during lockdown due to this. He has recently been served a noise abatement notice from the council.

I found he has a restricted covenant on his property which effectively states he can’t use his property for any trade business or manufacture or other purpose that may be an annoyance to the neighbourhood or detrimental to the adjacent property…

Our houses are situated opposite a peculiar hazardous multi road junction, effectively used by other drivers as a roundabout, and my house is situated lower down. Whilst his unnecessary encroachment is annoying, it not only hinders my visibility further when entering onto the highway, but prevents me being able to use my (£7k) driveway for its intended purpose due to the hazard – i.e. to drive in, u-turn and be able to exit out again without having to reverse out and get smashed into.

So to be clear – he has physically encroached in front of my property with his vehicle, the rear of my property with his trespass, damage and dumping of wood etc., and also into my home with his intolerable noise levels….

Due to his unreasonableness, I was considering legal action under an overall nuisance claim for all the issues, but now I feel that the whole thing will be a waste of time, and even the restricted covenant may also be unenforceable.

The last owner was hounded out because of him, I’ve inherited the mess, and it seems with the exception of the noise level and possibly the security camera fixing and damage, he may get away with the rest.