Driveway Access - Pinch Points - Knowing My Rights for Right of Way

GDB2222

Norman_Castle said:

MattFurious said:

O

M

G

I have to laugh

I'm going to the pub to start an argument with a drunk person!  Have some more fun!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

I had a client who was very argumentative. He ended up shooting his wife and getting sentenced to 12 years. 

Leggitte

GDB2222 said:

I had a client who was very argumentative. He ended up shooting his wife and getting sentenced to 12 years. 

No he didn't.

DE_612183

There have been a couple of references in the thread to a "shared" driveway - but it isn't is it?

Section62

DE_612183 said:

There have been a couple of references in the thread to a "shared" driveway - but it isn't is it?

It isn't?

lincroft1710

Section62 said:

DE_612183 said:

There have been a couple of references in the thread to a "shared" driveway - but it isn't is it?

It isn't?

No, it appears to be a driveway owned by Mr X over which Matt Furious has a R-O-W

Section62

lincroft1710 said:

Section62 said:

DE_612183 said:

There have been a couple of references in the thread to a "shared" driveway - but it isn't is it?

It isn't?

No, it appears to be a driveway owned by Mr X over which Matt Furious has a R-O-W

Would you call it a 'private driveway' then?  Even though someone else has a right to use it?

In all the years I worked in highways and planning, myself and the people I worked with would have referred to an arrangement like this one appears to be as a "shared driveway".  In that, I'm assuming the two properties were built at the same time, rather than one property having a driveway which a neighbour was subsequently allowed to take access from.

Use of this driveway is shared.  Responsibility for maintaining it is shared.  The only thing not shared is freehold ownership, which is somewhat moot as the owner of the land is very much restricted in what they can do with the land due to rights 'owned' by the second property.

If people had been calling it an "equally shared driveway" then DE_612183 would have had a valid point.

DE_612183

@Section62 - I can see your point, but I thought ROWs were for say someone to have that ROW over someone else's property - say a Farm Field - the person who has the ROW doesn't have a shared field. I know this is just semantics, but I think the OP has got the view that this is shared - and I think if he didn't think about it as shared then perhaps he may view it differently ( perhaps not ).

Norman_Castle

Section62 said:

lincroft1710 said:

Section62 said:

DE_612183 said:

There have been a couple of references in the thread to a "shared" driveway - but it isn't is it?

It isn't?

No, it appears to be a driveway owned by Mr X over which Matt Furious has a R-O-W

Would you call it a 'private driveway' then?  Even though someone else has a right to use it?

Yes, its privately owned although its use is shared with the op due to the row.

Section62

DE_612183 said:

@Section62 - I can see your point, but I thought ROWs were for say someone to have that ROW over someone else's property - say a Farm Field - the person who has the ROW doesn't have a shared field. I know this is just semantics, but I think the OP has got the view that this is shared - and I think if he didn't think about it as shared then perhaps he may view it differently ( perhaps not ).

If we were talking about a ROW across a field then I'd completely agree with you.

But I understand this to be a driveway built with a pair of houses to provide both properties with a means of access from the main road.  If that is correct then I think it is likely the intent of the developers and the planners was for both parties to have more or less equal rights of use.

I wouldn't advise Matt to take this to court, and would generally discourage people from litigation in civil disputes, but (based on a fair bit of experience with rights of way) I think there is a chance if it did go to court that a judge may feel that there needs to be more equality in the relationship than the neighbour appears comfortable with.  There is a tendancy for courts to widen the scope of rights of way to reflect modern usage, rather than narrow them.

The modern method of achieving access in new development (i.e. less 'public' involvement) means there is a greater need for people to work together in sharing and accommodating each other's needs.  The way freehold ownership of shared driveways is organised varies from case to case.  This one is potentially the worst case for someone in Matt's position.  If the land ownership had been split longitudinally then Matt's children could safely ride their bikes on his side of the driveway without the neighbour having cause for complaint or grounds to object.  It is good for society that children can learn to ride bikes on driveways, and from my own experience I'm sure that planners in a case like Matt's would have expected both properties to be able to do 'normal' domestic things on the driveway rather than one being able to do whatever they want, and the other being strictly limited.

It is also worth bearing in mind that many people own the freehold of an area of the public road adjacent to their property.  Nobody who understands the law would support someone who started telling members of the public what they can and can't do on that part of the road on the basis they 'owned' the land and there was only a right to pass and repass. Thanks to S130(1) someone saying 'please don't let your children ride their bikes on my road for recreation' wouldn't get very far with their argument.  I can see a future where new case law or primary legislation is necessary to apply those same principles to shared access arrangements.  This won't help Matt with his immediate issues, but I do see it as an inevitable outcome of the unsatisfactory way development access has been arranged in recent times.

lincroft1710

Section62 said:

lincroft1710 said:

Section62 said:

DE_612183 said:

There have been a couple of references in the thread to a "shared" driveway - but it isn't is it?

It isn't?

No, it appears to be a driveway owned by Mr X over which Matt Furious has a R-O-W

Would you call it a 'private driveway' then?  Even though someone else has a right to use it?

In all the years I worked in highways and planning, myself and the people I worked with would have referred to an arrangement like this one appears to be as a "shared driveway".  In that, I'm assuming the two properties were built at the same time, rather than one property having a driveway which a neighbour was subsequently allowed to take access from.

Use of this driveway is shared.  Responsibility for maintaining it is shared.  The only thing not shared is freehold ownership, which is somewhat moot as the owner of the land is very much restricted in what they can do with the land due to rights 'owned' by the second property.

If people had been calling it an "equally shared driveway" then DE_612183 would have had a valid point.

My understanding of the term "shared driveway" is a driveway where one half is owned by Party A and the other half is owned by Party B, but both parties have equal R-O-W over the whole