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

NameUnavailable

Surely the first response is to tell the neighbour that they can't park their cars along the area shaded in brown as that is obstructing your right of way?

Ath_Wat

Woolsery said:

Ath_Wat said:

Herbalus said:

Ath_Wat said:

MattFurious said:

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.

Well, er, yes.  You really should have known that.  It's their land and you have a right to cross over it to get to your garage.  Of course you can't wash your car on it.  Nor should your kids be up and down it on their bikes.

If there is a right of way across it “for all purposes” then why is going up and down it on a bicycle not allowed?

Because you have right of way to get through from one side to the other, not to run up and down all day.

I think you are making up extra rules. Having a right of access means just that, It's not for someone else to arbitrarily decide how often the access may be used.

We had a similar situation when we began groundwork on our property. This meant driving a dumper truck up and down the private road we have access rights upon. It wasn't long before someone decided our use of the road was 'excessive,' so we asked them to point out the excessive use clause in the relevant documentation. After that there was silence.

It would have been quite different if there had been words limiting the use to a certain number of journeys in a given time. As there were not, it could be assumed 'excessive use' had no meaning.

It's not a matter of excessive use.    Your truck had to get through, and it did go through.  You can't ride round and round in circles because you are not going through it to get from the road to the garage.

Herbalus

Ath_Wat said:

Woolsery said:

Ath_Wat said:

Herbalus said:

Ath_Wat said:

MattFurious said:

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.

Well, er, yes.  You really should have known that.  It's their land and you have a right to cross over it to get to your garage.  Of course you can't wash your car on it.  Nor should your kids be up and down it on their bikes.

If there is a right of way across it “for all purposes” then why is going up and down it on a bicycle not allowed?

Because you have right of way to get through from one side to the other, not to run up and down all day.

I think you are making up extra rules. Having a right of access means just that, It's not for someone else to arbitrarily decide how often the access may be used.

We had a similar situation when we began groundwork on our property. This meant driving a dumper truck up and down the private road we have access rights upon. It wasn't long before someone decided our use of the road was 'excessive,' so we asked them to point out the excessive use clause in the relevant documentation. After that there was silence.

It would have been quite different if there had been words limiting the use to a certain number of journeys in a given time. As there were not, it could be assumed 'excessive use' had no meaning.

It's not a matter of excessive use.    Your truck had to get through, and it did go through.  You can't ride round and round in circles because you are not going through it to get from the road to the garage.

What if the children decide to move pebbles one at a time from the garage to the road for an hour on their bikes, and then move them all back again? Does that count as passing through enough?

Ath_Wat

MattFurious said:

The key issue is a verbal agreement, or acceptance of certain activities, or waiving the necessity to intervene.  

In the first year of living here, I could wash my car, the kids could ride their bike and the neighbours even said "Hi" while we were doing such activities, but at a point in time somehow it all changed...

If it was that precious to them, they should have set us straight on day 1.  If our usage was annoying them, without us knowing we were doing wrong, then until they say something, we know no different.  

So yes, we used the drive for the wrong means/purposes initially, but once discussions escalated, it moved to rules.  Accepting rules is one thing, but as the title of this request is labelled, knowing MY rights with my Access at All Times clause.

The main issue is the behaviour, the aggressiveness of the neighbour which is what is the biggest grievance.  It costs nothing to be polite, to engage and to help us understand with explanations.  Ranting and using bad language is not appropriate.

Thanks for all the input

The rules are simple, they can't block your access, you can only use it for access.

The fact that they let you use it for more than you were entitled to originally seems an odd thing for you to be annoyed about.  

As it is they have never, as far as you say, ever blocked your access.  They just might, if you had a bigger car.

You on the other hand have used it for things other than access and been asked to stop.

I fail to see that they are in the wrong here at all.

Ath_Wat

Herbalus said:

Ath_Wat said:

Woolsery said:

Ath_Wat said:

Herbalus said:

Ath_Wat said:

MattFurious said:

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.

Well, er, yes.  You really should have known that.  It's their land and you have a right to cross over it to get to your garage.  Of course you can't wash your car on it.  Nor should your kids be up and down it on their bikes.

If there is a right of way across it “for all purposes” then why is going up and down it on a bicycle not allowed?

Because you have right of way to get through from one side to the other, not to run up and down all day.

I think you are making up extra rules. Having a right of access means just that, It's not for someone else to arbitrarily decide how often the access may be used.

We had a similar situation when we began groundwork on our property. This meant driving a dumper truck up and down the private road we have access rights upon. It wasn't long before someone decided our use of the road was 'excessive,' so we asked them to point out the excessive use clause in the relevant documentation. After that there was silence.

It would have been quite different if there had been words limiting the use to a certain number of journeys in a given time. As there were not, it could be assumed 'excessive use' had no meaning.

It's not a matter of excessive use.    Your truck had to get through, and it did go through.  You can't ride round and round in circles because you are not going through it to get from the road to the garage.

What if the children decide to move pebbles one at a time from the garage to the road for an hour on their bikes, and then move them all back again? Does that count as passing through enough?

Yes, if that's actually what they want to do and are doing.  It wasn't, though, was it.

I'd imagine the chances of them actually wanting to do that very often were pretty slim.

MattFurious

Ath_Wat said:

MattFurious said:

The key issue is a verbal agreement, or acceptance of certain activities, or waiving the necessity to intervene.  

In the first year of living here, I could wash my car, the kids could ride their bike and the neighbours even said "Hi" while we were doing such activities, but at a point in time somehow it all changed...

If it was that precious to them, they should have set us straight on day 1.  If our usage was annoying them, without us knowing we were doing wrong, then until they say something, we know no different.  

So yes, we used the drive for the wrong means/purposes initially, but once discussions escalated, it moved to rules.  Accepting rules is one thing, but as the title of this request is labelled, knowing MY rights with my Access at All Times clause.

The main issue is the behaviour, the aggressiveness of the neighbour which is what is the biggest grievance.  It costs nothing to be polite, to engage and to help us understand with explanations.  Ranting and using bad language is not appropriate.

Thanks for all the input

The rules are simple, they can't block your access, you can only use it for access.

The fact that they let you use it for more than you were entitled to originally seems an odd thing for you to be annoyed about.  

As it is they have never, as far as you say, ever blocked your access.  They just might, if you had a bigger car.

You on the other hand have used it for things other than access and been asked to stop.

I fail to see that they are in the wrong here at all.

The BiB is the precision that I am wanting to understand.

If it means, at all times, the driveway must be kept clear so that I can utilise 100% of the area to get in and our that the only reason they were letting us use the driveway initially, was so they could continue to park their cars on without hassle from us.  If they need my agreement for those cars to be parked there, the agreement is a trade off.

I think it is petty (yet within their rights) to not let the kids ride their bikes, or for myself to wash my car next to my garage.

I think it would be petty (but hopefully in my rights) to not let them park any cars on their driveway when I can still get to and from my garage.

It is not all about rights, it is about rights.. but then agreeing a common ground to work with.

Ideally, i see a trade off looking like this...

You can park one car in front of your garage and our kids are free to ride their bikes
You can park a second car within the bulge and I can wash my car in front of my garage

Hopefully, we can see how the power shifts depending on the rights that I have, so while all the discussions around what we could or couldn't do are irrelevant now, the determination of rights is the only thing that matter.

MattFurious

Can people answer this question for me...

"Access at All Times" over the "Brown Shaded area", paying "50% of the costs of maintenance" of that area...

Do you think that means the are allowed to park on their drive in that area?  Or that I have rights to walk on any part of it at any time.

Many thanks

user1977

MattFurious said:

"Access at All Times" over the "Brown Shaded area", paying "50% of the costs of maintenance" of that area...

Do you think that means the are allowed to park on their drive in that area?  Or that I have rights to walk on any part of it at any time.

I think all it means is that they need to leave it sufficiently clear to allow you to exercise your rights of access.

Ditzy_Mitzy

I'm going to be very honest: attempting to use legal methods to engage in a pointless power play with your neighbours is going to get nobody anywhere and achieve nothing bar draining your wallet, should an unscrupulous solicitor get hold of things.

Your neighbours own the land and they have more rights regarding it than you do.  They have asserted those rights vis a vis your children riding bicycles up and down the drive, car washing and the temporary storage of bags of gravel.  Those things have happened and are now in the past.  Stop worry about them and stop trying to get one over.  

The point about right of way obstruction is a non-starter.  The right of way has to be obstructed in a meaningful way, termed a 'substantial interference', you have made no suggestion thus far that it is.  

Section62

Ath_Wat said:

Woolsery said:

Ath_Wat said:

Herbalus said:

Ath_Wat said:

Because you have right of way to get through from one side to the other, not to run up and down all day.

I think you are making up extra rules. Having a right of access means just that, It's not for someone else to arbitrarily decide how often the access may be used.

We had a similar situation when we began groundwork on our property. This meant driving a dumper truck up and down the private road we have access rights upon. It wasn't long before someone decided our use of the road was 'excessive,' so we asked them to point out the excessive use clause in the relevant documentation. After that there was silence.

It would have been quite different if there had been words limiting the use to a certain number of journeys in a given time. As there were not, it could be assumed 'excessive use' had no meaning.

It's not a matter of excessive use.    Your truck had to get through, and it did go through.  You can't ride round and round in circles because you are not going through it to get from the road to the garage.

What if the circles start at the garage and gradually move along to finish at the road?

Generally - if asked - the courts tend to take a more relaxed and reasonable view of what a right of way gives a dominant property, rather than a hard line of only "going through it" to get from 'A' to 'B'.

The developers have created a bit of an issue for MattFurious by not giving him any land in front of the garage.  Which means he needs to park on the driveway in order to open/close the garage doors - so his right has to extend to more than a pure 'A to B' across the neighbour's land.

So what if Matt comes home for 5 minutes to get something and then go out again? Would a court expect him to stop on the driveway, open the garage doors, drive in the garage, do what he needs to do, drive out of the garage, stop on the driveway, close the garage doors, then drive off?

Bulstrode v Lambert [1953] touches on the issues discussed in this thread, particularly relevant to the issue of unloading (or if necessary loading) [e.g. the bricks and sand].

Likewise, I'm not convinced that a court - if asked - would decide that MattFurious needs to wash his car inside the garage, or out on the road, rather than doing it on the driveway he is paying 50% of the maintenance costs for.  The creation of additional parking areas does muddy the waters a bit though.

This is why, if there is nothing in the planning documents to help, MattFurious would probably benefit from speaking to a solicitor specialising in property/RoW... it is rarely as straightforward as purely 'A to B'.