My ongoing boundary dispute ordeal/odyssey (advice sought)

pobjoy

"As for what I would have them do: I would suggest as the next step sending a letter to the solicitors as in a previous post of mine asking for missing communications, and evidence that those communications were sent. Having had a bit of a think, I would have already checked that the solicitors are registered with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), and assuming they are (and double-checking) say in the letter that I believe that the solicitors have sent communications containing falsehoods that the solicitors knew or ought to have known are false, including communications that you do not believe were sent and a claim that their client's property goes right up to the hedge. I would point out that this is inconsistent with term 1.4 of the Solicitors Regulation Authority's code of practice."

Thank you for these suggestions, RHemmings. A letter requesting the missing communications will be sent on Monday. The solicitors are regulated by the SRA, but I may see how they respond before accusing them of breaching SRA rules.

RHemmings

pobjoy said:

"As for what I would have them do: I would suggest as the next step sending a letter to the solicitors as in a previous post of mine asking for missing communications, and evidence that those communications were sent. Having had a bit of a think, I would have already checked that the solicitors are registered with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), and assuming they are (and double-checking) say in the letter that I believe that the solicitors have sent communications containing falsehoods that the solicitors knew or ought to have known are false, including communications that you do not believe were sent and a claim that their client's property goes right up to the hedge. I would point out that this is inconsistent with term 1.4 of the Solicitors Regulation Authority's code of practice."

Thank you for these suggestions, RHemmings. A letter requesting the missing communications will be sent on Monday. The solicitors are regulated by the SRA, but I may see how they respond before accusing them of breaching SRA rules.

Thanks. I'm confident you'll be able to come up with something, factual, firm, polite, and concise. 

Section62

RHemmings said:

ThisIsWeird said:

RHemmings said:

If you won't give a numerical estimate, then which of the following would you say most closely matches the situation? That neighbours will come to their senses and backtrack (or otherwise make good, such as buying the land, voluntarily marking the path back in, etc.) without serious action such as a court case forcing them to is:
Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely
Neither Likely nor Unlikely - it's a coin toss
Likely
Extremely Likely 

If the situation continues without the neighbour backing down with all reasonable action, then I would unilaterally mark the path back in. Whether that would be with paint, studs, rubber matting attached with a suitable adhesive, etc. 

"I would unilaterally mark the path back in" Would you also mark in the extent of pobjoy's RoW over the neighbour's land, as indicated by the broad line in blue in the deeds? If so, how would you determine both positions?

You do understand what I am trying to suggest? Not a new status quo, and not even a return to the old - I suspect not even pobjoy really wants that. But to make the neighbour aware of the full consequences of what he did, so that he will come to the sensible solution; rather than tie himself up in knots trying to resolve it, he makes a reasonable offer to buy the strip from pobjoy. That, I think, should suit both parties ideally.

And the pressure is applied as I've outlined - to make him address his mistakes. Nothing contentious there that I can see - "you've erased the old markings - reinstate them, please. Oh, and make sure they are accurate". And pj can also enquire of the solicitor whether his client is aware that he has seemingly resined over Highways Agency land.

The likelihood of success will likely come down to the neighbour's intransigence. I suspect, quite strongly, that his solicitor will pressurise him to come to the table and negotiate.

I'd plum for 'likely'.

I would have to think exactly what would be marked back in, and that would take some time. Of the top of my head I would mark the full path back in again at its full previous width. But, that's just a off the top of my head response, and it really requires more thought (and possibly advice). Note: that is only after other attempts (such as you suggest) have failed (as I believe they are likely to do). Not now. 

The advice would be 'You can't do that'.  The neighbour's half of the path is on the neighbour's land and is their property.  Just as it was wrong for the neighbour to remove/replace the OP's half of the path without agreement, the OP would be wrong to now do anything to the neighbour's half without their agreement.

Don't bother arguing that the neighbour did wrong, therefore I'm entitled to do wrong back - because as we all know, two wrongs don't make a right.

Adopting your suggested approach would put the OP at a legal disadvantage, because whilst the neighbour could argue they didn't appreciate that working on the OP's side of the boundary without agreement was wrong, the OP has already started down the legal route and would be unable to claim ignorance of either the boundary position or the need to have agreement before taking unilateral action.

RHemmings

Section62 said:

RHemmings said:

ThisIsWeird said:

RHemmings said:

If you won't give a numerical estimate, then which of the following would you say most closely matches the situation? That neighbours will come to their senses and backtrack (or otherwise make good, such as buying the land, voluntarily marking the path back in, etc.) without serious action such as a court case forcing them to is:
Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely
Neither Likely nor Unlikely - it's a coin toss
Likely
Extremely Likely 

If the situation continues without the neighbour backing down with all reasonable action, then I would unilaterally mark the path back in. Whether that would be with paint, studs, rubber matting attached with a suitable adhesive, etc. 

"I would unilaterally mark the path back in" Would you also mark in the extent of pobjoy's RoW over the neighbour's land, as indicated by the broad line in blue in the deeds? If so, how would you determine both positions?

You do understand what I am trying to suggest? Not a new status quo, and not even a return to the old - I suspect not even pobjoy really wants that. But to make the neighbour aware of the full consequences of what he did, so that he will come to the sensible solution; rather than tie himself up in knots trying to resolve it, he makes a reasonable offer to buy the strip from pobjoy. That, I think, should suit both parties ideally.

And the pressure is applied as I've outlined - to make him address his mistakes. Nothing contentious there that I can see - "you've erased the old markings - reinstate them, please. Oh, and make sure they are accurate". And pj can also enquire of the solicitor whether his client is aware that he has seemingly resined over Highways Agency land.

The likelihood of success will likely come down to the neighbour's intransigence. I suspect, quite strongly, that his solicitor will pressurise him to come to the table and negotiate.

I'd plum for 'likely'.

I would have to think exactly what would be marked back in, and that would take some time. Of the top of my head I would mark the full path back in again at its full previous width. But, that's just a off the top of my head response, and it really requires more thought (and possibly advice). Note: that is only after other attempts (such as you suggest) have failed (as I believe they are likely to do). Not now. 

The advice would be 'You can't do that'.  The neighbour's half of the path is on the neighbour's land and is their property.  Just as it was wrong for the neighbour to remove/replace the OP's half of the path without agreement, the OP would be wrong to now do anything to the neighbour's half without their agreement.

Don't bother arguing that the neighbour did wrong, therefore I'm entitled to do wrong back - because as we all know, two wrongs don't make a right.

Adopting your suggested approach would put the OP at a legal disadvantage, because whilst the neighbour could argue they didn't appreciate that working on the OP's side of the boundary without agreement was wrong, the OP has already started down the legal route and would be unable to claim ignorance of either the boundary position or the need to have agreement before taking unilateral action.

It's a shared path, so I don't think the situation as to maintenance of the path is as clear as you state. And, I did point out that I was still thinking about exactly what part of the old path would be returned to being a path. It's possible for only the part of the path on the OP's land to be returned to being a path. But, that would require more thought and investigating of rights/responsibilities for shared paths such as these. This 'Justanswer' post, if you squint as it goes past, says that a property owner could just repave their half of the shared path.  https://www.justanswer.com/uk-property-law/8tvhq-shared-path-neighbour-path.html.

As per my post, this is only for after nicer and more straightforward methods have failed. And, yes, I might do the 'two wrongs' thing should attempting to do things the right way failed. But, I can't see how, e.g. repaving only the OP's side of the path, leaving half a path, would be a wrong. Can you give examples where this was judged to be so?

If the only other alternative is accepting the neighbour's stealing of the land ... in that situation I might, repeat *might*, repave all of the path. Two wrongs don't make a right, but sometimes you have to meet fire with fire. 

An alternative solution, which I've just thought of, is to remove the hedge, and then repave a full width path to the OP's house, which covers only the OP's half of the shared path. I.e. the path is moved left (looking from front) half a path width. This would make it visually clear again who owns the land. I'd add a (painted) line down the middle and tell the neighbour that they can only use the right half of the path. I can't see how this would be a legal wrong, and it would firmly put the border where it should be. I would make sure that it is level with their drive so that they can walk down where the old path was. 

ThisIsWeird

Section62 said:

No, they could only park up to the edge of the RoW.

If they do park on the RoW (i.e. up to the studs) then the OP would have an actionable case against the neighbour for obstructing the RoW.

But the sensible time to deal with the potential obstruction would be if it actually happens, and once evidence has been gathered, rather than dying in a ditch over this potential issue now (without the aid of Legal Protection) on the basis of nothing more than a fear it might happen.

Likewise, if the neighbour has their "4x4 parked at an angle in the middle of [the] lawn" or is "taking a dump in [the] flowerbed" the OP can give their LP a call and get help.  But they have zero chance of getting support if they ask for it on the basis that their neighbour might develop an inclination to open defecation at some unknown point in the future.

There is too much catastrophising going on in this thread.  It is getting in the way of the OP obtaining a resolution to the present issue.

'Doing nothing' now doesn't preclude the OP taking action in future.  I wouldn't suggest the 'do nothing' approach myself, but it wouldn't be the unmitigated disaster it is being portrayed as.

You know what I'm getting at :-)
Who should mark out the boundary? Who should mark out the RoW? How can pobjoy determine whether the neighbour's car is trespassing from now on?
Is this really a valid solution? I don't think so, unless the neighbour is obliged to take responsibility for doing this, as they should. With evidence.

As for the 4x4 analogy, you also know what point I'm making - the victim simply claiming it ain't an issue does not stop it being an issue, especially come sale.
An issue is an issue is an issue. When it comes to sale time, you either fib and hope no-one notices, or you resolve it and declare it an ex-issue. Or, you acknowledge it is still an issue, and, "it's over to you now, pal".

ThisIsWeird

RHemmings said:

ThisIsWeird said:

RHemmings said:

If you won't give a numerical estimate, then which of the following would you say most closely matches the situation? That neighbours will come to their senses and backtrack (or otherwise make good, such as buying the land, voluntarily marking the path back in, etc.) without serious action such as a court case forcing them to is:
Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely
Neither Likely nor Unlikely - it's a coin toss
Likely
Extremely Likely 

If the situation continues without the neighbour backing down with all reasonable action, then I would unilaterally mark the path back in. Whether that would be with paint, studs, rubber matting attached with a suitable adhesive, etc. 

"I would unilaterally mark the path back in" Would you also mark in the extent of pobjoy's RoW over the neighbour's land, as indicated by the broad line in blue in the deeds? If so, how would you determine both positions?

You do understand what I am trying to suggest? Not a new status quo, and not even a return to the old - I suspect not even pobjoy really wants that. But to make the neighbour aware of the full consequences of what he did, so that he will come to the sensible solution; rather than tie himself up in knots trying to resolve it, he makes a reasonable offer to buy the strip from pobjoy. That, I think, should suit both parties ideally.

And the pressure is applied as I've outlined - to make him address his mistakes. Nothing contentious there that I can see - "you've erased the old markings - reinstate them, please. Oh, and make sure they are accurate". And pj can also enquire of the solicitor whether his client is aware that he has seemingly resined over Highways Agency land.

The likelihood of success will likely come down to the neighbour's intransigence. I suspect, quite strongly, that his solicitor will pressurise him to come to the table and negotiate.

I'd plum for 'likely'.

I would have to think exactly what would be marked back in, and that would take some time. Of the top of my head I would mark the full path back in again at its full previous width. But, that's just a off the top of my head response, and it really requires more thought (and possibly advice). Note: that is only after other attempts (such as you suggest) have failed (as I believe they are likely to do). Not now. 

Thanks for choosing 'likely'. I'm less optimistic than you. But, @Pobjoy can continue being Mr/Ms Nice and Reasonable Person for a while and see if that works. Even if there is a chance that this could end up being an adverse possession claim (which I'm not saying I'm confident it would be), that's a decade away. 

It won't (shouldn't) ever become an A-P claim, as pobjoy can continue to use the RoW or, if he stops doing so, simply make it clear in writing that he retains the right. Tbh, I doubt anything is necessary, as the deeds are very clear, and any AP claim requires the LReg to ask the owner if it's 'ok'.
AfaIk.

ThisIsWeird

Pobjoy, may I ask what the best outcome for you is? What outcome do you want?

TripleH

When asking for rhe missing information, keep the letter brief, just ask for the 'information sent on x date' as you never received it. Do not raise any reasons why you need it other than for completeness. Brief is better.

Sit down this weekend and write an outcome you feel is reasonable for both sides as your ultimate goal. Also think of an outcome that saves face for your neighbours.

Some people will waste money to save face after backing themselves in a corner.

Others waste money fighting a battle when they actually have not thought of a sensible outcome.

We emerged recently from a nasty fight with the developer of our house. We won (the work that was needed was done) but it didn't feel like a victory.

Section62

RHemmings said:

Section62 said:

It's a shared path, so I don't think the situation as to maintenance of the path is as clear as you state.

I didn't state that, in fact the opposite - I've asked the OP to clarify what the deeds say about maintenance.  In the absence of that everything else in this thread is speculation.

But the premise of the OP's position is that the neighbour had no right to replace the whole width of the path - so if your supposition that each party has liberty to make alterations to the path on the other side of the boundary without agreement were to be the case then it follows that what the neighbour did originally wasn't wrong either, and the OP has nothing to complain about (except the neighbour's attitude).

RHemmings said:

And, I did point out that I was still thinking about exactly what part of the old path would be returned to being a path. It's possible for only the part of the path on the OP's land to be returned to being a path. But, that would require more thought and investigating of rights/responsibilities for shared paths such as these. This 'Justanswer' post, if you squint as it goes past, says that a property owner could just repave their half of the shared path.  https://www.justanswer.com/uk-property-law/8tvhq-shared-path-neighbour-path.html.

They could, subject to what it says in the deeds, and also with the proviso what is done is safe to use and doesn't cause harm to the neighbouring property.

The issue here is that the OP repaving their half of the path would be done at their own expense, and would look 'unusual'.  It would be a permanent flag to a prospective purchaser that a boundary/neighbour dispute existed and/or still exists.  Making the neighbour pay for the repaving is likely to involve legal action which will probably cost the OP more than the cost of repaving the path.

RHemmings said:

As per my post, this is only for after nicer and more straightforward methods have failed. And, yes, I might do the 'two wrongs' thing should attempting to do things the right way failed. But, I can't see how, e.g. repaving only the OP's side of the path, leaving half a path, would be a wrong. Can you give examples where this was judged to be so?

BiB1 - I'm not sure you are appreciating how foolish that would be.  It would amount to abandoning any realistic prospect of getting a court to give you a sympathetic hearing.  Courts hate dealing with 'tit-for-tat' disputes between neighbours.

BiB2 - I didn't say it would be "a wrong".  But only repaving the OP's half of the path wasn't your suggestion I was responding to - my response was to your suggestion to alter the whole width of the path on a unilateral basis.

RHemmings said:

If the only other alternative is accepting the neighbour's stealing of the land ... in that situation I might, repeat *might*, repave all of the path. Two wrongs don't make a right, but sometimes you have to meet fire with fire.

The neighbour isn't "stealing" the OP's land.

And no, you don't have to "meet fire with fire".  This isn't the movies or the school playground.  If someone wrongs you in a property dispute the right solution is to negotiate with them, and if that fails to seek resolution via the courts.  If you do things like 'meeting fire with fire', or obstructing the RoW yourself, or covering it with trip hazards, then you diminish your chances of getting a sucessful legal outcome.

The OP - from the information we have - has a relatively strong position legally, provided they don't do anything silly now.  Unfortunately several of the things you've suggested in this thread would place the OP in a difficult position legally, and only serve to weaken their case.

RHemmings said:

An alternative solution, which I've just thought of, is to remove the hedge, and then repave a full width path to the OP's house, which covers only the OP's half of the shared path. I.e. the path is moved left (looking from front) half a path width. This would make it visually clear again who owns the land. I'd add a (painted) line down the middle and tell the neighbour that they can only use the right half of the path. I can't see how this would be a legal wrong, and it would firmly put the border where it should be. I would make sure that it is level with their drive so that they can walk down where the old path was.

So are you suggesting the whole of the path should be moved to the OP's land? Or are you saying the neighbour should be restricted to using the half of the RoW which is on their land?  It isn't clear, nor is it obvious the OP would be happy with an outcome which involved removing the hedge.

Section62

ThisIsWeird said:

RHemmings said:

ThisIsWeird said:

I would have to think exactly what would be marked back in, and that would take some time. Of the top of my head I would mark the full path back in again at its full previous width. But, that's just a off the top of my head response, and it really requires more thought (and possibly advice). Note: that is only after other attempts (such as you suggest) have failed (as I believe they are likely to do). Not now. 

Thanks for choosing 'likely'. I'm less optimistic than you. But, @Pobjoy can continue being Mr/Ms Nice and Reasonable Person for a while and see if that works. Even if there is a chance that this could end up being an adverse possession claim (which I'm not saying I'm confident it would be), that's a decade away. 

It won't (shouldn't) ever become an A-P claim, as pobjoy can continue to use the RoW or, if he stops doing so, simply make it clear in writing that he retains the right. Tbh, I doubt anything is necessary, as the deeds are very clear, and any AP claim requires the LReg to ask the owner if it's 'ok'.
AfaIk.

Agreed - AP is a red herring here.

A claim would fail on the exclusivity ground, and the deeds containing express consent for the neighbour to use this strip as a RoW means it won't be 'adverse'.