Forbidding signs and pre existing rights

Mouse007

pdf version of link above here (in case you missed it, I did scrolling down) which you can download

I first found these,

https://www.realestatedefined.com/html/terms_defined/easement.html

https://radcliffechambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Interfering-with-easements-Matthew-Mills-Radcliffe-Chambers.pdf

both may help, these led me to search for Safestore v RSN Property Ltd [2009]

The Safestore v RSN Property Ltd [2009] case mentioned from 63. onwards is also interesting but note the trap from 72 onwards. In your case no such conditions have been Court approved (yet (?)). You may need to prepare yourself to rebut any suggestions from the claimant on this.

Mouse007

Mouse007 said:

Brie said:

Even more off topic perhaps....is there really a right for people to continue to park if the land owner doesn't want them to?  What if they had permission to build a block of flats or something?  When constructed then I would expect only the people living in the flats to be able to park there, not everyone else in the neighbourhood.

The problem is the new owner probably didn’t check or understand what rights third parties had to access and use the land. The Caveat Emptor principle.

...

Following on from my observation above I found this

"In the present case, the development scope of the land was materially decreased as a result of the easement to park cars enjoyed by the neighbouring owner and a failure to consider this danger pre-purchase has left the developer claimant substantially out of pocket."

In this Property Law Journal article about European Urban St Pancras 2 Ltd v Glynn which confirmed that a right to park cars on land can be a legal easement.

Mouse007

Trainerman said:

This concerns a plot of land that has been historically used for parking, by residents for over 40 years.New owners are using  private parking company to try and kick us off. We think we have a claim under the Prescription Act, but if anyone has experience of that, all help would be welcomed.

I think you and your neighbours should register your easement with the Land Registry

"The Adjudicator to HM Land Registry has held that the making of an application to register a prescriptive easement, and its acceptance by Land Registry, constitutes a ‘suit or action’ (Wilkin & Sons Ltd v Agricultural Facilities Ltd [2012] EWLandRA 2011_0420 para 113). However, this is usually not an issue because Land Registry may also consider the application under the principle of ‘lost modern grant’, where a ‘suit or action’ is not a prerequisite."

https://cilexjournal.org.uk/journal/cilex-journal-september-2016/updates/land-registry-update

That will be significantly cheaper than Court action - I would go down the "lost modern grant" route if I were you

Application instructions and links to relevant forms can be found here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/easements-claimed-by-prescription/practice-guide-52-easements-claimed-by-prescription

Trainerman

Thanks @Mouse007. I appreciate the input.

Time has actually moved on since that earlier post. There are now two easement applications in, one of which looks like it will end up in front of Tribunal. The other is not as advanced, but will probably go the same way.

Fingers crossed, and will keep you posted. Going back to yesterday's question, and the consensus that I can SAR these individuals as data holders, that will be next step. Will let you know

Trainerman

In another development, I am considering taking the self ticketing/permit issuing/cctv using operators to task for GDPR breaches. As I see it, they are data controllers. They have also named people to third parties. IE saying to person A that person B has accepted .... etc..

If anyone with a good knowledge of GDPR could give me an opinion/steer (possibly by pm ), I would be grateful

Mouse007

Find out if they have registered with the ICO first

Send your own SAR to them

Take photos of all signs and the cameras

Then depending on outcomes complain directly to the ICO

https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/

Castle

Here are the definitions set out by the ICO, (and it includes "Sole traders"):-
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/controllers-and-processors/what-are-controllers-and-processors/

Trainerman

Thanks @Castle and @Mouse007. I suspect they are not registered, but will look into that. They do meet the definitions of both a Data controller and a processor, as far as I can see

Mouse007

Search the Register here

https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/what-we-do/register-of-fee-payers/

Trainerman

Thanks very much again @Mouse007. There is no registered entity at the postcode concerned. Looks like they are in trouble on that.