communal road repairs

DEFERREDPENS wrote: »

yes it is but there is but there is a section of our road which is labelled 'to be shared equally by all', and a section which the covenant says is to be shared 'according to use'

Is this labelling on a plan of the street?

I cannot give legal advice, and without seeing the whole of the deeds it is impossible to be absolutely sure, but in some examples I saw at work the two terms you use were intended to mean that part of the street was used to access all the properties, and part was only used to access certain properties.

In other words, 'according to use' means whether or not it provides access to a particular property, not how many times a particular property's owner actually drives over it.

For example on a straight road the person at the end of the cul-de-sac would have sole responsibilty for the cost of repairs from the end to the point where the second property's driveway joins. Each property is added to the shared responsibility as they 'join' the street. From the point the final property is added, all properties are equally responsible up to the junction with the public highway. Hence a section where the costs are 'shared equally by all'. This may not be applicable in your case, so you would need a qualified legal opinion.

A further complicating factor is whether the repairs require the entire street to be resurfaced, or if only a small portion (or portions) needs to be repaired. Working out who pays what for each part of the repair becomes complicated, and it might be for this reason the local authority is identified as a means of arbitration.

I will need to dig out my highway law books as there is something in the back of my mind about highway authorities having a legal obligation to settle disputes over shared private roads. I cannot remember the detail, but it has something to do with an obscure part of highways legislation. Possibly linked to their powers to adopt roads if the condition they are in poses a hazard to the public. Most councils today are cut to the bone and often say they cannot provide services they are obliged to, sometimes unfortunately due to a lack of awareness and knowledge of the staff making such decisions

Edit: As it might take a while to find my books, I have a feeling the relevant legislation is in Part XI (Making up of Private Streets) of the Highways Act 1980 - but a quick look through that doesn't give an obvious route for residents on a private street to require the authority to mediate. The only thing I can think of is if residents could persuade the authority that serving a notice under Section 230(1) was necessary because the state of the road was so bad it was a danger, and without the reluctant property owner contributing the other property owners cannot afford to proceed. The 'hassle' factor of this might make an authority inclined to write to the reluctant owner and ask them to co-operate with the other residents to avoid the need for official involvement and all the fun that comes with that! But the condition of the street would have to pose a genuine danger, not just looking a bit untidy.

Another complication is that some of the people may not think maintenance or repair is necessary. Some could agree on the apportioning of costs but consider it to be a hypothetical expense far in the future.

Is it a tarmac road or a gravel track? If the latter, a few tonnes of chippings spread along it to fill in the worst holes is fairly cheap and you may think it worth doing whether everyone contributes or not. If it's tarmac and you are proposing thousands of Pounds-worth of work I would expect a lot of resistance to paying.