PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.

Maintenance of private road

24

Comments

  • Tom99
    Tom99 Posts: 5,371
    First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]If it was proportional to use would it not say 'use' rather than 'user'. So say 5 users = 20% each.[/FONT]
  • Tom99 wrote: »
    [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]If it was proportional to use would it not say 'use' rather than 'user'. So say 5 users = 20% each.[/FONT]

    Well that's not how others of us (including davidmcn - who I think might be a legal brain?) are interpreting it.
  • Tom99
    Tom99 Posts: 5,371
    First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Well that's not how others of us (including davidmcn - who I think might be a legal brain?) are interpreting it.

    [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Yes I can see that, I am just pointing out that 'user' is the person(s) using, not the frequency of use.[/FONT]
  • davidmcn
    davidmcn Posts: 23,596
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    Tom99 wrote: »
    [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Yes I can see that, I am just pointing out that 'user' is the person(s) using, not the frequency of use.[/FONT]
    One of those odd ones where it's legal jargon but looks like a normal word. From the OED:

    user, n.

    Law.

    Continued use, exercise, or employment of a right, property, practice, etc.; presumptive right arising from such use. Also in figurative context.
  • Old_Grey_Mare
    Old_Grey_Mare Posts: 103
    First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    edited 9 March 2018 at 6:08PM
    Well - with you having both "easement of necessity" to get to your land and the fact "The Public" are using it - then it certainly doesn't look as if he could actually stop you using it. So that's one problem out of the way.

    ***********

    The other fact I'd be wondering about, in your position, is what standard he wants to do this lane to. It's not just down to whether he wants to charge an excessively high amount for the standard he has chosen. The question is also = what standard does he want to do it to?

    There are many different standards we could be talking about here - through from:
    - chucking down a handful of chippings all the way along it
    through to
    - best quality tarmacking job.

    Has he even said what standard he has in mind?

    This guy needs to wake up and smell the coffee that we're in the 21st century now - and it's out of keeping with this century to try doing things in such an autocratic/feudal/outdated all round way as thinking he is the only one that decides whats what on behalf of others like that.

    EDIT; An off-centre thought on why he is trying to act in this way is I'm also wondering whether he's trying to scare one (or more) of the properties using the road to sell up. Has he got any inkling of the finances of any of you? Would it be useful for him to try and use any of your properties added to his own if he could get them? This may be what he is up to - rather than the "on the face of it" thing of he's planning to do it anyway (in said outdated way) and trying for some of the costs of it to be paid for for him.

    All round - I'd be trying to work out whether he was trying to "put the Fear" into any of you (but couldnt actually manage to force any of you in this outdated way).

    It was a farm track until 14 years ago when he decided to set up a poultry factory and knew suppliers wouldn't deliver unless it was a tarmacked road. The residents were not told of his plans for a poultry factory but were persuaded to invest in a new road and were apparently furious when they learned it was only laid to appease his suppliers. It was a top quality job and presumably be repaired to the same standard.
  • I can't see how this could be enforced. The lane is also a public bridle way and footpath and regularly has cars parked half way up the lane for members of the public to access the rights of way.

    If you can't pay/don't want to pay could you (legally) relinquish your rights under that covenant but retain access rights under the public right of way? It may be an avenue worth exploring.
  • agrinnall
    agrinnall Posts: 23,344
    First Post Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    Have you tried to get your own quote for resurfacing the road? £33,000 for a mile long road may not be excessive given how much it costs to build a mile of motorway (several million at least).
  • It was a farm track until 14 years ago when he decided to set up a poultry factory and knew suppliers wouldn't deliver unless it was a tarmacked road. The residents were not told of his plans for a poultry factory but were persuaded to invest in a new road and were apparently furious when they learned it was only laid to appease his suppliers. It was a top quality job and presumably be repaired to the same standard.

    Ah-ha and then there's another question for you to ask this solicitor when you see them.

    1. How long have you had this smallholding?
    2. How long have the others using this road had their properties?

    One way or another - I'd be willing to bet at least one of you has had their property for over 14 years and therefore I would have thought (almost certainly) they would be under the conditions laid down in their paperwork at the time they bought their properties.

    With that - then I can't really see how any of you that "came on the scene" within the last 14 years could have different conditions to them? Worth asking about that fact - as to whether different owners in the road could have different conditions perhaps?

    From what I've read (as a layperson) I believe the law only allows for charging for private road maintenance to the standard it was at at the time the person/people with ROW on the road bought it. If the "owner" of the road then wants to do it to a better standard - then that's down to them and they can't charge the difference for that better standard. They can only charge for the standard it was at at the time the road-user bought their place.

    So - how long have you had this smallholding of yours (ie did you get it before or after the upgrading of this track)?

    Even if you did get it after the upgrading of this track - if your paperwork uses the same wording as the paperwork of the last owner of your smallholding prior to this road upgrading = would that last owners wording apply to subsequent owners (ie yourself)?

    All round - I would have thought this guy might be on a very sticky wicket trying to charge for an upgraded standard to the previous one. Well worth checking on that point with your solicitor.
  • agrinnall wrote: »
    Have you tried to get your own quote for resurfacing the road? £33,000 for a mile long road may not be excessive given how much it costs to build a mile of motorway (several million at least).

    Definitely something I'd be doing personally - and that quote would be for getting the road maintained to "previous farmtrack standard".

    With that I'd be surprised if the actual bill comes to more a few thousand £s between all of you. It may be that the bill is, in fact, absolutely non-existent (ie because the road is already at the previous farmtrack standard - and therefore doesnt need doing to "maintain the status quo").

    Between the improved standard (for his purposes only) and the public ROW (which you'd obviously still be able to use on the exact same basis as anyone else) - I have my doubts whether he can make you/anyone else there pay anything at all.
  • If you can't pay/don't want to pay could you (legally) relinquish your rights under that covenant but retain access rights under the public right of way? It may be an avenue worth exploring.

    I suspect OP could do exactly that.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards