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

GDB2222

MattFurious said:

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

Supposing that you get a unanimous response on this forum (unlikely as that seems), what would you do with that information? An awful lot of people on this forum will give you seemingly categorical advice about the law, when they are guessing what the law is, or simply saying what they think the law ought to be. 

You cannot rely on what is said here, and I’m a bit concerned that it’s just going to wind you up further. 

Section62

markin 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.

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

Use the deeds against them and send a identical letter to them, make up a fake solicitor name to save costs.

That's a terrible idea.

If MattFurious wants to save costs and correspond with the solicitor then he should do it in his own name.  You don't need to be a solicitor to write a letter to another solicitor, and in some situations it is better to deal with solicitors as a layperson rather than engage a solicitor yourself.

Writing a letter purporting to be from a fake solicitor is not only pointless (and easily found out), it could also leave the writer on the wrong side of the law and facing the prospect of criminal charges.

GDB2222

Section62 said:

markin 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.

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

Use the deeds against them and send a identical letter to them, make up a fake solicitor name to save costs.

That's a terrible idea.

If MattFurious wants to save costs and correspond with the solicitor then he should do it in his own name.  You don't need to be a solicitor to write a letter to another solicitor, and in some situations it is better to deal with solicitors as a layperson rather than engage a solicitor yourself.

Writing a letter purporting to be from a fake solicitor is not only pointless (and easily found out), it could also leave the writer on the wrong side of the law and facing the prospect of criminal charges.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/47/section/21

21Unqualified person not to pretend to be a solicitor.Any unqualified person who wilfully pretends to be, or takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he is, qualified or recognised by law as qualified to act as a solicitor shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to [F1a fine not exceeding the fourth level on the standard scale]
In practice, I don’t think anyone would bother to prosecute.

Section62

GDB2222 said:

MattFurious said:

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

Supposing that you get a unanimous response on this forum (unlikely as that seems), what would you do with that information? An awful lot of people on this forum will give you seemingly categorical advice about the law, when they are guessing what the law is, or simply saying what they think the law ought to be. 

You cannot rely on what is said here, and I’m a bit concerned that it’s just going to wind you up further. 

The trouble is with these types of cases is everyone is guessing up to the point a court makes a decision. The law on rights of way is constantly evolving and being reinterpreted to meet modern demands.  That's why my advice would be to speak to a solicitor who can see all the information (including pictures BTW MattF) and give some guidance based on their understanding of the facts.

The only thing that might be categoric is if the planning consent includes a condition prohibiting parking on the shared drive.  But then Matt's problem would be getting the condition enforced....

user1977

GDB2222 said:

Section62 said:

markin 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.

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

Use the deeds against them and send a identical letter to them, make up a fake solicitor name to save costs.

That's a terrible idea.

If MattFurious wants to save costs and correspond with the solicitor then he should do it in his own name.  You don't need to be a solicitor to write a letter to another solicitor, and in some situations it is better to deal with solicitors as a layperson rather than engage a solicitor yourself.

Writing a letter purporting to be from a fake solicitor is not only pointless (and easily found out), it could also leave the writer on the wrong side of the law and facing the prospect of criminal charges.

In practice, I don’t think anyone would bother to prosecute.

No, I expect all that would happen is the other solicitor would spot what's been done and assume the OP is a nutter.

MattFurious

...

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].

...

This bit is what is really meaningful, cases whereby acceptance of certain aspects have already been fought in the courts and answers provided.  A precedence is easier to force through again rather than to overturn a precedence, so if there are cases whereby formalities have already been assessed, this helps with the case of determining my rights.

All the rubbish of pretending to be a solicitor, please stop!

I will begin a conversation with a Solicitor today, as there is plausible reason to think that my rights would mean that they cannot park on the drive without my consent, as in effect, the bulge is deemed a "passing spot" and that, as I pay 50% of maintenance of the agreed brown area, I should have access to the whole of that area at all times.

Should they wish to renegotiate the brown area, not to include the bulge and the spot in front of the drive and for me to pay 50% of what is left over, then that would be a different story, but as it stands, that is the contention points.

Section62

MattFurious said:

Should they wish to renegotiate the brown area, not to include the bulge and the spot in front of the drive and for me to pay 50% of what is left over, then that would be a different story, but as it stands, that is the contention points.

If the bulge is there as a passing place then it would be unwise to agree to allow the neighbours to park there informally, or to exclude it from the brown area.

It should be treated as a safety feature.  If there were a causal link between parking in the bulge and an accident then questions of liability may arise.  You don't want to be part of that... the best way of avoiding that situation is taking a firm line that the bulge needs to be kept clear to allow passing as was originally intended.

wilfred30

One thing's for sure.  You will now have to declare a dispute when you sell and, if buyers are given the details of the dispute, I don't know if that's the case or not but ..... I imagine a lot of them will be totally put off buying your house.

Please keep that in mind when deciding how far to take this.

Section62

wilfred30 said:

One thing's for sure.  You will now have to declare a dispute when you sell and, if buyers are given the details of the dispute, I don't know if that's the case or not but ..... I imagine a lot of them will be totally put off buying your house.

Please keep that in mind when deciding how far to take this.

From the sound of things that boat sailed a long time ago.

There comes a point where one of the sides needs to accept the financial hit and move away, or go 'legal' and take the dispute to a point where the vendor can explain that there was a dispute, but it has now been resolved by court order.  Still potentially offputting, but it brings a level of certainty which doesn't exist at present.

I'm not suggesting MattFurious is at that point yet though.

snowdrop99

West v Sharp 1999 is worth a read, relates to what the courts have deemed to be an actionable nuisance