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

silvercar

I would be considering the maintenance contribution and the access rights separately. Even if you had no access rights, if the deeds stated you had to pay 50% of the maintenance costs then that is what you have to do. There is no inference that "because you are paying" you have more rights.

snowdrop99

silvercar said:

I would be considering the maintenance contribution and the access rights separately. Even if you had no access rights, if the deeds stated you had to pay 50% of the maintenance costs then that is what you have to do. There is no inference that "because you are paying" you have more rights.

As the deeds say 'The land has the benefit of a right of way over the tinted brown on the filed plan subject to the payment of one half of the cost of same maintenance' does the 'subject to' imply some correlation between the payment and the right?

Titus_Wadd

I'll spare everyone the details of my situation because it's different and could send the discussion off down a different rabbit-hole.  My advice is see the solicitor and note what they say.  We were quoted £50k to take action for an emergency injunction to remove a car blocking part of our RoW. Even though our legal protection agreed to underwrite the action we are exploring all other remedies first and we're four years into our situation. 

The harassment aspect is a concern, so start logging them in a diary and collate any cctv or dash-cam clips and save any emails from the other party.  When you report incidents to authorities: Police or Council avoid using the N word: "Neighbour" because, in my experience, it instantly diminishes the Police interest.  Even with a log of 70 incidents supported by cctv clips (including 3 assaults) the Police always said it was a civil dispute.  The Council said it was a Police matter.  Finally after 4 years the council and police have agreed to issue a Community Protection Warning (probably the lowest action they could take), but shockingly the Inspector, when asked, admitted that no one had viewed our cctv and mobile clips yet. 

Language is powerful so, also avoiding calling it a shared drive because "drive" sounds like something that can be parked on.  It's a RoW and if unspecified, no one should park on it.  Take photos of their parked vehicles if they are causing a substantial interference with your RoW, but if the occurrence varies day to day you'll need a lot of pictures to demonstrate that the blockage is substantial.  But if you ever consider taking civil action you will need to demonstrate squeaky cleanness yourself; not parking anywhere on the area shaded brown either.

Sorry if I've missed the details in the rest of the thread, but is there no off-road parking at your house other than in the garage or on the brown area RoW?  Is there anywhere to create additional hard-standing for a car within the curtilage of your property, because that would appeal to prospective buyers and you can honestly tell them that, although there's no parking on the RoW there's adequate parking space included in your plot.

The maintenance is something that could be addressed to help you sell and move:  Has the servient tenement owner made any repairs since you've been there, have you contributed your 50%?  As the Dominant tenement owner I believe you can make repairs yourself, filling in a few pot-holes before prospective buyers come to view seems easily do-able.

So I'd suggest keep a log of incidents and any supporting evidence of their unreasonableness but do not expect to get any remedy from either authority in a short time-frame.  It's just to preempt them advising your to keep a log for 6 months which was a standard method of keeping us in a holding pattern without spending tax-payers money.  If you are planning to sell soon anyway the existence of a dispute made to outside bodies isn't going to help the selling process.  Once you start sending solicitor letters or getting the council involved, you will have to declare the dispute (ask your Solicitor whether there already is a dispute that should be declared and ways to settle it, it'll be valuable advice).  You don't have to declare that you are keeping an evidence diary about the servient owner so it's still something you can do in tandem and hopefully you will never need the log and will be happily established in your new place soon. 

Don't buy another house with a RoW, shared access or on a private road - it's a lesson we've learned the hard way, and will never do again.  We're too far into our dispute to deny it's happening and if we tried to sell now we'd be looking at a price reduction that is far more than the £50k civil action quote.  I would add that possibly some councils' and police forces' approach is better than ours.

Enjoy your new home when you get it. x

Ath_Wat

snowdrop99 said:

silvercar said:

I would be considering the maintenance contribution and the access rights separately. Even if you had no access rights, if the deeds stated you had to pay 50% of the maintenance costs then that is what you have to do. There is no inference that "because you are paying" you have more rights.

As the deeds say 'The land has the benefit of a right of way over the tinted brown on the filed plan subject to the payment of one half of the cost of same maintenance' does the 'subject to' imply some correlation between the payment and the right?

That states that if he doesn't pay, he has no right. The poster you are replying to said that he doesn't have more rights when contributing than if he had right of way without contributing.

MattFurious

Titus_Wadd said:

Enjoy your new home when you get it. x

Many thanks for this post, very enlightening.  I agree, terminology and referencing items correctly is a must.

Your comment: "It's a RoW and if unspecified, no one should park on it" is my main focus.

I accept that initially, as I did not know the inner workings of such RoW, and both the estate agent, and my solicitor kept referring to it as a "shared drive", this meant that I did use the drive for the wrong purposes.  As soon as the details were made clear, I have never reoffended on any of those counts.

I think the Solicitor that represented me during the purchase of the house should have spelled out "What a shared drive means for me" as then, I would have either offered less for the house when I moved in, knowing such key things, or walked away.  Alternatively, I would have accepted the requirements of only having a RoW and would never have upset them in the first place!!

As of yet, we have not had to pay any maintenance costs, however, we can state that see that as the terms of the usage of the RoW, so when instructed, would follow that through.  We have never refused to pay, which I guess is the main thing.  

Ditzy_Mitzy

Two questions for @MattFurious :

What do you want from the neighbour?

Why?

GDB2222

It may help to be more precise.

It’s the neighbour’s drive, on the neighbour’s land. Matt has a right of way over it.

Ditzy_Mitzy

GDB2222 said:

It may help to be more precise.

It’s the neighbour’s drive, on the neighbour’s land. Matt has a right of way over it.

I'm aware of that; I think it would be interesting to find out what Matt wants or expects the neighbours to do, and his rationale for wanting them to do it.  

TripleH

It's a good point. Without an objective in mind you can spend stupid amounts of time and/or money on fighting something and actually go nowhere. Plus with no clear objectives in mind, you're easier to dismiss by authorities as a timewaster.

Matt Furious, sit down, think and write down what your best case scenario is that you are after before you do anything else.

400ixl

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

GDB2222 said:

It may help to be more precise.

It’s the neighbour’s drive, on the neighbour’s land. Matt has a right of way over it.

I'm aware of that; I think it would be interesting to find out what Matt wants or expects the neighbours to do, and his rationale for wanting them to do it.  

Hasn't he put that previously.

To get leverage to force the neighbour into a compromise position where they get to park on the driveway in exchange for the OP being able to wash his car on the driveway and for his children to ride their bikes on it.

Unfortunately it would appear both sides have got themselves into a position where a compromise is not possible without using leverage and it being under duress rather than neighbourly.