Private Right Of Way - What is reasonable use and tolerance.

Chief_of_Staffy

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82036838#Comment_82036838

If that's the case then he is almost certainly contravening data protection law. He is legally obliged to stop filming if you require him, and to hand over all footage of yourself that he possesses. And if he reacts to the footage by repeatedly confronting you about actions he's seen you do on camera, that's a criminal offence. You might want to remind him of this.

TroubledTarts

Change of neighbours, especially as you have been there for three decades, is always difficult.

Things that you would have been able to do, without comment from neighbours, is now not the case and being commented upon.

The saying "but I have always done that" unfortunately does not work and you really should keep to what you are allowed to do in the various outside spaces legally.

If things are getting out of control you could try a free to use mediation service with your troublesome neighbour, I have not tried one myself but a quick search suggests there are some possibilities there.

If you feel like you may become a prisoner if your own property then getting on with your neighbours is key.

I would suggest not escalating things.

MrDidz

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82036965#Comment_82036965

I didn't actually know that. But to be fair the contribution his CCTV coverage provides to our cars and flats is probably more valuable than the petty spiteful purposes that he puts it to..

MrDidz

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82036972#Comment_82036972

The saying "but I have always done that" unfortunately does not work and you really should keep to what you are allowed to do in the various outside spaces legally.

What I was trying to say was not so much that 'I have always done that', but more that I am not the only person who does do it and that others actually do worse without comment. In fact, I only bought the mobile washing line from Amazon in April 2023, so it's quite a recent innovation which necessary because the sharing arrangement with my downstairs neighbour fell-through.

But my real purpose in asking the question was to explore what is mean't by the term 'Right of Way' anf what constitutes reasonable use and tolerance.

The actual wording on the Title Deeds says:

A right of way for the purchaser (in commonwith all others having a like right) at all times and for all purposes with or without vehiclesover and along the private driveor roadway coloured brown on the said planand on foot only over the footpaths as indicated….

So, if I read this quite literally the right of way has only been granted to people who own one of the flats. Not to friends, visitors, guests or tradesmen. Who have no right at all to access either the land coloured brown on the plan or to walk along our footpaths. Although they all do and nobody says a thing.

I'm also curious what compliance to a Right Of Way looks like, because my neighbour seems to interpet compliance as 'You may not park on the land coloured brown'. but in practice the title deeds don;t actually say that, in fact they don't mention parking at all. Because at the time the conveyance was drafted there was no parking behind our flats only the gardens of the ground floor tenants and residents.

Logic would suggest that the 'Right of Way' was granted to the residents to enable them to gain access to their garages at the back of the building along the drive from the main road, and so as long as the drive is not blocked and everyone can reach their garage with a car the 'Right of Way' is being preserved.

This is actually the way the 'Right of Way' has been complied with since I moved into the building thirty years ago. The absence of parking bays resulting in various solutions by successive residents for the parking of their cars, and that still persists today with one car at the moment parked in the far corner of the right of way which is causing no obstruction to those of us who may wish to reach our garage or our parking bay.

My own solution was negotiated over twenty years ago when the former owner of the flat under me died and the new owner decided to dig up his prize rhubard patch and create three parking bays. He used one for his own car, one for his motor home and asked me if I'd like to rent third third off him for £20 per month.

I've been doing that ever since and the new landlord agreed to continue the arrangement though the rent is now £40 per month. But not everyone is so lucky. Some of the other top floor neighbours still have nowhere official to park their cars. The ground floor tenants at the far end of the block allow one of their upper floor neighbours to use one of their parking bays free of charge. But the guy with the parking fetish has three parking bays but uses them solely for his own purposes to house his personal vintage Jaguar collection. So, there is always someone left with nowhere to park and the visitors parking is permanent used by the people who live behind us who in theory don't even have a right of way up the drive.

As an ex-member of a Rambling Club I'm also ware that farmers have an even more creative inpretation of a 'Right of Way' when is applies to one of their fields. They take the view that a Right of Way grants the public the right to enter their field at piont A and leave at point B, and so as long as their is an unobstructed path that links point A with Point B they are complying with the Right of Way, even if the path goes conveniently around the edge of their field rather than diagonally across it as shown on the map. Leaving them the option to plough the path up to make sowing and harvesting their crops easier. The local rambling club was quite adamant that redirecting a Right of Way for your own convenience was not acceptable and I remember being forced to trample farmers crops on more than one occassion to re-establish the true path.

But it does raise the question as to whether compliance with a Right of Way is determined but its purpose or by its history. If it's purpose is just to cross the field or access a garage then does it matter if one has to go around something to get there? Or must the enetire path be kepot clear regardless of whether the purose is still satisfied. It's an interesting question.

Nowehere in our Title Deeds does it say 'You may not park your car, or stop and talk whilst crossing the Right of Way.'. It just says that we residents have the right to cross it. Incidently my bossy neighbour ripped up the paths that cross his garden to make more space for his cars so, he is definately in breach of covernant, especially if he proceeds with his plan to fence off his land. Which will obviously blocks everyone else's right to walk across his garden. Something about 'Glass houses and throwing stones spring to mind' though I would never be so mean.

WIAWSNB

Mr Didz, taking what you have told us at face value, and there is no reason I can see to consider otherwise, you are a reasonable fellow, and are not trying to push boundaries for any obtuse reason.

The CCTV, for example - you could almost certainly make a fuss over this if you wished (contact ICO for a 'chat' to clarify if you need), but you instead acted reasonably, appreciate the benefits, take a balanced view, and let it lie.

So, continue in that vein. If you had genuine cause to complain about the CCTV - issues of privacy or abuse of the recordings, for example - then you would handle that the correct way, 'legally'.

So, ditto with this guy. Anything he moans about, ask the Qs, and place the onus fully on him to act, if he really believes he has a 'case'.

Almost certainly, he won't. For the simple reason he does not have a case.

Keep cool. Keep it simple.

And be fair.

QrizB

Nowehere in our Title Deeds does it say 'You may not park your car, or stop and talk whilst crossing the Right of Way.'

That's because they're listing concessions (things you're allowed to do). Normally, you would have no rights to land that you don't own (the brown part on the plan). The clause in your deeds is granting you rights that you wouldn't otherwise have.

It just says that we residents have the right to cross it.

And that's the right you have been granted. A right to cross the brown-marked area, not a right to stop on it or leave your car on it or whatever.

Do you know who owns the freehold to the brown area? It could be one or more of the ground floor flat owners, or it might be someone else entirely.

MrDidz

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82037229#Comment_82037229

Mr Didz, taking what you have told us at face value, and there is no reason I can see to consider otherwise, you are a reasonable fellow, and are not trying to push boundaries for any obtuse reason.

Thank you! And I'm glad to read that you understand my stance. I don't want any trouble, I will actually go out of my way to live in harmony with my neighbours and I'm only looking for a reasonable degree of tolerance.

I don't have a garden, so the only land I have access to is the parking bay I rent off the landlord of the flat below me and so I'm trying to make the most of what little land I have to dry my washing. I also keep my self human and engaged with life by caring for the local wildlife. We are fortunate here to have squirrels in the trees behind us, local bird populations of Jackdaws, Tits, Dunnocks and Sparrows, some of which are currently in decline, and a visiting population of 'Not My Cats', six at the last count, though only three are regulars.

I just want to be allowed to live my life in peace and harmony, I don't want a constant battle and if anything I'm doing is causing one of my neighbours annoyance then I'm happy to talk about it and agree some mutually acceptable solution. What I don't like is when I'm shouted at and bullied.

Also as you say 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones' and I am fully aware that some of my angry neighbours are doing things that strictly speaking they shouldn't be doing. but quite homestly if it's not causing me any grief then I don't really care, and sometimes it's actually quite funny..

WIAWSNB

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82037953#Comment_82037953

"I just want to be allowed to live my life in peace and harmony, I don't want a constant battle and if anything I'm doing is causing one of my neighbours annoyance then I'm happy to talk about it and agree some mutually acceptable solution. What I don't like is when I'm shouted at and bullied."

BiB is clearly unacceptable. That's why you continue to behave unimpeachably and in complete contrast; always calm, always in control. Do not be intimidated by such folk - just keep reminding yourself, "What can they actually do - he ain't going to thump me! So his ranting is a weakness." So if you act completely calm whilst they rant, wait for them to finish, and then ask a relevant Q, you will have turned the tables.

If they raise their voice, you are entitled to point this out - again as a Q; "Are you aware that you are shouting?!" That is sobering to most folk, whereas being accused of shouting will just provoke a denial.

"Are you prepared to discuss this calmly…?" And if they aren't, then 'ok', and turn and walk away.

And don't forget - they need to provide evidence for their assertions.

Section62

So, if I read this quite literally the right of way has only been granted to people who own one of the flats. Not to friends, visitors, guests or tradesmen. Who have no right at all to access either the land coloured brown on the plan or to walk along our footpaths. Although they all do and nobody says a thing.

There's a wealth of case law on rights of way which can help to settle disputes. Your literal interpretation in this case is almost certainly wrong. The use of "purchaser" on its own clearly cannot be taken literally, since it would exclude anyone who hasn't purchased the property, including (for example) the spouse/children of the owner(s) who live in the property with the purchaser but are not co-owners. If the wording were something like "purchaser and members of their household" then a more literal interpretation might be allowed.

I'm also curious what compliance to a Right Of Way looks like, because my neighbour seems to interpet compliance as 'You may not park on the land coloured brown'. but in practice the title deeds don;t actually say that, in fact they don't mention parking at all. Because at the time the conveyance was drafted there was no parking behind our flats only the gardens of the ground floor tenants and residents.

Right of way is a right to "pass and repass". That's it. Case law has tinkered with this to allow certain things associated with the passing and repassing, such as pausing to take in the view on a public footpath, but these are very much dependent on the circumstances. Whether something other than simply passing and repassing would be deemed allowable by a court also depends very much on how it impacts on the rights of others, and particularly if whatever it is causes an obstruction. Parking on a right of way - absent of a right to park there - will almost always be deemed an obstruction, and likely so even if the obstruction of the way is not total. The deed won't mention parking because it isn't granting a right to park. As QrizB said, it is telling you what you can do, not what you can't do.

Logic would suggest that the 'Right of Way' was granted to the residents to enable them to gain access to their garages at the back of the building along the drive from the main road, and so as long as the drive is not blocked and everyone can reach their garage with a car the 'Right of Way' is being preserved.

This is faulty logic. The right is to pass and repass over the indicated area, not to park on or otherwise block the right of way of those who share the same right. It isn't for you (each of the individuals with the same right) to decide how convenient the exercise of the right should be for others, nor the extent of the right within the indicated area. Case law would probably allow for minor or trivial obstructions (like a rainwater pipe) which don't impact on the the practical use of a right of way, but parked cars are a different kettle of fish.

As an ex-member of a Rambling Club I'm also ware that farmers have an even more creative inpretation of a 'Right of Way' when is applies to one of their fields. They take the view that a Right of Way grants the public the right to enter their field at piont A and leave at point B, and so as long as their is an unobstructed path that links point A with Point B they are complying with the Right of Way, even if the path goes conveniently around the edge of their field rather than diagonally across it as shown on the map. Leaving them the option to plough the path up to make sowing and harvesting their crops easier. The local rambling club was quite adamant that redirecting a Right of Way for your own convenience was not acceptable and I remember being forced to trample farmers crops on more than one occassion to re-establish the true path.

This relates to public rights of way, which are not identical to private rights. It is also a somewhat outdated view of farming and public rights of way. Legislation and enforcement by highway authorities have very much curtailed the loss/obstruction of rights of way across farmland. There's now the option of setting up temporary diversions and permissive paths which work for the benefit of all parties, and thankfully few genuine ramblers would feel the need to trample crops where a perfectly acceptable alternative route has been agreed with the council. As a walker myself I find the greater problem is now with developers (and householders) who don't want public paths on (or near) their land.

But it does raise the question as to whether compliance with a Right of Way is determined but its purpose or by its history. If it's purpose is just to cross the field or access a garage then does it matter if one has to go around something to get there? Or must the enetire path be kepot clear regardless of whether the purose is still satisfied. It's an interesting question.

As above, public and private rights differ. In both cases where the physical extent of the right is defined then it is the physical extent which takes precedence. Public footpaths are typically defined on a point-to-point the basis with a specified width (if there is one) or else an assumed minimum width. The definition of private rights is more variable. If (as in your case) the right is defined with reference to a plan showing the area the right applies to then the purpose ('getting to the garages') is very much secondary. An argument "well he can still get to his garage" will fail.

Nowehere in our Title Deeds does it say 'You may not park your car, or stop and talk whilst crossing the Right of Way.'. It just says that we residents have the right to cross it. Incidently my bossy neighbour ripped up the paths that cross his garden to make more space for his cars so, he is definately in breach of covernant, especially if he proceeds with his plan to fence off his land. Which will obviously blocks everyone else's right to walk across his garden.

As above, if the title deeds don't say you can then you can't.

The same applies to the neighbour though, and if he is parking on a right of way or otherwise obstructing it (e.g. by a fence) and doesn't have the right to do that, then those who have the benefit of the right of way could - if they want - do something about it.

But overall it sounds that although things are superficially friendly, there are several issues between residents in the flats which are simmering just below the surface. The lack of a single management structure and what sound like holes in the legal situation could make for some very expensive litigation if someone lights the blue touchpaper. ALL the residents in the block need to have a long hard think about what they are all doing, and whether they really want to go down they route they are.

Murphybear

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82036440#Comment_82036440

Garages do make useful storage. We have 2 friends who bought a big beautiful house in semi rural Devon. The garage housed his Jaguar, her Mercedes and a 2nd extra large freezer. How the other half live 😹😹😹