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

DE_612183

lincroft1710 said:

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

Depends what's being "shared" - ownership or use.

mabbit

Looking at the plan it is clear that the design is flawed.

The OP owns no part of the drive, which given most people leave their car on the driveway rather than garaged, is entirely unfit for modern use.

The root cause here is inadequate design, followed by the acceptance of that arrangement by whomever purchased from the developer (and so on for subsequent purchase)

You are left with a position where the neighbour owns all if the drive, up to the garage threshold. I can understand tgat some individuals would be defensive about the land they own, and so understand the neighbours position.

The fault is not with the neighbour, it is with the developer and those who buy in to such an arrangement.

Section62

lincroft1710 said:

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

And if a third property owned by Party C has equal rights of way, but owns none of the land, what is it called then?

MattFurious

mabbit said:

Looking at the plan it is clear that the design is flawed.

The OP owns no part of the drive, which given most people leave their car on the driveway rather than garaged, is entirely unfit for modern use.

The root cause here is inadequate design, followed by the acceptance of that arrangement by whomever purchased from the developer (and so on for subsequent purchase)

You are left with a position where the neighbour owns all if the drive, up to the garage threshold. I can understand tgat some individuals would be defensive about the land they own, and so understand the neighbours position.

The fault is not with the neighbour, it is with the developer and those who buy in to such an arrangement.

I think the issue isn't inadequate design, but inadequate information pertaining to the way in which each party are able to utilise the area.  If the brown shaded area had been a passage on the driveway section of land, and I had 50% liability to the costs of maintaining that passage on the driveway section of land, then it would be clear that the unmarked section of land was for the owner to park in those spaces.

It is the grey are, "At All Times", "Shaded Area". "Subject to" "Maintenance Costs".  If I always pay 50% costs whenever requested, then at all time, I should have access to the shaded area, whether or not it is the simplest passage in or out of my garage.

PS, I actually have an electronic garage door, purposely so I do not have to stop on the drive!

mabbit

But they own right up to your garage threshold... At the very least the few metres in front of your garage could have been assigned to you!

silvercar

Section62 said:

lincroft1710 said:

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

And if a third property owned by Party C has equal rights of way, but owns none of the land, what is it called then?

You often have that situation where you have tracks at the rear of properties with all the property owners having rights of way along the track to the rear of their gardens eg in terraces where the bins are taken around the terrace rather than through the house. The owner of the track is often unconnected to the ownership of any of the terraces.

lincroft1710

Section62 said:

lincroft1710 said:

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

And if a third property owned by Party C has equal rights of way, but owns none of the land, what is it called then?

It obviously it's still a shared driveway as there are still 2 owners. But none of this helps the OP as he has no ownership of the driveway in question.

Section62

lincroft1710 said:

Section62 said:

lincroft1710 said:

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

And if a third property owned by Party C has equal rights of way, but owns none of the land, what is it called then?

It obviously it's still a shared driveway as there are still 2 owners. But none of this helps the OP as he has no ownership of the driveway in question.

I think it does help the OP as it illustrates the point that ownership can be decoupled from the concept of a "shared driveway", there's no requirement for a "shared driveway" to be half/half owned by two parties.  This is an important point because there's been some suggestion this afternoon that "shared driveway" is the wrong terminology and/or the OP is misapprehending his rights if he thinks the driveway is a "shared" one.

The OP is in the same position as Party C... unless anyone can identify a law or legal precedent which says a "shared driveway" isn't a "shared driveway" if it serves only two properties such as our example A+C or B+C?

Conceptually the driveway is shared for two out of three key practical issues - the right to use it for access, and the responsibility to pay a share of the maintenance.

If I were the OP I would base my next steps on the basis the driveway is shared, albeit unequally.  And as I've suggested already, I would be scouring the planning history to see what the developer/planning authority/highway authority all had to say on the matter.

MattFurious

Section62 said:

lincroft1710 said:

Section62 said:

lincroft1710 said:

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

And if a third property owned by Party C has equal rights of way, but owns none of the land, what is it called then?

It obviously it's still a shared driveway as there are still 2 owners. But none of this helps the OP as he has no ownership of the driveway in question.

I think it does help the OP as it illustrates the point that ownership can be decoupled from the concept of a "shared driveway", there's no requirement for a "shared driveway" to be half/half owned by two parties.  This is an important point because there's been some suggestion this afternoon that "shared driveway" is the wrong terminology and/or the OP is misapprehending his rights if he thinks the driveway is a "shared" one.

The OP is in the same position as Party C... unless anyone can identify a law or legal precedent which says a "shared driveway" isn't a "shared driveway" if it serves only two properties such as our example A+C or B+C?

Conceptually the driveway is shared for two out of three key practical issues - the right to use it for access, and the responsibility to pay a share of the maintenance.

If I were the OP I would base my next steps on the basis the driveway is shared, albeit unequally.  And as I've suggested already, I would be scouring the planning history to see what the developer/planning authority/highway authority all had to say on the matter.

This is my next step and the discussion I am having with a Solicitor now.  I am happy paying for an investigation into the practicalities of the driveway based on the comments in both my deeds and the deeds of RoW Land Owner.

MattFurious

lincroft1710 said:

Section62 said:

lincroft1710 said:

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

And if a third property owned by Party C has equal rights of way, but owns none of the land, what is it called then?

It obviously it's still a shared driveway as there are still 2 owners. But none of this helps the OP as he has no ownership of the driveway in question.

Not quite right...

"It obviously it's still a shared driveway as there are still 2 **USERS** . But none of this helps the OP as he has no ownership of the driveway in question."