Right of Way

Woolsery

Ath_Wat said:

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?

It seems to me that a patio is just an extended area of paving, just like that used on paths. Other than providing a wider area to walk upon than is necessary, there's seems nothing remarkable about a wide bit of paving, whatever we call it.

It appears the OP could closely define the route of the right of way to prevent the neighbour straying, say with a fence, but that must have been considered and rejected. The space must therefore be shared, maybe many times a day, because that's what the legal situation allows.

Ath_Wat

Well indeed.  but the OP seems aggrieved that the neighbour has all these rights over "their patio", when the likelihood is the rights predate the patio.  It's not so much that it is paved; calling it a patio indicates how the OP uses it.  If they called it a path and used it as a path, they probably would never have got so aggrieved about it in the first place.


As for defining the route with a fence, did you see the photograph?  The whole area is the width of an average footpath.  It looks to me like the area in its entirety was intended only as shared access for the two houses, and the OP has begun using it as a garden.

Woolsery

Ath_Wat said:

As for defining the route with a fence, did you see the photograph?  The whole area is the width of an average footpath.  It looks to me like the area in its entirety was intended only as shared access for the two houses, and the OP has begun using it as a garden.

I did see the photo, not provided by the OP on this thread, so I had to work it out for myself that the garden's about as wide as the office I'm in. Allowing a metre for the footpath, that leaves around another metre or so adjoining the OP's house that could be 'private.' Placing a sun lounger in the route most convenient for traversing the space doesn't seem sensible if they're trying to reduce incidences of aggravation.

Section62

Woolsery said:

Ath_Wat said:

As for defining the route with a fence, did you see the photograph?  The whole area is the width of an average footpath.  It looks to me like the area in its entirety was intended only as shared access for the two houses, and the OP has begun using it as a garden.

I did see the photo, not provided by the OP on this thread, so I had to work it out for myself that the garden's about as wide as the office I'm in. Allowing a metre for the footpath, that leaves around another metre or so adjoining the OP's house that could be 'private.' Placing a sun lounger in the route most convenient for traversing the space doesn't seem sensible if they're trying to reduce incidences of aggravation.

The OP's other image was this one, which gives a better idea of the area available.  I'd guess about 2m wide.

By modern standards that is less a 'patio' and more a 'wide path'.

Ath_Wat

Section62 said:

Woolsery said:

Ath_Wat said:

As for defining the route with a fence, did you see the photograph?  The whole area is the width of an average footpath.  It looks to me like the area in its entirety was intended only as shared access for the two houses, and the OP has begun using it as a garden.

I did see the photo, not provided by the OP on this thread, so I had to work it out for myself that the garden's about as wide as the office I'm in. Allowing a metre for the footpath, that leaves around another metre or so adjoining the OP's house that could be 'private.' Placing a sun lounger in the route most convenient for traversing the space doesn't seem sensible if they're trying to reduce incidences of aggravation.

The OP's other image was this one, which gives a better idea of the area available.  I'd guess about 2m wide.

By modern standards that is less a 'patio' and more a 'wide path'.

But that is my point.  The area was probably designed as an access path. If it had stayed regarded as a shared access  path, probably none of this would have happened. 

However at some point someone has decided that this is "their patio", and consequently they feel aggrieved that the neighbour is walking over "their patio".  If it was just a path, who cares which way the door opens?  You wouldn't have problems with them asking you to "move your feet" as you don't sit in a path having dinner.  The OP wouldn't be bothered about who was using that path, whenever they were doing it.  Perception is important.   An area that size with a ROW over it shouldn't be thought of as something you can have private enjoyment of.  It's somewhere to keep your bins, not somewhere to sit.

YoungBlueEyes

Without trawling back through both threads, I’m not sure the main point is that they’re aggrieved that someone is walking through their patio. It’s more of a ‘is my neighbour allowed to do this with his door/is his extension too big/how can we peacefully co-exist’ kinda thread. I think he’s said more than once that they’re ok about the row. 

This all from memory though. 

Ath_Wat

YoungBlueEyes said:

Without trawling back through both threads, I’m not sure the main point is that they’re aggrieved that someone is walking through their patio. It’s more of a ‘is my neighbour allowed to do this with his door/is his extension too big/how can we peacefully co-exist’ kinda thread. I think he’s said more than once that they’re ok about the row. 

This all from memory though. 

I am not sure how that fits with this, from the first post in this thread

KEMYST said:

 They have a ROW through our property which is extremely invasive; in particular it is no further then 5ft from our house for its total length. My wife bought the house off a solicitor who was dishonest. If my wife had known about the ROW, she would never have bought the house. 

They now cross over our patio as a matter of course - even though they could more easily open their front door and step across the pavement to get to their car. They use the ROW six to eight times a day. (I don`t think I can fight this, either).

I mean, they are supposed to use it as a matter of course; it's an access path, not a patio.  They may or may not be going out of their way to use it. but the expectation should always have been that they could be using it several times a day.

I mean the OP has the right to sit on that path if they like, of course. But if they do, they have to expect that people using it as a path are going to be disruptive for them.

Woolsery

Ath_Wat said:

YoungBlueEyes said:

Without trawling back through both threads, I’m not sure the main point is that they’re aggrieved that someone is walking through their patio. It’s more of a ‘is my neighbour allowed to do this with his door/is his extension too big/how can we peacefully co-exist’ kinda thread. I think he’s said more than once that they’re ok about the row. 

This all from memory though. 

I am not sure how that fits with this, from the first post in this thread

KEMYST said:

 They have a ROW through our property which is extremely invasive; in particular it is no further then 5ft from our house for its total length. My wife bought the house off a solicitor who was dishonest. If my wife had known about the ROW, she would never have bought the house. 

They now cross over our patio as a matter of course - even though they could more easily open their front door and step across the pavement to get to their car. They use the ROW six to eight times a day. (I don`t think I can fight this, either).

I mean the OP has the right to sit on that path if they like, of course. But if they do, they have to expect that people using it as a path are going to be disruptive for them.

I'm not convinced they have that as a right. We own a track which goes across our land to the neighbouring property, and I'd not dream of parking on it, even for ten minutes. It is their right of way, not mine

pretamang

given how ugly this is getting, have attempts been exhausted to find the original solicitor? Was this missed by them entirely when purchasing the house?

Ath_Wat

pretamang said:

given how ugly this is getting, have attempts been exhausted to find the original solicitor? Was this missed by them entirely when purchasing the house?

The OP said they bought it from a solicitor who was dishonest; not that there was an issue with a solicitor they hired.