The neighbour of my immediate neighbour threatening to break my fence if I try to install it.

Abid_shah

Bendy_House said:

Abid_shah said:

doodling said:

Hi,

Having looked on Goigle maps, I realise that an access to the rear from Brookside Close hasn't been created, it is a brick wall (or a rather broken fence).

The passageway would be no wider than the gap between numbers 19 and 21 so providing that that width is maintained between the proposed fence and the wall / fence with Brookside Close then the arrangement would match the historical plan.

There remains a question as to whether users of the passageway have acquired a right to cut across the corner of the OPs garden when turning from the back passage into the passage between 19 and 21 - this would be a matter of provable historical use.

On my proposed line for my rear fence the Right of Way will be about two feet wider than the entrance of the passageway between 19 and 21.

he bought the house in 2008 and claims he used it in the past. I got my house in 2014 and since then it has never been used for vehicles by anyone until I foolishly cleaned it in 2020. Since 2021 until now he uses it occasionally for his car about 3-5 times since June 2020.

As far as can be gleaned from the map on https://maps.nls.uk/view/103657817 which presumably matches the one in your deeds and LR, the width of the RoW section behind your garden does 'appear' to be slightly wider than the access passageway to the road. So, if you leave that RoW section behind your garden as close to the best possible estimate of its 'true' width (ie the ~2' wider-than-the-passageway width you are proposing), this is likely to be very near as correct, true and accurate as anyone could determine without resorting to surveyors. And I cannot see any reason that you should have to do this.

And your proposed fence line matches that of the neighbours to your right? And their fences have been there for some time and appear to be established?

In which case, I think you've arrived at your answer. Put up the fence, make sure you have CCTV covering it, and explain - if/when challenged - "I believe that to be the correct boundary for my garden and the section which has the RoW over it. If you don't agree, then you need to pursue this in the correct legal manner." I can't see any (legal) move the guy can then do other than to employ a surveyor himself, which I suspect he won't do unless he really believes it'll return a 'you need to move your fence another foot, pal' result. In which case - if the surveyor is legit - you may have to.

 It also wasn't 'wrong' for you to put up a fence and gate over that RoW 'entrance' provided all those who wished to access it were in agreement and had a key. I understand that even 'agreement' isn't always required, provided the gate width doesn't restrict the RoW in any way for which it was designed, and all users were given keys; if, for example, you had a pedestrian RoW cutting across the middle of your garden, it would be reasonable for you to wish to secure this, so you could put up gates and provide keys to all users. Harder to justify in this case, tho', since the intended use of that RoW is uncertain, and could be challenged (and you likely don't want to go there...) So, you did the right thing in removing the fence/gate when asked to.

So, what to do? That's your call. Totally reasonable that you don't want to give up even a tiny bit of your garden, especially to someone who seems to act on intimidation rather than the legal method. If you have a good cause to be concerned that there will be increased vehicular traffic down that passageway, coupled with regular access being made by a steady stream of his customers, and the noise and smell from a car repair business, then best you stick to your guns, place the fence where you truly believe and have worked out it should be, and be ready to call the police at the first hint of a threat.

Doesn't this guy's direct neighbour have an opinion on this? Have you spoken to them? Are they happy with having a car repair business next door?

That leaves the option of asking Trading Standards whether such a business is permitted in that residential area.

Anything more than this - eg trying to ascertain whether the RoW includes vehicles, and of what type, etc - will likely involve a complex legal argument, and very possibly won't even provide an accurate answer at the end. Ie, it would likely be determined by 'argument' rather than locating a helpful 'clause' anywhere. Who will win the argument - "It was obviously never intended for vehicles as it's unlikely anyone would have owned a car at that time/it's too narrow/it would have mentioned 'vehicular' in the covenant had it applied..." vs "It doesn't say NO vehicles, so anything goes..."

To be honest, I will consider leaving a bit more place for him to enable him reverse his car for personal use. But the way he is fighting for it means he has a business plan. Otherwise why would you drive a car through a very tight space at the rear of his garden?

if I put my fence at my proposed place even then he can reverse his car all the way to the end of passage way and put anything in the boot easy from his garden which will be like 5 metres from his car.

My next door neighbour agrees with me that he has a plan to set up a garage and repair cars at the rear of his and May be my garden. He said whenever he starts that then we will complain to the council.

so I am confused whether to leave a bit extra for him or stick to the proposed line that is inline with no 17 and no 19. But not in line with no 23. No 23’s rear fence is broken but the aftermaths are there and their garden will be a bit shorter than mine if I put my rear fence in line with no 19 and no 17.

CardiffCrank

Those satellite images make it look like you should be a little further back than 23 but not so far back that you're in line with 17 and 19. I think if you put your fence in line with these images you should be fine. Maybe keep the personal use and business use as separate as you can in your mind. They are different issues and different approaches to resolving them. And one is now but the other is just potential.

sheramber

The photographs show your fence line inline with 23.

17 & 19 are longer and the ROW is narrower there also.

theoretica

I think your right is to put the fence back where it used to be - nearly in line with 23.

FreeBear

Use concrete posts on the corner. Or if you really want to make a statement, an RSJ driven in deep with a good dollop of concrete to hold it in place.

Section62

Abid_shah said:

To be honest, I will consider leaving a bit more place for him to enable him reverse his car for personal use. But the way he is fighting for it means he has a business plan. Otherwise why would you drive a car through a very tight space at the rear of his garden?

if I put my fence at my proposed place even then he can reverse his car all the way to the end of passage way and put anything in the boot easy from his garden which will be like 5 metres from his car.

My next door neighbour agrees with me that he has a plan to set up a garage and repair cars at the rear of his and May be my garden. He said whenever he starts that then we will complain to the council.

so I am confused whether to leave a bit extra for him or stick to the proposed line that is inline with no 17 and no 19. But not in line with no 23. No 23’s rear fence is broken but the aftermaths are there and their garden will be a bit shorter than mine if I put my rear fence in line with no 19 and no 17.

1st BiB - that isn't your decision or for you to police.  If he has a right of way he has a right of way.  The title documents you've shared don't say the right is for normal domestic use only.

If he shouldn't be running a business then that is a planning or licensing issue for the council - by all means query it with the council, but if you attempt to stop him using the RoW because you believe he shouldn't be for business purposes then be prepared to face the potential consequences.

2nd BiB - Again, that's not for you to impose on him.  Furthermore he won't have a right to park where you want him to, as it appears there is only a right of passage.  He will need to continue along the RoW to his own property to park.

3rd BiB - You've now explained clearly that your intent is to fence off land which appears on earlier aerial images to be part of the RoW.  You aren't allowed to do that, unless you can prove the land was never part of the RoW.

Your fence needs to go where the boundary beteween your sole rights land and the RoW should be - not where you decide it would be useful to have it to restrict what the neighbour can do on his land.  If you put up a fence which obstructs the right of way the neighbour may be entitled to remove it.  You may describe that as "break[ing]" the fence but a court (and/or the police) may regard it as a reasonable action to assert his RoW.

Abid_shah

Section62 said:

Abid_shah said:

To be honest, I will consider leaving a bit more place for him to enable him reverse his car for personal use. But the way he is fighting for it means he has a business plan. Otherwise why would you drive a car through a very tight space at the rear of his garden?

if I put my fence at my proposed place even then he can reverse his car all the way to the end of passage way and put anything in the boot easy from his garden which will be like 5 metres from his car.

My next door neighbour agrees with me that he has a plan to set up a garage and repair cars at the rear of his and May be my garden. He said whenever he starts that then we will complain to the council.

so I am confused whether to leave a bit extra for him or stick to the proposed line that is inline with no 17 and no 19. But not in line with no 23. No 23’s rear fence is broken but the aftermaths are there and their garden will be a bit shorter than mine if I put my rear fence in line with no 19 and no 17.

1st BiB - that isn't your decision or for you to police.  If he has a right of way he has a right of way.  The title documents you've shared don't say the right is for normal domestic use only.

If he shouldn't be running a business then that is a planning or licensing issue for the council - by all means query it with the council, but if you attempt to stop him using the RoW because you believe he shouldn't be for business purposes then be prepared to face the potential consequences.

2nd BiB - Again, that's not for you to impose on him.  Furthermore he won't have a right to park where you want him to, as it appears there is only a right of passage.  He will need to continue along the RoW to his own property to park.

3rd BiB - You've now explained clearly that your intent is to fence off land which appears on earlier aerial images to be part of the RoW.  You aren't allowed to do that, unless you can prove the land was never part of the RoW.

Your fence needs to go where the boundary beteween your sole rights land and the RoW should be - not where you decide it would be useful to have it to restrict what the neighbour can do on his land.  If you put up a fence which obstructs the right of way the neighbour may be entitled to remove it.  You may describe that as "break[ing]" the fence but a court (and/or the police) may regard it as a reasonable action to assert his RoW.

Thanks my deed and his deed I believe proves that his right of way is over no 19 leading into Rosebery avenue through the passage way.

the RoW at the rear of my garden is for no 23,25,27 as these are my adjoining properties.

the right of way is for adjoining properties isn’t it?

as per this and other websites

sheramber

Stop clutching at straws.

Who is going to stop him reversing into the space and out again.   Who polices the row?

Section62

Abid_shah said:

Thanks my deed and his deed I believe proves that his right of way is over no 19 leading into Rosebery avenue through the passage way.

the RoW at the rear of my garden is for no 23,25,27 as these are my adjoining properties.

the right of way is for adjoining properties isn’t it?

as per this and other websites

No, not in the sense you think it means. You've had this misapprehension since the start of the thread which is a significant cause of the troubles you are having.

Number 17 is every bit as 'adjoining' as number 27.  It makes no difference to the rights (or otherwise) to use the "passageway" referred to in the deeds - unless there is something more explicit than what we have seen.

He doesn't need to be your neighbour to be able to use the RoW, in the same way as number 27 (also not your neighbour) has that right.

In the absence of more explicit definitions, the "passageway"(s) between and behind numbers 17 to 47 (odds) has to be treated as common.  Streets like this were laid out in that way so the residents could use any of the access points in the event of one of them being blocked - either by works, or by a vehicle coming the other way.

The fact that some residents have blocked the "passageway" with buildings or by allowing them to become overgrown doesn't extinguish the RoW.

Unless you can find evidence to prove that 17 doesn't have a right to use that part of the "passageway" behind your property then you will struggle to refute what appears (from the documents we've seen) to be a right he has.

Abid_shah

Section62 said:

Abid_shah said:

Thanks my deed and his deed I believe proves that his right of way is over no 19 leading into Rosebery avenue through the passage way.

the RoW at the rear of my garden is for no 23,25,27 as these are my adjoining properties.

the right of way is for adjoining properties isn’t it?

as per this and other websites

No, not in the sense you think it means. You've had this misapprehension since the start of the thread which is a significant cause of the troubles you are having.

Number 17 is every bit as 'adjoining' as number 27.  It makes no difference to the rights (or otherwise) to use the "passageway" referred to in the deeds - unless there is something more explicit than what we have seen.

He doesn't need to be your neighbour to be able to use the RoW, in the same way as number 27 (also not your neighbour) has that right.

In the absence of more explicit definitions, the "passageway"(s) between and behind numbers 17 to 47 (odds) has to be treated as common.  Streets like this were laid out in that way so the residents could use any of the access points in the event of one of them being blocked - either by works, or by a vehicle coming the other way.

The fact that some residents have blocked the "passageway" with buildings or by allowing them to become overgrown doesn't extinguish the RoW.

Unless you can find evidence to prove that 17 doesn't have a right to use that part of the "passageway" behind your property then you will struggle to refute what appears (from the documents we've seen) to be a right he has.

Ok thanks and what about the width of that Right of Way? 

The land upto the red wall is my land subject to right of way, so how would I find the acceptable width of the right of way? I am leaving wider space than no 17 and no 19 as a right of way and my space for Right of way will be a bit wider than the entrance between our houses 21 and 19. Do you think no 17 still has the right to ask for more wider space?
thanks