Where can I park on these title deeds?? Please help

Altior

BarelySentientAI said:

Altior said:

Cheers, but in this case the OP states the cul de sac is managed. So we think that the other yellow shaded area on the plan is inside the boundary of other property(s). And for example, if a pothole developed inside the OP's boundary but within the yellow area, the OP would be liable for the repair? It interested me as we have a shared forecourt but the shared space does not fall with anyone's property boundary. The light is out so at night it is literally pitch black but no idea who should be rectifying it. It's been like that for more than five years now! No management company involved. 

My cul-de-sac is managed, but there's a block paving area at the end that acts as access to the garages for the last four properties.  The property boundaries for each of those houses split the shared area into four narrow strips that each owns but cannot block. (My rough drawing of the plot boundaries below).



For your situation, have you tried looking at the Land Registry map to see whether the shared area is part of a registered plot?  Then you could find out who owns it.

Really strange development in my story.

The LR map I was given upon original purchase of 30% had no markings for the forecourt area. When staircasing was completed, the solicitor sent me the documentation - Following completion and registration at HM Land Registry I enclose a copy of your registered title for your information.  I also attach a copy of your Memorandum of Staircasing and Deed of Substitution for your records, which may be required in the event of a sale of the property.

There was however no actual LR map included in the attachments, just the legalise wording.

Some months later, my neighbour who parks in the port under my property was burning plant material in the forecourt, next to where he parks but to the side. Unbeknown to me, I was sitting in my living room and smelt very strong burning, looked outside and he had a fire going. It looked like it had gotten slightly out of control so ran down to find out what he was doing, unsurprisingly I enquired why he'd started a fire there as it was very risky, and he said he could do what he liked it was his land. I replied that it's not from what I've seen, but he proceeded to show me his LR map showing that the land to the back of my property, probably two car widths going back approx three car lengths was indeed all connected to his property. 

News to me! So I decided to download the LR maps for all four properties that use the forecourt. It transpires that this shows the forecourt all split between the properties, similar to the OPs scenario. Even more bizarrely, the part that's linked to my property is the entrance (under my property that everyone uses), all the way up to the beginning of my port (at right angles). But the part immediately in front of my port is linked to one of my other neighbours!! My part apparently includes the manhole covers and isn't in good shape either.

A saga is understating it. I have the original LR map showing no linkage to the forecourt and a new one that shows half of the forecourt is linked to my property, but it's nearly all shared use and I could not put anything on it or park on it as it would prevent everyone else from getting to 'their' parts and ports.

I contacted the housing association as I still pay them the service charge for the buildings insurance, and they sent out someone to inspect the property and the land in the entrance and in the forecourt, he took pictures etc. I have not heard back from them as yet.

Altior

To add to the fun, there's now 85 years remaining on the lease. So I need to consider extending pretty soon to avoid the 80 year cliff face. 

BonaDea

Of course all this sort of nonsense could be largely avoided if people didn't want to have several vehicles, or buy cars too big to fit in their garages.  What's wrong with having one or two cars that fit the garage instead of five that don't, and all the teenagers and young adults using bikes?  Far less anti-social, far less anti-environmental, and might go some way to addressing the UK's obesity epidemic.  

LHW99

BonaDea said:

Of course all this sort of nonsense could be largely avoided if people didn't want to have several vehicles, or buy cars too big to fit in their garages.  What's wrong with having one or two cars that fit the garage instead of five that don't, and all the teenagers and young adults using bikes?  Far less anti-social, far less anti-environmental, and might go some way to addressing the UK's obesity epidemic.  

Probably practicality. They seem to put up large new estates in places where the public transport is poor, and jobs a good distance away. Two parents, and two young adults may well have jobs with different shift patterns, in different towns which don't fit in with each other's or their colleague's journeys. Multiple car ownership ends up as the only answer. Cycling to work is difficult if you are talking 20+ miles on busy main roads with no reasonable cycle paths.

Elliott.T123

BonaDea said:

Of course all this sort of nonsense could be largely avoided if people didn't want to have several vehicles, or buy cars too big to fit in their garages.  What's wrong with having one or two cars that fit the garage instead of five that don't, and all the teenagers and young adults using bikes?  Far less anti-social, far less anti-environmental, and might go some way to addressing the UK's obesity epidemic.  

All well and good in some sort of utopia or imaginary world where everyone works from home, has a bus stop outside their office or teenagers only ever need to travel a few miles.

Meanwhile in the real world, the vast majority of 2 person households need two cars, have other items that need to go in a garage, once teenagers hit 17 they want the freedom that driving brings. a 4 bedroom house could easily have 4 cars with 2 adults 2 children driving. 

I would agree more cars is anti-environment however I would argue that it is actually more social to have more cars! If you have a household sharing cars you are reliant on that one car to go out anywhere, you may miss social activities, not be able to join a club or sports team. Teenagers may not be able to meet friends, extra cars allow the freedom to be more social.

Again if you live in a major city with decent public transport and work in the city that's great but for the rest of the population public transport is non-existent. I live in a county that doesn't have a city at all, while I live in a decent sized town the public transport is awful, to get about 3 miles to the closest village now takes 1.5 hours and 2 different busses, you have to go the wrong direction, wait 55 minutes and then catch another bus in the right direction. Alternatively you could drive there in about 4 minutes.

Gentoo365

BonaDea said:

Of course all this sort of nonsense could be largely avoided if people didn't want to have several vehicles, or buy cars too big to fit in their garages.  What's wrong with having one or two cars that fit the garage instead of five that don't, and all the teenagers and young adults using bikes?  Far less anti-social, far less anti-environmental, and might go some way to addressing the UK's obesity epidemic.  

I agree.

But unfortunately, existing residents of established housing areas tend not to like the idea of new housing developments, so they are build on 'brownfield' (or even green) areas away from towns.

This can also mean they are outside any 'local public transport' area where a council will ensure public transport costs are reasonable.

I can see a future were residents of new build estates are required to pay a service charge or precept for the provision of public transport to their out of town estate.

ThisIsWeird

Hi Robbie.

You mustn't park on the yellow bits, end of. And neither can anyone else.

Your previous neighbours 'let you off' with doing this, quite possibly through clenched teeth, but your new neighb at 222 is not prepared to allow it, and that is their right. Taken to its logical conclusion, if you can park there, so can everyone else.

But, it has to be consistent, so - if you wish - report any breaches by other folk too. Certainly by 222.

Where to park your cars is your problem, always was, always will be.

The obvious solution for you - provided you are permitted to do this - is to extend the width of your current parking space, such as by the idea given before - a grassed grid. Possibly with the entrance pathway in between them. But that's for you to sort.