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

MattFurious

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.

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.

We have logged a complaint about 2 other occasions of harassment, there was no follow up, but they said that volumes of instances building up would lead to them getting more involved.  This was the only reason "police" were mentioned.  This is to deal with the behaviour of the neighbour, nothing to do with the actual usage of the land.

MattFurious

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. 

Fully agree on cost against benefit, hence using this forum first, then stage 2 would be solicitor and determining the case value if that was plausible and only proceeding to court if we felt that there was a 90% chance of success.  I envisage, if we have gathered evidence and case studies to this point, sending a letter to the neighbour with a request to "change their ways" based on the laws around the situation, would hopefully work, as for them, they have the fear of having the majority of the costs as much as I have the fear of losing and facing the majority of the costs...

It is not about getting one up (despite my username, I am very relaxed!)  It is about fair usage and common acceptance.  They forbid me to let my kids ride up and down the drive on their bikes...  Which in their rights, that is fine to do, as the drive is not for recreational purposes, but for young kids, during a pandemic and not being allowed to go to places, seemed very harsh...

MattFurious

snowdrop99 said:

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). 

Thank you so much for this as yes, this is one thing that I wanted to challenge...

There is a pot hole, that their car drives through each time to park on the first bulge.  With the car parked there, I am never responsible for making that pot hole worse as I cannot get my car into that position, so paying 50% of maintenance when I do not have access to 100% of the drive seems wrong...  

This actually points towards the fact that they should not be parking anywhere on the drive without my consent to block access to any part.

As those neighbours were there before me, does any agreement with previous neighbours enforce ways of usage with me, or is it that they need to renegotiate with me????

This is intriguing

MattFurious

Section62 said:

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)

I have a copy of their deeds (one of the letters I got from their solicitor) and the solicitor states:

"the driveway is owned by my client and that you have a right of way at all times and for all purposes over and along the driveway, each of you paying one of the costs of maintaining and repairing it.

This does not entitle you to park on the driveway or any part of it, nor to use it for recreational purposes.  You are not entitled to block it or store items on it, including deliveries of sand and bricks which have been made recently..."

So they know I have RoW AAT FaP!! LOL

Section62

MattFurious said:

I have a copy of their deeds (one of the letters I got from their solicitor) and the solicitor states:

"the driveway is owned by my client and that you have a right of way at all times and for all purposes over and along the driveway, each of you paying one of the costs of maintaining and repairing it.

The BiB is a key point, and why I feel getting advice from a solicitor would be worthwhile.

If the right was more limited - say to drive a car or light van to your property - then arguments about what width is necessary to do so may be engaged.

However, "all purposes" is exactly that, all (reasonable) purposes.  To take an extreme example, if you and a friend want to carry a 3m piece of wood along the RoW sideways then (provided the RoW is at least that wide) you are fully entitled to do so... it is an irrelevance that there are no 3m wide cars (the C&U regs limits the width of cars to 2.5m BTW)

Also worth making a point that if you are having things like sand and bricks delivered, or a skip, then the lorry may need considerably more width than 3m to manoeuvre and/or put down stabilisers.  Whether or not the lorry is allowed to 'park' on the driveway while loading/unloading could be another point of contention though.

What happens at the end of the private drive?  Is that the start of the (public) highway or are there estate roads that have to be passed over as well?  If it is public highway, then what kind of road is it?  At first glance at the plan I would suspect the 'bulge' was designed to allow vehicles to pass... which might be important if the drive leads straight onto highway, less so if it is onto a quiet private road.

(INAL)

MattFurious

Section62 said:

MattFurious said:

I have a copy of their deeds (one of the letters I got from their solicitor) and the solicitor states:

"the driveway is owned by my client and that you have a right of way at all times and for all purposes over and along the driveway, each of you paying one of the costs of maintaining and repairing it.

The BiB is a key point, and why I feel getting advice from a solicitor would be worthwhile.

If the right was more limited - say to drive a car or light van to your property - then arguments about what width is necessary to do so may be engaged.

However, "all purposes" is exactly that, all (reasonable) purposes.  To take an extreme example, if you and a friend want to carry a 3m piece of wood along the RoW sideways then (provided the RoW is at least that wide) you are fully entitled to do so... it is an irrelevance that there are no 3m wide cars (the C&U regs limits the width of cars to 2.5m BTW)

Also worth making a point that if you are having things like sand and bricks delivered, or a skip, then the lorry may need considerably more width than 3m to manoeuvre and/or put down stabilisers.  Whether or not the lorry is allowed to 'park' on the driveway while loading/unloading could be another point of contention though.

What happens at the end of the private drive?  Is that the start of the (public) highway or are there estate roads that have to be passed over as well?  If it is public highway, then what kind of road is it?  At first glance at the plan I would suspect the 'bulge' was designed to allow vehicles to pass... which might be important if the drive leads straight onto highway, less so if it is onto a quiet private road.

(INAL)

I agree, the bulge is there should both cars be driving in and out at the same time, there is space to pass one another safely on the drive without the need for a car to reverse out onto the main road.  With the cars parked there, I am guess if one of her "guests" pull onto the drive as I am trying to get out, then they would have to reverse out onto the road, which is usually a situation that highway agency would want to limit.  Chances of that timing happening are remote, but possible.

I am thinking to face the initial costs of a solicitor led investigation to know more...

Ath_Wat

MattFurious said:

Section62 said:

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)

I have a copy of their deeds (one of the letters I got from their solicitor) and the solicitor states:

"the driveway is owned by my client and that you have a right of way at all times and for all purposes over and along the driveway, each of you paying one of the costs of maintaining and repairing it.

This does not entitle you to park on the driveway or any part of it, nor to use it for recreational purposes.  You are not entitled to block it or store items on it, including deliveries of sand and bricks which have been made recently..."

So they know I have RoW AAT FaP!! LOL

Hang on, did you have deliveries of sand and brick put onto the driveway?

MattFurious

Ath_Wat said:

MattFurious said:

This does not entitle you to park on the driveway or any part of it, nor to use it for recreational purposes.  You are not entitled to block it or store items on it, including deliveries of sand and bricks which have been made recently..."

So they know I have RoW AAT FaP!! LOL

Hang on, did you have deliveries of sand and brick put onto the driveway?

Sand and Stone Chipping for the parking bay...

All the building blocks were on pallets and put straight into the garage, so had to go over the drive to get the pallets in.

In terms of where, the pallets were put overhanging the area of my land and the driveway, so yes, a portion of the pallet was on the driveway.  In terms of time, within an hour, the pallets were removed, as I ripped the bag and shovelled the products onto my land as quickly as possible, in effect, this being part of the "unloading" process.  I saw this as loading/unloading rather than storing goods on her driveway for days at a time.  I do see however, that this could be deemed unacceptable, however, that brings into question, what is suitable loading/unloading?  This is more grey area.

GDB2222

MattFurious said:

Ath_Wat said:

MattFurious said:

This does not entitle you to park on the driveway or any part of it, nor to use it for recreational purposes.  You are not entitled to block it or store items on it, including deliveries of sand and bricks which have been made recently..."

So they know I have RoW AAT FaP!! LOL

Hang on, did you have deliveries of sand and brick put onto the driveway?

Sand and Stone Chipping for the parking bay...

All the building blocks were on pallets and put straight into the garage, so had to go over the drive to get the pallets in.

In terms of where, the pallets were put overhanging the area of my land and the driveway, so yes, a portion of the pallet was on the driveway.  In terms of time, within an hour, the pallets were removed, as I ripped the bag and shovelled the products onto my land as quickly as possible, in effect, this being part of the "unloading" process.  I saw this as loading/unloading rather than storing goods on her driveway for days at a time.  I do see however, that this could be deemed unacceptable, however, that brings into question, what is suitable loading/unloading?  This is more grey area.

I wish that I could point you to a definitive guide to ROWs, but the law seems to be what you (rightly) term a grey area.  

I don't know what started it, but, between you and your neighbour, you seem to be making each others' lives a lot harder than necessary. 

MattFurious

GDB2222 said:

I wish that I could point you to a definitive guide to ROWs, but the law seems to be what you (rightly) term a grey area.  

I don't know what started it, but, between you and your neighbour, you seem to be making each others' lives a lot harder than necessary. 

100% Agree.  When we first moved it, the kids rode up and down on their bikes, their kids even played in our house at one point, then all of a sudden, dont do this, dont do that.  We adhered to everything, but as I said, it seems like it is all one way, so hence knowing our rights.  I even got told that I cannot wash my car when it is parked outside of my garage as it is on their drive.  So all the suppressed nature of what was free when moving in means it causes headaches now.

If I had known that the neighbours would be this strict on the rules of the driveway, I probably would never have bought a house with a shared driveway, however, if by means of doing this we can understand the legal aspects, and I can have something that will allow better footing for renegotiation, it may then bring peace from all sides.  I have no clue as why it turned nasty, but in reality, our neighbour seems overly aggressive in nature when it comes to these discussions.