My ongoing boundary dispute ordeal/odyssey (advice sought)

pobjoy

This was the type of paint I suggested at the time:

https://www.watco.co.uk/products/watco-heavy-duty-anti-slip-traffic-paint?colour=Mid Grey

I take your point about spoiling the appearance of the properties, but I think the path does need to look like a path. A future owner of my property with two cars could quite easily block my (pretty narrow at one point) drive with their parked vehicles. With an obvious alternative route to the frontdoor, that wouldn't be a problem.         

RHemmings

Section62 said:

RHemmings said:

Section62 said:

RHemmings said:

Would it be possible to claim the strip experimentally first by putting a few narrow-enough planters on it to only be on the OP's side? 

The experiment would be to see if the neighbour moves them, or leaves them there. Then, if they stay there, more permanent measures such as studs. 

Neither the OP nor the neighbour can put things on the RoW as that would be obstructing it.  Even if the objects are wholly on the OP's side of the boundary line it would still interfere with the neighbour's right to use that strip of land as a RoW.

Technically they can't, but physically they can and see if the neighbour objects. There seems to be no indication that the neighbour wants to use that path as a path, or they wouldn't have removed it. 

Not just 'technically', they would be legally wrong to do that.  It indication is the neighbour wants to incorporate what was a shared path into their own driveway.

The OP is in a legal dispute with the neighbour, at the moment they are (or at least appear to be) the party which has been legally wronged by the neighbour and have done nothing wrong themselves.

Doing something unlawful in response - particularly only to see if the neighbour objects - will give the neighbour ammunition to use against the OP.  It would be a case of shooting oneself in the foot to hand the neighbour the opportunity to do so.

And it could get worse - unlawfully putting obstructions on the RoW gives the neighbour the opportunity to have a 'trip' or 'fall'.  The resulting PI claim could cost the OP (say) a six-figure sum - with very little in the way of defence because they clearly knew the neighbour had a right to use the RoW.  Without legal expenses cover, and deliberately doing something the OP should know was wrong, there is no guarantee the OP's insurer would be sympathetic towards the OP's position, potentially leaving them personally exposed.

If you are in a dispute with a neighbour one of the worst things you can do is play tit-for-tat games.

In which case, just put down some flat stepping stones over the top of the resin surface. This would re-introduce the visual path, while in no way preventing any ROW of the neighbour. The stepping stones can be initially laid loose to see if they get moved. 

And, it doesn't need to be done immediately. It can be done later should the current situation become a status quo with no sign of further movement. 

Paint as per @Pobjoy is an alternative. But, you lose the opportunity to easily undo the change, or see if your neighbour undoes it. 

ThisIsWeird

Thanks for the clarification, Pobjoy.

So, these photos are surprisingly misleading! I shouldn't be surprised - for instance, your 'before' and 'after' house photos show the DP to be in slightly different positions relative to the house and window symmetry, one shows it to be one side of the true mid, and t'other on t'other side! Lawdie.

You've also clarified that this (or 'a') path remains an important feature for you from your house to the kerb? How often do you use it, and are you continuing to do so? (Obvs strongly suggest you do).

Are you clear in your mind what the list of acceptable ways forward for you are? Pros and cons for each? So you are not caught off-guard. Worth pondering in some depth?

Your neighbour is accruing solicitor costs. From the cagey way their solicitor has hedged their comments - '...it is our client's opinion..." - it suggests that they are not certain of the facts on the ground (either), and have probably cautioned their client about pushing this too far; they must know they are on weak ground. Your neighbour should be saving their money, and putting it towards a resolution instead - the twits.

Have you determined your acceptable options? Worth doing? Eg,

1) Nothing And reap the painful reward for ever more...

2) Having the neighbour demarcate the path position to indicate your RoW over their land - ie, this is as far as you are currently permitted to walk down that resined area as outlined in both sets of deeds. You 'must insist' on this, you say, as 'otherwise you may inadvertently wander over on to their land and accidentally trespass - which you really do not wish to do'. And - by direct implication - this is how close they can park their cars before it becomes a significant impediment to the RoW. (I bet that gives them a lot less parking space than they thought.)

Can you imagine the hassle this would cause them? In theory, they'd need a land surveyor to ascertain the correct boundary, and then the path width across it. If they don't do this, then you can simply shake your head and say, "Nope - pretty sure that isn't where the path used to be. If you don't provide evidence, then I cannot be expected to accept your arbitrary line, and remain within it." £ks.

Similarly, they should demarcate your side of the path, so they do not trespass on your land either. They need to do this, as they obliterated the old defined path.

I think that this would be beaut to suggest! It would come across as a very reasonable and deeply magnanimous compromise for you to offer - "I only want some markings for the time being..." - but they'd be nuts to accept it as it just won't give them what they were after - a decent parking area, without you grinning inanely at them as you saunter down it. I, personally, wouldn't accept this as an ultimate solution, tho', as it just isn't good enough. Instead, I would request they do this to avoid confusion 'whilst other negotiations can take place'. 

Remember, if they park over what you believe to be the original demarcation line in the deeds, you can ask your current LegProt to guide you in sending them a warning shot over the bows - a quite separate issue. Seriously, if they are clearly parking over the old path, then take dated photos, and call up your LP. Gently up the ante. And every time you send a valid letter to their solicitor, the neighbour's bank account goes 'dung'. (On the LegProt note, almost certainly the neighbour isn't using theirs, as they'd have determined very quickly that they have a less-than-50% chance of winning...)

Then there's two 'acceptable' (imo) solutions;

3) The sale of the strip they are currently asking for - ie, the whole path, but zero encroachment over a perpendicular boundary line from the house. I'd, personally, be prepared to accept this for the right amount, which would be enough to put in my own new path, probably alongside my own driveway. And a couple of £k for a party.

4) The sale of all the land to their side of a perpendicular new boundary line to the kerb. This should be very attractive to them, and they should be prepared to pay a decent amount for this - no idea, as it depends on land value in your area, but they'd be - what? - doubling their parking/garden area. £15k? Again, I'd personally seriously consider this, as you appear to have a nice plot of land, and have little practical use for that weird triangle. It would then allow you to put up a nice straight dividing fence to shield them off, a pathway on the other side, gravel your driveway, and a few £k for your kind gesture. I think this would also add value to your house; that shared, squint path is a warning flag to buyers; no-one wants such a thing, and def no RoWs in deeds. No-one. 

MeteredOut

With apologies for my very rough mock-up, this is one potential solution if the area is not sold to the neighbour and path was to be visually reinstated (the new blocks would obviously be parallel to the existing ones).



Another thing I'd be checking if I were the OP if the existing resin stays in place is future maintenance. Slabs are very low maintenance. Resin (particularly if not installed properly) can deteriorate after a few years, and I assume the deeds would suggest joint-responsibility for the area with the ROW. The joint between resin and blocks can also deteriorate if the shouldering on the blocks is not sufficient.

ThisIsWeird

RHemmings said:

In which case, just put down some flat stepping stones over the top of the resin surface. This would re-introduce the visual path, while in no way preventing any ROW of the neighbour. The stepping stones can be initially laid loose to see if they get moved.
Paint as per @Pobjoy is an alternative. But, you lose the opportunity to easily undo the change, or see if your neighbour undoes it. 

If there's one thing worse than a trip hazard, it's multiple trip hazards

I wouldn't do this in any case - including paint or even a chalk line - as it's the neighbour who has obliterated the path and boundaries, and the onus is on them to correct this. And they've made it very difficult for themselves by obliterating all the evidence on the ground - this might end up costing them a surveyor's fee. Oh dear.

If they don't, then the OP won't be able to tell how far he can wander across the neighbour's resin drive by the terms of his RoW. He'll have an idea, and largely be able to keep within 'it' if walking by himself. But what if the OP is walking up to his house with friends and family, carrying shopping, whatevs; is he really expected to announce, "Ok, no idea where the path is! Thou shalt not trespass, sooo, SINGLLLL-LINE! Hup-one-two-one-two..." Oh, I'd love to see that :-)

Similarly, without that defined line, the neighbour won't know how close they can nose their cars. Heaven forbid the OP scuffs their bumper with a shopping bag. If the neighb parks two cars there, then almost certainly the roadside one will be trespassing. The OP should record evidence of this, and use it to pressurise the neighbour.

This is all of this arrogant neighbour's doing. 

The neighbour has messed up, and I don't think they've yet realised by just how much. I wonder if their solicitor has quietly told them?

RHemmings

ThisIsWeird said:

RHemmings said:

In which case, just put down some flat stepping stones over the top of the resin surface. This would re-introduce the visual path, while in no way preventing any ROW of the neighbour. The stepping stones can be initially laid loose to see if they get moved.
Paint as per @Pobjoy is an alternative. But, you lose the opportunity to easily undo the change, or see if your neighbour undoes it. 

If there's one thing worse than a trip hazard, it's multiple trip hazards

I wouldn't do this in any case - including paint or even a chalk line - as it's the neighbour who has obliterated the path and boundaries, and the onus is on them to correct this. And they've made it very difficult for themselves by obliterating all the evidence on the ground - this might end up costing them a surveyor's fee. Oh dear.

If they don't, then the OP won't be able to tell how far he can wander across the neighbour's resin drive by the terms of his RoW. He'll have an idea, and largely be able to keep within 'it' if walking by himself. But what if the OP is walking up to his house with friends and family, carrying shopping, whatevs; is he really expected to announce, "Ok, no idea where the path is! Thou shalt not trespass, sooo, SINGLLLL-LINE! Hup-one-two-one-two..." Oh, I'd love to see that :-)

Similarly, without that defined line, the neighbour won't know how close they can nose their cars. Heaven forbid the OP scuffs their bumper with a shopping bag.

The neighbour messed up, and I don't think they yet realise by just how much. I wonder if their solicitor has quietly told them?

Very thin slate. Cheaper too. 

I'm mainly thinking of the situations where (as discussed by others) if the neighbour refuses to do anything, and it falls into a status quo. Clearly if the neighbour will do something, or even agree to something being done by the OP, then planters/stepping stones/paint/chalk do not need to be applied. But, my gut feeling (not claiming it's worth anything) is that this neighbour will try and brazen it out. Given what their solicitors' letters have said. 

ThisIsWeird

RHemmings said:

Very thin slate. Cheaper too.
I'm mainly thinking of the situations where (as discussed by others) if the neighbour refuses to do anything, and it falls into a status quo. Clearly if the neighbour will do something, or even agree to something being done by the OP, then planters/stepping stones/paint/chalk do not need to be applied. But, my gut feeling (not claiming it's worth anything) is that this neighbour will try and brazen it out. Given what their solicitors' letters have said. 

'Thin slate' - you mean the really slippery kind? Kidding, but I just wouldn't. 

The neighbour has messed up here, after being warned, and now needs to take responsibility. (As S62 has pointed out, this neighb has already claimed 'harassment' from the OP just putting a letter through their 'box, so we have an idea of their pernicious character).

I agree - the OP needs to avoid this situation becoming the new Status Quo. So I've outlined ways they can legitimately up the ante if they wish to, and in a way that passes the full buck on to the neighbour where it belongs.

Section62

pobjoy said:

This was the type of paint I suggested at the time:

https://www.watco.co.uk/products/watco-heavy-duty-anti-slip-traffic-paint?colour=Mid Grey

I take your point about spoiling the appearance of the properties, but I think the path does need to look like a path. A future owner of my property with two cars could quite easily block my (pretty narrow at one point) drive with their parked vehicles. With an obvious alternative route to the frontdoor, that wouldn't be a problem.         

The more essential being able to use the path might be to a prospective purchaser, the more they will potentially be put off when they realise the neighbour could make their life difficult.  The more you draw attention to use of the path being problematic, the less likely someone will bother viewing the property rather than clicking on to another property which is less troublesome.

Personally I think most effort should be expended on making sure the path and RoW is legally secure, and less on making it visually look like a path.  It is the legal position which allows you to use the path - there doesn't need to be any physical manifestation of a RoW for the RoW to be legally valid.

Section62

ThisIsWeird said:

Your neighbour is accruing solicitor costs. From the cagey way their solicitor has hedged their comments - '...it is our client's opinion..." - it suggests that they are not certain of the facts on the ground (either), and have probably cautioned their client about pushing this too far; they must know they are on weak ground. Your neighbour should be saving their money, and putting it towards a resolution instead...

I'm not so sure.  Using phrases like "...it is our client's opinion..." is just a thing a good lawyer would do.  Thinking ahead to the real target audience (i.e. the judge) you want to paint your side as the ones who are being perfectly reasonable and suffering injustice at the hands of the other side.  "Our client's opinion" is a phrase which both shows the client as open-minded and willing to see that others might have a valid opinion too.  In contrast "our client is absolutely sure and determined..." would paint a picture of someone who isn't willing to compromise to avoid a costly legal battle and/or waste the court's valuable time.  Many judges really hate intransigence, so demonstrating your client isn't the intransigent one is a good tactical move. (and I'm not saying the OP is intransigent, just explaining how too much can be read into lawyerly language)

Edit:  Another tactic (which needs to be used cautiously) is to make the other side think you are less sure of your own position than you really are - perhaps indirectly inviting them to clarify their position, or to refute yours - in the expectation they may give away important information which helps with your own case, or provide them an opportunity to say something in terms they may come to regret.

ThisIsWeird said:

2) Having the neighbour demarcate the path position to indicate your RoW over their land - ie, this is as far as you are currently permitted to walk down that resined area as outlined in both sets of deeds. You 'must insist' on this, you say, as 'otherwise you may inadvertently wander over on to their land and accidentally trespass - which you really do not wish to do'....

The problem here is the OP can't make the neighbour do anything to their own land - they cannot 'insist' the neighbour demarcates the limit of the RoW on the neighbour's side.

The OP's right is simply to be able to use the full width of the RoW to pass and repass.  The argument that it needs to be marked so the OP doesn't inadvertently wander off the RoW is too contrived to be of much value, and could be counterproductive if this ends up in court. If the neighbour was complaining the OP was walking outside the RoW then it could be suggested the RoW extent needs to be marked in some way, but it still isn't something that can be insisted upon.

ThisIsWeird said:

(On the LegProt note, almost certainly the neighbour isn't using theirs, as they'd have determined very quickly that they have a less-than-50% chance of winning...)

Again, I'm not sure this interpretation stacks up.  To start with, what would the neighbour be "winning" here?

The OP's right is to use the RoW free of obstructions.  Provided the neighbour doesn't (unreasonably) impinge on the OP's use of the RoW there is nothing on that front to win or lose.  What might be actionable is the neighbour's destruction of the OP's side of the old path, but since the neighbour - at their own cost - has provided a new path which arguably is better than the old one, I think the OP would probably be legally advised not to pursue that argument very far.

AIUI the neighbour would be content with the status quo and has no need to act against the OP - so this is a case where the neighbour (for now at least) really only needs support to defend themselves against any action the OP might take, and since the RoW is not obstructed it is unclear what - if any - winnable case the OP might put forward.  I could see the assesment being 80:20 (or better) in the neighbour's favour at this point in time.

RHemmings

ThisIsWeird said:

RHemmings said:

Very thin slate. Cheaper too.
I'm mainly thinking of the situations where (as discussed by others) if the neighbour refuses to do anything, and it falls into a status quo. Clearly if the neighbour will do something, or even agree to something being done by the OP, then planters/stepping stones/paint/chalk do not need to be applied. But, my gut feeling (not claiming it's worth anything) is that this neighbour will try and brazen it out. Given what their solicitors' letters have said. 

'Thin slate' - you mean the really slippery kind? Kidding, but I just wouldn't. 

The neighbour has messed up here, after being warned, and now needs to take responsibility. (As S62 has pointed out, this neighb has already claimed 'harassment' from the OP just putting a letter through their 'box, so we have an idea of their pernicious character).

I agree - the OP needs to avoid this situation becoming the new Status Quo. So I've outlined ways they can legitimately up the ante if they wish to, and in a way that passes the full buck on to the neighbour where it belongs.

If the problem can be solved by the neighbour coming to their senses, then that's the best result. But, I suspect that won't work. I'd be happy to be proved wrong. But, if the neighbour refuses to play ball, then perhaps the time will come for breaking a few eggs in order to make an omlette.