Right of Way

Section62

400ixl said:

Could you not remove the slabs that make the RoW so that it is just a muddy path over winter. May discourage them from using it, especially in the wetter weather.

What is the point of antagonising the neighbour by doing this?

How do you explain this course of action in court if the neighbour starts legal action?

As much as it is fun for folks to come up with innovative ideas to take revenge, when you've got into a neighbour dispute the sensible thing to do is to try to find ways of getting out of it. Not making a bad situation even worse.

As Titus_Wadd says - "If there's any possibility of the parties end up in court, then resist the urge to retaliate when the neighbours try to provoke, your self control will stand you in good stead."

Ath_Wat

I am not entirely sure that is antagonising them.  You could argue that the fact the OP has paved this area and thinks of it as "their patio" is part of the problem, and if they revert it to just being, for both parties,  "the path behind the house" a lot of this will evaporate.

Section62

Ath_Wat said:

I am not entirely sure that is antagonising them.  You could argue that the fact the OP has paved this area and thinks of it as "their patio" is part of the problem, and if they revert it to just being, for both parties,  "the path behind the house" a lot of this will evaporate.

I think it would be very optimistic to believe replacing any paved surface with a "muddy path" would be greeted by the neighbour as an enhancement.

bouicca21

I’d just leave it all alone - the neighbours clearly feel aggrieved but they will get bored with the petty revenge if OP stops rising to the bait.  As someone once said to me, the only way to deal with complaining aholes is to outnice them.

Ath_Wat

Section62 said:

Ath_Wat said:

I am not entirely sure that is antagonising them.  You could argue that the fact the OP has paved this area and thinks of it as "their patio" is part of the problem, and if they revert it to just being, for both parties,  "the path behind the house" a lot of this will evaporate.

I think it would be very optimistic to believe replacing any paved surface with a "muddy path" would be greeted by the neighbour as an enhancement.

They might consider the fact that the OP no longer has garden furniture over the path to be an enhancement.  The existence of the right of way would suggest that it certainly wasn't always a patio.

Norman_Castle

Ath_Wat said:

Section62 said:

Ath_Wat said:

I am not entirely sure that is antagonising them.  You could argue that the fact the OP has paved this area and thinks of it as "their patio" is part of the problem, and if they revert it to just being, for both parties,  "the path behind the house" a lot of this will evaporate.

I think it would be very optimistic to believe replacing any paved surface with a "muddy path" would be greeted by the neighbour as an enhancement.

They might consider the fact that the OP no longer has garden furniture over the path to be an enhancement.  The existence of the right of way would suggest that it certainly wasn't always a patio.

Laying slabs and describing it as a patio is irrelevant. The op has never suggested they are trying to be difficult. The row is open to be used, the neighbours are clearly aggrieved that their clueless interpretation of what the row allows them to do, having their door opening onto it and preventing the op from gating the access has been proved wrong. Their claims of entitlement was idiotic as is their current behavior.

Titus_Wadd

KEMYST hopefully the winter weather will naturally dissuade them from loitering on the RoW for a few months.  The police in my county simply don't seem to understand ASB, their comfort zone is public order offences, common assault or criminal damage.  If another official tells me ours is just a neighbour dispute I'll give them a deadleg and a Chinese burn; it's patronising and diminishes the harm to justify them taking no action.
Remember how the same authorities used to downplay domestic abuse?  I think in a few years maybe they'll realise neighbours have murdered neighbours.  Sadly it'll take a few more deaths before that happens!  Trying to get any ASB remedy has caused us more stress than the actual perpetrators over the past 4 year; even though turning the other cheek for that long adds its own stress!
The civil action we've taken will cost around £50k, legal cover from our insurers is contributing but we'll still pay some of that.  I can't say yet whether the behaviour will improve, it's  too early to say.

Ath_Wat

Norman_Castle said:

Ath_Wat said:

Section62 said:

Ath_Wat said:

I am not entirely sure that is antagonising them.  You could argue that the fact the OP has paved this area and thinks of it as "their patio" is part of the problem, and if they revert it to just being, for both parties,  "the path behind the house" a lot of this will evaporate.

I think it would be very optimistic to believe replacing any paved surface with a "muddy path" would be greeted by the neighbour as an enhancement.

They might consider the fact that the OP no longer has garden furniture over the path to be an enhancement.  The existence of the right of way would suggest that it certainly wasn't always a patio.

Laying slabs and describing it as a patio is irrelevant. The op has never suggested they are trying to be difficult. The row is open to be used, the neighbours are clearly aggrieved that their clueless interpretation of what the row allows them to do, having their door opening onto it and preventing the op from gating the access has been proved wrong. Their claims of entitlement was idiotic as is their current behavior.

Well then, I stand corrected.  I'm sure that if they were, they would have mentioned it.

Section62

Ath_Wat said:

Section62 said:

Ath_Wat said:

I am not entirely sure that is antagonising them.  You could argue that the fact the OP has paved this area and thinks of it as "their patio" is part of the problem, and if they revert it to just being, for both parties,  "the path behind the house" a lot of this will evaporate.

I think it would be very optimistic to believe replacing any paved surface with a "muddy path" would be greeted by the neighbour as an enhancement.

They might consider the fact that the OP no longer has garden furniture over the path to be an enhancement.  The existence of the right of way would suggest that it certainly wasn't always a patio.

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression KEMYST and his wife are rather fond of their patio and enjoy using it.

It seems somewhat counterproductive and not strategically sensible to dig the patio up and turn it into a "muddy path" as a solution to the problems KEMYST is having with the neighbour.

From the previous descriptions I suspect the neighbour would positively enjoy watching KEMYST rip up his beloved patio, and would regard it as a major victory in their dispute.

But if the neighbour does view the removal of the patio as an enhancement, then surely the point of KEMYST doing it has been utterly lost?

Ath_Wat

Section62 said:

Ath_Wat said:

Section62 said:

Ath_Wat said:

I am not entirely sure that is antagonising them.  You could argue that the fact the OP has paved this area and thinks of it as "their patio" is part of the problem, and if they revert it to just being, for both parties,  "the path behind the house" a lot of this will evaporate.

I think it would be very optimistic to believe replacing any paved surface with a "muddy path" would be greeted by the neighbour as an enhancement.

They might consider the fact that the OP no longer has garden furniture over the path to be an enhancement.  The existence of the right of way would suggest that it certainly wasn't always a patio.

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression KEMYST and his wife are rather fond of their patio and enjoy using it.

It seems somewhat counterproductive and not strategically sensible to dig the patio up and turn it into a "muddy path" as a solution to the problems KEMYST is having with the neighbour.

From the previous descriptions I suspect the neighbour would positively enjoy watching KEMYST rip up his beloved patio, and would regard it as a major victory in their dispute.

But if the neighbour does view the removal of the patio as an enhancement, then surely the point of KEMYST doing it has been utterly lost?

It's not really relevant whether they enjoy it or not.  Would you say it was either normal or reasonable to build a patio over a right of way through your garden that you know is in regular use?  If someone came here and posted that their neighbour was planning to do it, I imagine the sympathies of posters would rest largely with them.