Confusion over right to park in 'communal/visitor' bays within a boundary line

lilahloo

Jellynailer said:

Schwarzwald said:

 i would argue that parking there for a week throughout without moving your vehicle is not a reasonable period for communal parking spaces thar are to be used on first come first served.
But ultimately that is down to legal interpretation, but just "socially" ... i dont think that is the intended use case.

I agree.  I would think that parking for a visitor who does not stay overnight and for maintenance workers is reasonable.  I suggest that, when you do speak to No 69 (as per ThisIsWeird advice), you say that having checked the deeds you now understand this  That will,, hopefully make him feel happier about your legal right to park.  You could also ask for his help to inform the other neighbours that the spaces are not for parking a second car overnight as reasonable must also mean parking for emergencies at any time whether for emergency services or something like a water leak.

When you get the deeds do post a copy of the plan and also any clauses in the schedules that refer to nuisance.

From what I can see in my Transfer deeds there are no clauses about nuisance.

The clause about communal parking is certainly open to interpretation and in the couple of years in question, I/my visitors have parked in those spaces about 20 times - if that.  And that includes the days last year when I parked over the period of a week.  And before that I rarely got a look in because of the number of cars owned by the previous occupiers.  The neighbours who do use those spaces have regularly parked overnight - if they don't park there it will cause problems on the road.  

I'm really hoping the copy of their Transfer Deeds can clear this up one way or the other. 

lilahloo

I now have a copy of the Transfer Deeds for my neighbour.  

The wording in the schedules is the same as mine and the detailed Title Plan shows the parking spaces the same as on my plan - with the boundary in red around the communal marked space (in purple).

Coincidentally I bumped in to my neighbour this morning and took the chance to let them know I've got their full deeds and my understanding remains the same, I have the right to park there.  I agree the land is theirs but that clause 5 in the 2nd schedule has transferred the right to me (and others) to cross his boundary and park in the communal spaces.

He started to talk about schedule 1 again (his boundary), I said he also has to take into account the rights transferred in schedule 2.  He asked me to send him a copy of the Deeds and Title Plan, I said he should already have his own.  He says he's getting advice from Land Registry about his boundary.  We left it at that.

ThisIsWeird

He is almost certainly about to have a sizeable portion of egg on his face.

Don't gloat. Don't. Really, don... ok, you can.

Jellynailer

Am so pleased that the schedule 2 in your deeds is the same as his.  Given the numbering of your house and his, your deeds should have an earlier date than his deeds so your deeds take precedence. 

Any way, a red boundary line cannot deny others a right of use or any other rights over the land.  In my development some, not all, of my neighbours have a right of way over my land which is also marked out in red.

I think he is trying to save face by pretending he does not have Sch 2 when he clearly has Sch 1.  You could call his bluff by just giving him a copy of the relevant page from his and your sets of deeds and explaining the above if necessary but hopefully he will let the matter drop.

RHemmings

lilahloo said:

I now have a copy of the Transfer Deeds for my neighbour.  

The wording in the schedules is the same as mine and the detailed Title Plan shows the parking spaces the same as on my plan - with the boundary in red around the communal marked space (in purple).

Coincidentally I bumped in to my neighbour this morning and took the chance to let them know I've got their full deeds and my understanding remains the same, I have the right to park there.  I agree the land is theirs but that clause 5 in the 2nd schedule has transferred the right to me (and others) to cross his boundary and park in the communal spaces.

He started to talk about schedule 1 again (his boundary), I said he also has to take into account the rights transferred in schedule 2.  He asked me to send him a copy of the Deeds and Title Plan, I said he should already have his own.  He says he's getting advice from Land Registry about his boundary.  We left it at that.

Surely it's the transfer deeds, not the title deeds and plan, that are important here. If I was in your situation I would provide him with a copy of all documents with an accompanying letter saying that this makes it clear that you have the right to use those parking spaces on his land, and explaining how they do so. But, it might be better (if more expensive) if that came from a lawyer. 

By him asking for title plan and title deeds, it looks to me as if he has his head in the sand concerning the transfer deeds and the rights within. I predict that he'll still be claiming that you can't park in those parking spaces because they are within his land boundary. (Which is not true). 

lilahloo

I'm going to write as a follow up to confirm what I said during our conversation - then there's no room for misunderstanding.  We often misremember conversations. I will copy both sets of documents as well - I know he has his own and Iast year I gave him my detailed title plan and schedule 2.  But he may have thrown them away.

If he still believes he's right I'll suggest he contact a solicitor and put the onus on him to give me, in writing, a legal reason why I/my visitors shouldn't be parking there.  

Thanks again for taking the time to share your knowledge, it's been very helpful.  I'd started to question myself when I saw his boundary lines, but I had some knowledge about access rights from living in terraced houses and was almost sure that's what applied to these spaces. I had been prepared to eat humble pie (I wouldn't have enjoyed it!

Jellynailer

lilahloo said:

I'm going to write as a follow up to confirm what I said during our conversation - then there's no room for misunderstanding.....I will copy both sets of documents as well

Good plan and well done for focussing on the knowledge when it is easy to get side tracked by multiple opinions.

By the way, if the clause in Section 2 had been absent in his deeds then this could only be because either a) Bovis updated the original registration or b) because No 69's conveyancer failed to exercise due diligence given the purple spaces represented a glaring anomaly.  Neither option would have warranted humble pie.