Right of way

lookstraightahead

I had a very similar set up years ago. We all ensured there were no trip hazards, fire escape issues, etc on that land.  There were no gates.

lookstraightahead

GDB2222 said:

wend33 said:

GDB2222 said:

Does the dog owner own that bit of land? Or who does?

They probably own the land subject to the right of way.

Probably, but the OP has not said either way. Unless the dogs are dangerous, the owner may have a perfect right to let his dogs run there. In which case, the OP needs to negotiate, rather than starting a dispute. Some of the aggressive advice on this forum can be counterproductive.

Theoretically there's an argument that there should be no gates either - or at least the op can take theirs down. The dogs need to be contained within the boundaries of their own land then.

lookstraightahead

ProDave said:

Is this the only path to get to your property?  Or the back garden route only used once a week to take your bins out?

That's hardly relevant.

When I had a terrace we had access through front doors but all used the back doors if we wanted to. 

lookstraightahead

Personally if I viewed a house and there were barking dogs on a joint right of way I wouldn't buy it. Says more about the owners really, not the dogs.

user1977

lookstraightahead said:

GDB2222 said:

wend33 said:

GDB2222 said:

Does the dog owner own that bit of land? Or who does?

They probably own the land subject to the right of way.

Probably, but the OP has not said either way. Unless the dogs are dangerous, the owner may have a perfect right to let his dogs run there. In which case, the OP needs to negotiate, rather than starting a dispute. Some of the aggressive advice on this forum can be counterproductive.

Theoretically there's an argument that there should be no gates either 

Is there? It's pretty normal for rights of way to have gates.

Section62

GDB2222 said:

wend33 said:

GDB2222 said:

Does the dog owner own that bit of land? Or who does?

They probably own the land subject to the right of way.

Probably, but the OP has not said either way. Unless the dogs are dangerous, the owner may have a perfect right to let his dogs run there. In which case, the OP needs to negotiate, rather than starting a dispute. Some of the aggressive advice on this forum can be counterproductive.

Completely agree.

Aggressive actions tend to invite aggressive responses.  Often the smart way is to respond to aggressiveness with calmness and a strategic approach.

Nobody with any sense would try dealing with a barking dog by attempting to bite it.

Soot2006

The problem is that the dogs can indeed roam on their land, provided they don't fall afoul of the dangerous dogs act. Every dog owner, myself included, can see the flaws in the act which requires dogs to not caused distress to anyone. Even a friendly dog running up barking and jumping is likely to cause distress. This isn't permissible, even on private land, let alone on land with a right of way across it. So this neighbour needs to not let this happen.

robatwork

Section62 said:

Nobody with any sense would try dealing with a barking dog by attempting to bite it.

Did I miss a post?

lookstraightahead

Soot2006 said:

The problem is that the dogs can indeed roam on their land, provided they don't fall afoul of the dangerous dogs act. Every dog owner, myself included, can see the flaws in the act which requires dogs to not caused distress to anyone. Even a friendly dog running up barking and jumping is likely to cause distress. This isn't permissible, even on private land, let alone on land with a right of way across it. So this neighbour needs to not let this happen.

This is an excellent post. It's a big risk to the dog owners, let alone anyone else.

lookstraightahead

Ours was seen as a fire escape - it's a long time ago so not sure whether it was just 'our rules'. We had an unlocked gate at the side, and no gates or anything obstructing the right of way across the terraces - no plant pots, bins etc.