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

Section62

Abid_shah said:

I believe it is not meant to be vehicle access as you described the passageway gets narrower than mine at the rear of the complaining neighbour.

What you believe isn't enough to stop the neighbour using the RoW with a vehicle.  The exact wording of the deeds of all the relevant properties is what counts.

theoretica

This is rather interesting for showing the situation in the 1930s - and which properties did and din't have passageway behind them - I would also argue it shows clearly what is passageway - and has ROW over it, and what is garden, and doesn't.  https://maps.nls.uk/view/103657817

Ath_Wat

So, you are 21 and he is number 17, yes?  Want to clear that up?

Abid_shah

Ath_Wat said:

So, you are 21 and he is number 17, yes?  Want to clear that up?

Yes that’s right

Ath_Wat

Why did you say this earlier?

Abid_shah said:

I am no 23 then a passageway then no 25 then no 27.
no 27 is objecting. Hope it’s clear .
 

Abid_shah

Ath_Wat said:

Why did you say this earlier?

Abid_shah said:

I am no 23 then a passageway then no 25 then no 27.
no 27 is objecting. Hope it’s clear .
 

Apologies it was just for data protection reasons I made up the door numbers but the rationale is the same.

Section62

Abid_shah said:

Ath_Wat said:

Why did you say this earlier?

Abid_shah said:

I am no 23 then a passageway then no 25 then no 27.
no 27 is objecting. Hope it’s clear .
 

Apologies it was just for data protection reasons I made up the door numbers but the rationale is the same.

Understandable, but having posted the unredacted title and plan it was redundant, and only created confusion for people who had seen the true numbers.

Have you got the deeds for number 19?  Do they own the passageway from the rear to the road?

Abid_shah

Section62 said:

Abid_shah said:

Ath_Wat said:

Why did you say this earlier?

Abid_shah said:

I am no 23 then a passageway then no 25 then no 27.
no 27 is objecting. Hope it’s clear .
 

Apologies it was just for data protection reasons I made up the door numbers but the rationale is the same.

Understandable, but having posted the unredacted title and plan it was redundant, and only created confusion for people who had seen the true numbers.

Have you got the deeds for number 19?  Do they own the passageway from the rear to the road?

Apologies for the confusion, No I don’t have his deed but have seen with him and he owns the rear like me and no 17.

Ath_Wat

Abid_shah said:

Ath_Wat said:

Why did you say this earlier?

Abid_shah said:

I am no 23 then a passageway then no 25 then no 27.
no 27 is objecting. Hope it’s clear .
 

Apologies it was just for data protection reasons I made up the door numbers but the rationale is the same.

Given that you had identified the street and the postcode already that was a bit like locking the stable door after the horse had bolted and just added to the confusion.

The streetview image shows pot plants and a locked gate across the entrance to the passageway between the houses; it does not look like it has been used in years.  Have either of you started using it recently?

RAS

Section62 said:

The streetview image from 2020 shows the exits from the RoW onto the highway having been blocked by gates/fences - is the gate/fence between 19/21 still there?  Does the problem neighbour have a key for the gate, or is it kept locked?

When I looked at the street view, behind the gates seemed to be grassed with a trampoline sited on it in August 2020? Who was using the space then? In what capacity?

I note that neither n 17 or 23 appear to have anything in their deeds about a right of way over the passage way between 19-21, merely about the ROW over the passage way to the rear of their property.

But both have reference to a transaction in 1929, which included covenants. I think it would be a good idea to get hold of copies of those covenants. Maybe nothing, but might be your answer.