Right of way question.

[Mottie]

You can make a claim for the land after just ten years, of your making exclusive use of the land, treating it as though it were yours,

Well that definitely hasn’t happened in this case. My mate uses his garage on a daily basis.

 

[charliegolf]

Harry is describing, Adverse Possession. It's not in play here.

 

[Mottie]

Retrospect is easy but your mate was an absolute Muppet to have ever agreed to that. Build a fence on the boundary.

I told him that over 10 years ago but he just brushed it off as he was on good terms with him then. I said I’d have mentioned to him when the plans went in for the side extension the fact that he wouldn’t be able to get to his garage any more and I'd have stuck a fence/wall up then. The neighbour has three cars and their son has just moved back home so there are 4 cars in the household and he's one of those people that don’t think the road is good enough for him to park his cars on.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

The neighbour has three cars and their son has just moved back home so there are 4 cars in the household and he's one of those people that don’t think the road is good enough for him to park his cars on.

Tough - his problem, not your mate's issue. I would maybe be inclined to charge a fee, every time he needed to make use of the drive.

 

[mattylad]

A row of large rocks placed on your side of the boundary should suffice, paint them white.

As others have said, adverse possession does not apply, neither does a prescriptive ROW as that takes 20 years of regular uninterrupted use.

Ergo he has zero rights to use this land, a formal letter written to him should advise him so - if he continues then that is trespass and if he should get his car blocked in his back garden then that's his own fault.
Being ex police has nowt to do with it - many of them are outright bullies and often revise the law to suit their own purposes.

 

[blup]

A lot of layers make huge sums over boundary disputes. The key to this is what the deeds say as that will be the starting point.

Not a boundary dispute, it’s about a right of way of rather lack of it.

 

[jj4091]

I agree, the OP is making regular use of his land (drive), so adverse possession has nowt to do with it. I was simply explaining the law to

jj4091, in view of his erroneous comment.​

That law seems as though it must change on a regular basis. Some friends of ours did a similar thing to you over 40 years ago now with a piece of land next to there home. As it was never maintained and became an eyesore and dumping ground they approached a solicitor to try and find who owned it and what they could do about it. They could never establish who owned it and their solicitor advised them to fence it off and clear it up and use as part of their garden. But if anyone came forward who could prove ownership within 16 years they would have to vacate the land. It was a risk they were prepared to take so they followed his advice and 16 years later had the deeds of their house altered to incorporate the land. I did not realise anything had changed since then so thank you for the information.

 

[jj4091]

Not a boundary dispute, it’s about a right of way of rather lack of it.

Sorry I misread the original post and thought the neighbour was trying to claim ownership

 

[motorbiking]

I skimmed the comments but it seems quite simple. Firstly get a copy of the boundary for both properties from the land registry and check there are no easements over the land. It looks from the pictures that there would not need to be.

How long ago was the extension built?
The planning permission is irrelevant. Planners make no assessment of land ownership when granting permission.
If the unchallenged use has occurred for more than 20 years, there may be some arguments.

This is not an adverse possession case (exclusive possession of the land), this is an easement case.

If there is enough space to get his car down his drive, with a small chain link fence in situ, I can't see there was ever likely to be a right of way over the drive. However, it's possible there was an easement for both and that easement is lost by extension.

other than criminal damage, that would leave the neighbour's only lawful option, to seek an injunction to remove the fence, to restore his right of access. Your mate would defend the action by pointing out the easement was lost when the extension was built.

The ex-copper will know that any attempt to remove the fence will be a case of criminal damage.

 

[blup]

Your mate would defend the action by pointing out the easement was lost when the extension was built.

That makes a stronger case for the neighbour retaining his right of access over the remaining available drive, not a weaker one.

 

[Diver Fred]

How long ago was the extension built?
The planning permission is irrelevant. Planners make no assessment of land ownership when granting permission.
If the unchallenged use has occurred for more than 20 years, there may be some arguments.

Whilst I agree with the statement regarding planners make no assessment of land ownership I do know of restrictions/requirements for Off-Road parking when approving to house extensions - i.e. If there is already Off-Road parking for 2 or more cars than any extension cannot reduce that number. I'd suspect in this case unless there is a written agreement that the household building the extension can have a right of way over the neighbours ground then I'd expect there to be in the planning conditions that more of the front gardens is converted to parking.

Which is why Mottie's mate needs to look at the planning approval documentation. Ideally, before he does any more.

 

[ajohn]

If I did an extension like that in the same situation I would want to ensure I had permanent access.
The property I live in has shared access but not wide enough for a car. That fact and what can be done with it is written into the deeds. Essentially in my case it can not be blocked. The set up has always been like that from when the house was built. In your case the deeds would need to be changed. Neighbours as well. I assume the land registry would be involved as well.

My parents property had shared drive for garage access from day 1. Details in the deeds as per above. When I started driving a car the front garden was long enough to add a concrete pad for me to park on.

Painful but I suspect a solicitor is the best solution just to check how things currently stand in this respect. Doesn't sound like much work to me. If there has been any change I would have thought both parties would have to sign up to it. Any way around that - pass. If a mortgage is involved the people who handle that should know if there has been any changes.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

If a car was parked regularly on the drive in a position not allowing a car acces through what would the neighbour do, or say ?

Broken down cars needing repairs happen

 

[motorbiking]

That makes a stronger case for the neighbour retaining his right of access over the remaining available drive, not a weaker one.

I'm working on the bases that, IF there was an easement it would be reciprocal. It is enforced in full on not. You can't expect a court to enforce your rights against a neighbour while ignoring his rights against you. A court would look at the extension and tell you, this was your own doing.

If a car was parked regularly on the drive in a position not allowing a car acces through what would the neighbour do, or say ?

Broken down cars needing repairs happen

If they have an easement its obstruction, simple as that really,

 

[blup]

I'm working on the bases that, IF there was an easement it would be reciprocal. It is enforced in full on not. You can't expect a court to enforce your rights against a neighbour while ignoring his rights against you. A court would look at the extension and tell you, this was your own doing.

But it was done with the permission of motties mate, so the easement has been varied, it surely doesn't have to be all or nothing.