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

Section62

MattFurious said:

If I had received some discussion about expansion on my rights, I would then be going to a solicitor to validate, but it seems like a waste of money to do so in this case.

Given the nature of the relationship with the neighbours then I think it might be worth talking to a solicitor. 

RoW's are a complicated area of property law.  I'm not a lawyer myself, but I believe your situation with a defined area of land is significantly different to a case where the deeds only state (descriptively) that there is a RoW. In the latter case it can descend into arguments about the exact route permitted and the width which has to be allowed (e.g. depending on whether it is a right on foot, carrying goods, with a 'barrow', by 'cart', or by 'locomotive' etc)

To reduce the potential costs of advice I would get hold of copies of the planning consents for the two properties yourself and pass those (along with copies of the titles and plans) to the solicitor, if you decide to take that route.

Section62

Woolsery said:

The police are not usually interested in a situation when someone is prevented from entering their property with a vehicle, but if they are unable to leave with it, the situation changes and a prosecution is possible.

That would apply if the neighbours were parking on a highway causing obstruction* to the OP, but because the obstruction in this case is on private land the Police would fall back on the 'civil matter' reason for having no involvement (unless harassment/BOTP were involved too).

*The offence is obstruction of the highway, which strictly occurs every time a vehicle is left parked on a highway other than in a designated parking place.  Case law and police policy sensibly dictates that action is only usually taken where the obstruction poses a significant danger, and/or has consequences greater than simply raising someone's blood pressure over the sheer cheek of it (e.g. parking on my spot on the road in front of my house).

Prosecution is possible in any case of highway obstruction, but cases risk being thrown out by the court as being too trivial to spend time on.

GDB2222

Can I ask you, Matt, how much money you are prepared to throw at this issue? At a rough guess, a contested court case could cost each of you say £50k in fees. The loser would pay roughly 70% of the other side’s fees, so even if you win it will cost you say £15k.

Is this about getting one up on the neighbours, in which case you may think that £15k is worth it. Merely to abate the nuisance of having to slow down whilst passing the other cars, £15k seems a lot to me.

And, of course, you may lose. 

GDB2222

And, of course, win or lose, the newspapers love a story like this, and they tend not to be particularly sympathetic.

snowdrop99

I am not a lawyer, however I thought rights of way meant that the servient owner (i.e. the neighbour who owns the land) cannot obstruct any part of it or impede the  dominant owner's (i.e. the OP's) use/access of it in any way. In addition, the OP is obliged to pay half of the cost of maintenance - assuming that the land in question is used only by the OP and their neighbour, then I would have thought that that too implies the OP is entitled to access all of the land at all times - it seems unreasonable for him to pay half the cost of maintaining the whole brown shaded area when some of it is not available to him to use freely and without obstruction (i.e. areas where neighbour regularly parks vehicles). 

Woolsery

Section62 said:

Woolsery said:

The police are not usually interested in a situation when someone is prevented from entering their property with a vehicle, but if they are unable to leave with it, the situation changes and a prosecution is possible.

Prosecution is possible in any case of highway obstruction, but cases risk being thrown out by the court as being too trivial to spend time on.

As I implied by the words 'is possible,' but imprisoning someone at home when they might need to attend an important medical appointment would probably count as sufficient reason and not trivial. Surely the usual common sense applies if they cannot reach the public highway, whether they're on a private drive or a private road?

Section62

snowdrop99 said:

...it seems unreasonable for him to pay half the cost of maintaining the whole brown shaded area when some of it is not available to him to use freely and without obstruction (i.e. areas where neighbour regularly parks vehicles). 

I think there is quite a lot of merit to that argument if it were made in court.  If there is equality in paying for maintenance then there should be equality in use - if there was an absence of necessary detail in the deeds then either both should be able to park on the brown area or neither should.

In effect the neighbour is seeking to have sole use of an area the OP is expected to pay to maintain.

I suppose the neighbour could claim they had to pay the capital cost of purchasing an area of land which they don't have sole use of... but assuming they purchased in full knowledge of the RoW then the price they paid should have accounted for that encumbrance.

(INAL)

Section62

Woolsery said:

Section62 said:

Woolsery said:

The police are not usually interested in a situation when someone is prevented from entering their property with a vehicle, but if they are unable to leave with it, the situation changes and a prosecution is possible.

Prosecution is possible in any case of highway obstruction, but cases risk being thrown out by the court as being too trivial to spend time on.

As I implied by the words 'is possible,' but imprisoning someone at home when they might need to attend an important medical appointment would probably count as sufficient reason and not trivial.

Which is why police policy/practice is what it is.  They are more likely to act where the obstruction prevents use of the vehicle by effectively impounding it on private property.  They are less likely to act where the person is able to use their vehicle but just cannot park it back on their property.  (The logic being you can park elsewhere)

I think the growth of popularity of resident parking zones may soon require a rethink of this policy approach - since on-street parking restrictions seriously limit the availability of alternative parking places (if you don't have a permit).

Woolsery said:

Surely the usual common sense applies if they cannot reach the public highway, whether they're on a private drive or a private road?

No, because the offence the police would act on is occuring on the highway, not on private land.  The private drive isn't a highway, so the police cannot enforce highway law.  The case of a private road is more complicated and would take the thread a long way off topic to fully explore.

Ditzy_Mitzy

MattFurious said:

canaldumidi said:

MattFurious said:

Woolsery said:

In my little town the local bus sometimes has about 0.1m either side when passing between cars in the centre. Last week I watched it inching through, which took a few minutes and meant the road was effectively blocked both ways while it did so. So far there have been a few scraped cars and no known prosecutions; it's just the way things are.

Like people, cars are getting broader in the beam and despite all the eco-concern the hybrid EV 4x4s are probably the worst culprits in recent years. Could it be that your neighbour is not just parking carelessly, but that your car waistlines have also expanded?

..... I guess that if I got a 3m car, then they would have to leave 3m space.  Access is access and dependable on what car I have I suppose.

..........................................

LOL

Car needs to be 3m wide, not 3m long!! Hahahaha!!

The widest production car of all time, apparently, was the 1954 Chrysler Crown Imperial at 82.9 inches (2,106 mm) and the current Scania R lorry tractor is 2,476 mm wide.  There is no such thing as a three metre wide car and there never will be.  Three metres is getting on for ten feet, which is the length, give or take, of a Leyland Mini.  

There is nothing to worry about.  

Section62

GDB2222 said:

Can I ask you, Matt, how much money you are prepared to throw at this issue? At a rough guess, a contested court case could cost each of you say £50k in fees. The loser would pay roughly 70% of the other side’s fees, so even if you win it will cost you say £15k.

Is this about getting one up on the neighbours, in which case you may think that £15k is worth it. Merely to abate the nuisance of having to slow down whilst passing the other cars, £15k seems a lot to me.

And, of course, you may lose. 

I think this is one of those cases where the potential reduction of property value and future difficulties in selling need to be taken into account in the decision whether or not to take action.

A property is likely to be less attractive if the neighbours have converted part of a shared drive into their private parking, and also if the purchaser will regularly need to make requests to the neighbours to move cars before they can exercise the right they are purchasing.

Anyone who has experienced the hassle of parking problems will be acutely aware of what a PITB they can be, especially if a nuisance neighbour weaponises parking/access as part of their battle.