Shared drive restrictive covenants and parking problems

nicos42

canaldumidi said:

Planning law? Afraid I've not read the thread in detail but if garden is being used for parking does that not contravene planning use?.......

Apparently permitted development.

- I am calling their bluff their surveyor plans are ridiculous

Bendy_House said:

That is truly staggering stuff, Nicos, and I'm so sorry to hear your woes.

I think worth trying posting this on other forums. One I know of is https://www.gardenlaw.co.uk/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=8 and I think there are some folk on there with 'knowledge'. There may be more specialised ones than that.

Also worth trying a few specialist property/boundary solicitors; many will take a free initial look at the issue, so it would be interesting to see their take on the paragraphs you mentioned above, that the builder put in the deeds - see if they are writ in stone.

It all seems very 'wrong'.

Thank you I will ask in that forum about the survey and what I can do

anotheruser

But keep us updated here too!

nicos42

Hi all,

To update on the problem I had is now been resolved.

The neighbour solicitor was shall I say very creative with his letters but my insurance solicitor have put them back into their cage.

The entire shared drive is my property with the neighbour having the right of way to his parking space. He employed a surveyor who drawn plans in his favor claiming that the developer build everything wrong and in fact, the neighbour has right of way over the front garden.

The insurance legal cover was amazing and disputed everything with two letters and now they conceded and they even start speaking with me.

I could not enforce the covenants by the way because the properties were sold their first mine second and the developer wrote the deeds in such way that only that can enforce them.

The only remaining argument is when it comes to repairs. So they parked 4 cars for years. My house only has one car and so was before. The deeds say that they have to pay their fair share of use. They told me that is 50/50

I dont think is right but when it gets to repairs I m sure we ll work things out.

Titus_Wadd

Thanks for the update, always a benefit to others with similar situations.

I have an on-going headache with legal cover; fine for advice and a letter, but in our case they have dithered for 8 months over covering our civil action thru the courts.  I seriously wouldn't set much store by the £100,000 cover for legal action because the filter company's job is to save the insurance company money; that's who they work for, not you.  The miss-selling of legal cover is the next PPI scandal brewing imho.

On the maintenance of the RoW, I thought the servient owner (OP who owns the land) could bill the dominant owner (the OP's neighbour) for a reasonable proportion of the upkeep of the RoW.  I'd like to start from a split that reflects the usage: more cars more contribution...but...  The easier route would be 50:50 to avoid further conflict.  Sometimes it's better to stay on the moral high ground and choose your battles wisely.  A quiet life is golden.

Tiglet2

I think you need to instruct a solicitor who specialises in Land Law - it's quite a specialist area and not one for conveyancing solicitors.