Homeowner in my street is threatening an injunction over my proposed use of shared access...

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, Adsibob said:

 wrighthassall

Seller used them when I bought a house though Anquish&Pain Estate Agents.

[Temp]

2 hours ago, Adsibob said:

 I believe that period of time is 20 years, and owners can change during that period as long as there is more or less continued use of the right of way.

+1 

 

4 hours ago, woz said:

he thinks that the passage is "normally" used "four times per day"

 

Which means he admits it is used pretty regularly at the moment.

 

If you keep the happy I'm sure other neighbours would write you a letter explaining their knowledge of how it's been used if you needed it. 

 

 

 

[woz]

21 hours ago, Adsibob said:

I think their solicitor might be conflating two completely separate things: (i) a right of way over his property to be able to wheel machinery and building materials to your property; and (ii) nuissance from your building works. 

 

Issue (i) comes to establishing that you have a right of way over his land. That will depend partly on deeds/paperwork but also on whether you can evidence that others, particularly you and the previous owners of your property, have exercised a right of way over the land in question for a sufficiently long time such that the right of way arises by prescription. I believe that period of time is 20 years, and owners can change during that period as long as there is more or less continued use of the right of way. Here is an explanation from my favourite law firm name: https://www.wrighthassall.co.uk/knowledge-base/claiming-a-right-of-way-by-prescription#:~:text=What do you need to,in use are relatively short.  If the right of way is meant to be enjoyed by the whole street, then other's evidence will be relevant. Obviously if there are access gates between gardens or even just gaps in the fences, that in and of itself is useful evidence.

 

Issue (ii) doesn't currently stand up. Nuissance in the building context can only really mean two things: noise and dust. As for noise, this is policed by the local council. Check what their rules are, usually noise is permitted from around 8am to 530pm Monday to Friday and some councils also allow noise on Saturdays for a limited number of hours. So just set out in writing what the local council's rules are and confirm that you will abide by them and no noisy work will be done outside of those hours. As long as you do that and as long as you stick to those times there is F all he can do about it and no court will grant an injunction on that basis. As for dust, as long as you take reasonable precautions (e.g. wetting very messy stuff before cutting it (like tiles) there isn't much he can do. You are not currently causing a nuissance or threatening to do so, so again no injunction would be granted.

 

Issue (i) is the more difficult one to prove. 

Thank you for the detailed answer. It gives me a great deal of hope. Issue i "should" be pretty straight forward in my case, the houses are 200 years old and the pathway in question runs unbroken along the rear of the properties. A few of the occupants have added gates (never locked) to stop pets / children from straying. Reading the link you provide the only bit that worries me is the "excessive use" but any increase in use will be temporary (The project is an extension, not a new building).

 

Thanks

[woz]

Hello all,

In case anybody was following / interested I have received a follow up by email from the other person's solicitors. For interest I have included it below. In my mind it doesn't really move anything along so after the good advice I have received here I am thinking of responding politely with the following points:

• Whilst I am happy to communicate through whatever means the other person prefers I recognise the costs that they are incurring using a solicitor and so I would invite them to communicate with me directly if they so wish.
• Could they clarify if their objection to the use of the easement is total or if they are concerned about excessive use? 
• If they are concerned about excessive use then would it help to assure them that I have always intended to ensure that my contractor takes all of the residents needs into consideration and that I would be very happy to supply more details and negotiate with all of the residents at a time when the amount of materials needed has been confirmed.

 

What I would like to say is:

• Any use their clients made of their own property would be without relevance but what about the use they made of the property of the other people in the street between their property and the entrance? Does that set a clear expectation (By prescription)? 
• He did know what I had planned as he was going to help calculate the load on the walls and we had talked about plans, the only parts he didn't know were small details of the design (windows). I decided to use an architect because of a few reasons including that he would do any work in his own time and I'd prefer a business relationship (never do business with friends)
• Given that he was aware of the project "in general" well before I changed to an architect it would seem that his objections to right of way are a continuation of his objection to the design of the building through another route
• When I said that bringing materials in would be "up to the builder" that was a very short sentence. He didn't attempt to clarify that and if he had done I would have told him that what I meant was that the builder would be the one moving the materials. It didn't imply that I would give the builder the freedom to do whatever they wanted (friends / neighbours / good will of residents).
• It's odd for a solicitor to use the word "accept" as though they have accepted a decision. Surely the solicitor should be saying that the 3rd party is "accepting" that planning permission has been granted and "stating" that use of the passageway is a separate legal issue? 
• If their objection to the use of the easement is "total" then they should take the matter to court without delay so that it can be clarified.

 

The solicitors correspondence: 

 

"Any use my clients have made of their own property or the passageway is entirely without
relevance. It would not set any legal precedent on which you may rely.
It is my understanding that my client had agreed to help you, as his neighbours, with your
extension design and drawings. However, when he realised the extent of what you had planned,
he withdrew over concerns on the impact it would have on his property. You then employed
your own architect from late 2021.
In previous discussions with my client you were asked how the materials were to be brought
on site and replied that this would be left up to the builder.
Regarding the final paragraph, whilst my clients were disappointed that the planning application
was approved, they accept that planning permission is only one aspect of being able to carry
out works. The use of the part of the passageway which is within my clients’ title is a separate
legal issue you must deal with before works can commence if you choose to use this potential
access."

[Carrerahill]

27 minutes ago, woz said:

Hello all,

In case anybody was following / interested I have received a follow up by email from the other person's solicitors. For interest I have included it below. In my mind it doesn't really move anything along so after the good advice I have received here I am thinking of responding politely with the following points:

• Whilst I am happy to communicate through whatever means the other person prefers I recognise the costs that they are incurring using a solicitor and so I would invite them to communicate with me directly if they so wish.
• Could they clarify if their objection to the use of the easement is total or if they are concerned about excessive use? 
• If they are concerned about excessive use then would it help to assure them that I have always intended to ensure that my contractor takes all of the residents needs into consideration and that I would be very happy to supply more details and negotiate with all of the residents at a time when the amount of materials needed has been confirmed.

 

What I would like to say is:

• Any use their clients made of their own property would be without relevance but what about the use they made of the property of the other people in the street between their property and the entrance? Does that set a clear expectation (By prescription)? 
• He did know what I had planned as he was going to help calculate the load on the walls and we had talked about plans, the only parts he didn't know were small details of the design (windows). I decided to use an architect because of a few reasons including that he would do any work in his own time and I'd prefer a business relationship (never do business with friends)
• Given that he was aware of the project "in general" well before I changed to an architect it would seem that his objections to right of way are a continuation of his objection to the design of the building through another route
• When I said that bringing materials in would be "up to the builder" that was a very short sentence. He didn't attempt to clarify that and if he had done I would have told him that what I meant was that the builder would be the one moving the materials. It didn't imply that I would give the builder the freedom to do whatever they wanted (friends / neighbours / good will of residents).
• It's odd for a solicitor to use the word "accept" as though they have accepted a decision. Surely the solicitor should be saying that the 3rd party is "accepting" that planning permission has been granted and "stating" that use of the passageway is a separate legal issue? 
• If their objection to the use of the easement is "total" then they should take the matter to court without delay so that it can be clarified.

 

The solicitors correspondence: 

 

"Any use my clients have made of their own property or the passageway is entirely without
relevance. It would not set any legal precedent on which you may rely.
It is my understanding that my client had agreed to help you, as his neighbours, with your
extension design and drawings. However, when he realised the extent of what you had planned,
he withdrew over concerns on the impact it would have on his property. You then employed
your own architect from late 2021.
In previous discussions with my client you were asked how the materials were to be brought
on site and replied that this would be left up to the builder.
Regarding the final paragraph, whilst my clients were disappointed that the planning application
was approved, they accept that planning permission is only one aspect of being able to carry
out works. The use of the part of the passageway which is within my clients’ title is a separate
legal issue you must deal with before works can commence if you choose to use this potential
access."

Is there no other way whatsoever of getting into your garden without going via his.

 

When people try things like this with me, I do my best to find another way or to do something totally unorthodox just out of badness. 

 

Could you remove a wall or fence anywhere, even if it meant paying a neighbour and having the wall or fence reinstated.

 

Airlift the materials in? Can you not come through your house? Crane the stuff in from the street... 

 

This would allow you to totally cease all communication with your neighbour and their solicitor and simply go and do your own thing which would be highly satisfying.

 

Of course, if you can prove right of way over this bit of ground then that would be highly satisfying too. 

[Adsibob]

1 hour ago, woz said:

"Any use my clients have made of their own property or the passageway is entirely without
relevance. It would not set any legal precedent on which you may rely.
It is my understanding that my client had agreed to help you, as his neighbours, with your
extension design and drawings. However, when he realised the extent of what you had planned,
he withdrew over concerns on the impact it would have on his property. You then employed
your own architect from late 2021.
In previous discussions with my client you were asked how the materials were to be brought
on site and replied that this would be left up to the builder.
Regarding the final paragraph, whilst my clients were disappointed that the planning application
was approved, they accept that planning permission is only one aspect of being able to carry
out works. The use of the part of the passageway which is within my clients’ title is a separate
legal issue you must deal with before works can commence if you choose to use this potential
access."

My suggested response:

 

Dear Sirs

I refer to your email of [date]. In your email you suggest that “Any use my clients have made of their own property or the passageway is entirely without relevance” as “It would not set any legal precedent on which [I] can rely". You appear to have misunderstood the point. My argument is that all residents on that side of [name of road] have a right of way over that passageway. Therefore, the fact that your client has made use of that passageway to cross other neighbour's land is entirely relevant since it supports my assertion that a right of way exists over the entire passageway, including your client's land, for all residents on that side of the road. I would therefore be relying on your client's use of that land as a matter of fact to support my legal argument, not as a legal precedent. Indeed, the fact that you yourself are referring to the “passageway” as such is telling. It is a passage that shows the way across your clients land for others to make use of to access their own properties.

Your client’s position has no legal merit and your correspondence on this point is misconceived.

It is patently obvious that your client's purported objection on the grounds that no right of way exists is a thinly veiled objection to my development proposals, as evidenced by his prior objection to my planning application, in a new guise. I urge your client to reconsider his position, failing which I will have to escalate matters to protect my rights, all of which remain expressly reserved. Obviously litigation is a costly endeavour, but I will resort to it if necessary and seek my costs of doing so from your client.

Yours

[@woz]

 

[woz]

1 hour ago, Carrerahill said:

Is there no other way whatsoever of getting into your garden without going via his.

 

When people try things like this with me, I do my best to find another way or to do something totally unorthodox just out of badness. 

 

Could you remove a wall or fence anywhere, even if it meant paying a neighbour and having the wall or fence reinstated.

 

Airlift the materials in? Can you not come through your house? Crane the stuff in from the street... 

 

This would allow you to totally cease all communication with your neighbour and their solicitor and simply go and do your own thing which would be highly satisfying.

 

Of course, if you can prove right of way over this bit of ground then that would be highly satisfying too. 

There are other ways into my property without using this path. They are much less convenient (unpaved track / up steep steps) but I am sure that a good contractor would be able to work something out. There is also a neighbour who has permitted me access through his garden before. He's a nice guy but I don't want to impose on him more then I have to. 

 

Ironically I would have readily negotiated a position where the path access was ONLY to be used in situations where the other access was impractical, regardless of it being longer or less convenient for the workers... he just didn't give me the chance to talk it through before contacting his solicitor.

 

As long as he is paying I'd be quite happy now for him to take it to court just to clarify the situation as to what is and is not acceptable use. Then I can work with the contractors to make that happen. At the moment it's the uncertainty due to the vague demands he made about "heavy machinery" and "builders with materials".

 

Also, if he took me to court I would have to talk to the other residents who also rely on the same easement. They may have something to say about a situation where they could also be prevented from use of the easement. What about a situation where urgent remedial work needed to be carried out on buildings? 

 

 

 

[SteamyTea]

Does home insurance cover this sort of legal dispute?

[woz]

Just now, SteamyTea said:

Does home insurance cover this sort of legal dispute?

Now that is a VERY interesting question. I will have to check.. Thank you very much.

[joth]

2 minutes ago, woz said:

Also, if he took me to court I would have to talk to the other residents who also rely on the same easement. They may have something to say about a situation where they could also be prevented from use of the easement. What about a situation where urgent remedial work needed to be carried out on buildings? 

 

relatedly, do any water mains or (more likely) combined sewers run through the rear gardens? Check your home buyers pack.

It will put the willies up other neighbours to hear that they could be held to ransom over a potential future drain block or water leak, if precedent is set that there's no right of way for the water company or private contractor to get in there to  repair it.

Overall, yes if you can turn it to an N vs 1 battle I think the case will start looking pretty bleak for the plaintiff.

 

 

big kudos to @Adsibob for wading in pro bono 

 

 

[redtop]

I think I would take a slightly different approach. These type of letters cost a few quid for a solicitor to produce. I would write back and simply state that the shared access has been used for many years by the residents and is listed as such in the deeds. And then ask on what legal basis they intend to stop what you consider to be legal use of the shared access route. In respect of nuisance from the build this is an issue that should be raised with the council should it occur.

 

Now to answer properly the solicitor will have to spend some time, and his clients money, which they probably wont as they know they would lose.

[Temp]

2 hours ago, woz said:

Hello all,

In case anybody was following / interested I have received a follow up by email from the other person's solicitors. For interest I have included it below. In my mind it doesn't really move anything along so after the good advice I have received here I am thinking of responding politely with the following points:

• Whilst I am happy to communicate through whatever means the other person prefers I recognise the costs that they are incurring using a solicitor and so I would invite them to communicate with me directly if they so wish.
• Could they clarify if their objection to the use of the easement is total or if they are concerned about excessive use? 
• If they are concerned about excessive use then would it help to assure them that I have always intended to ensure that my contractor takes all of the residents needs into consideration and that I would be very happy to supply more details and negotiate with all of the residents at a time when the amount of materials needed has been confirmed.

 

What I would like to say is:

• Any use their clients made of their own property would be without relevance but what about the use they made of the property of the other people in the street between their property and the entrance? Does that set a clear expectation (By prescription)? 
• He did know what I had planned as he was going to help calculate the load on the walls and we had talked about plans, the only parts he didn't know were small details of the design (windows). I decided to use an architect because of a few reasons including that he would do any work in his own time and I'd prefer a business relationship (never do business with friends)
• Given that he was aware of the project "in general" well before I changed to an architect it would seem that his objections to right of way are a continuation of his objection to the design of the building through another route
• When I said that bringing materials in would be "up to the builder" that was a very short sentence. He didn't attempt to clarify that and if he had done I would have told him that what I meant was that the builder would be the one moving the materials. It didn't imply that I would give the builder the freedom to do whatever they wanted (friends / neighbours / good will of residents).
• It's odd for a solicitor to use the word "accept" as though they have accepted a decision. Surely the solicitor should be saying that the 3rd party is "accepting" that planning permission has been granted and "stating" that use of the passageway is a separate legal issue? 
• If their objection to the use of the easement is "total" then they should take the matter to court without delay so that it can be clarified.

 

The solicitors correspondence: 

 

"Any use my clients have made of their own property or the passageway is entirely without
relevance. It would not set any legal precedent on which you may rely.
It is my understanding that my client had agreed to help you, as his neighbours, with your
extension design and drawings. However, when he realised the extent of what you had planned,
he withdrew over concerns on the impact it would have on his property. You then employed
your own architect from late 2021.
In previous discussions with my client you were asked how the materials were to be brought
on site and replied that this would be left up to the builder.
Regarding the final paragraph, whilst my clients were disappointed that the planning application
was approved, they accept that planning permission is only one aspect of being able to carry
out works. The use of the part of the passageway which is within my clients’ title is a separate
legal issue you must deal with before works can commence if you choose to use this potential
access."

 

Just wanted to make sure you understand that whatever this person or other neighbours used the route for doesn't set a precident or give you any rights. Its all down to what your deeds say or what other owners of your house used it for, how long and if you can prove it.

 

The awkward neighbour is in the same position (unless he is the very end house which you say he isn't). It would be possible for anyone nearer the highway to try and stop him crossing their garden on the same grounds. But if he was to prove he had a right in court that wouldn't necessarily give you any rights. The only exception to the above might be if a court was to decide this was actually a public highway or similar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Temp]

1 hour ago, woz said:

There are other ways into my property without using this path. They are much less convenient (unpaved track / up steep steps) but I am sure that a good contractor would be able to work something out. There is also a neighbour who has permitted me access through his garden before. He's a nice guy but I don't want to impose on him more then I have to. 

 

Given you have another route I would make things awkward for him. Keep writing letters to his solicitor to run up his bill as others like @redtophave suggested.

 

I would also tell neighbours upstream what this neighbour has done. If by chance one of them has already got the legal position formally sorted then that might help you do the same. I suppose they might even be able to instruct your builder to act for them when transporting materials. 

 

Warn your builder he may have to use the harder route - that way he should take that into account when he quotes and not raise the price later if the neighbour objects. 

 

 

 

[woz]

15 minutes ago, Temp said:

 

Just wanted to make sure you understand that whatever this person or other neighbours used the route for doesn't set a precident or give you any rights. Its all down to what your deeds say or what other owners of your house used it for, how long and if you can prove it.

Thank you, checking the deeds is on my todo list. The houses are very old and the deeds probably aren't that specific. However we can prove that the path has been used for access and moving building materials for > hundred years.

15 minutes ago, Temp said:

 

The awkward neighbour is in the same position (unless he is the very end house which you say he isn't). It would be possible for anyone nearer the highway to try and stop him crossing their garden on the same grounds. But if he was to prove he had a right in court that wouldn't necessarily give you any rights. The only exception to the above might be if a court was to decide this was actually a public highway or similar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Temp]

2 minutes ago, woz said:

Thank you, checking the deeds is on my todo list. The houses are very old and the deeds probably aren't that specific. However we can prove that the path has been used for access and moving building materials for > hundred years.

 

 

What sort of proof? If its any good (dated photos?) I suggest you send copies to his solicitor. Say these area just examples of some of the evidence you would present that a right of way exists. 

 

[woz]

1 hour ago, joth said:

relatedly, do any water mains or (more likely) combined sewers run through the rear gardens? Check your home buyers pack.

It will put the willies up other neighbours to hear that they could be held to ransom over a potential future drain block or water leak, if precedent is set that there's no right of way for the water company or private contractor to get in there to  repair it.

Overall, yes if you can turn it to an N vs 1 battle I think the case will start looking pretty bleak for the plaintiff.

 

 

big kudos to @Adsibob for wading in pro bono 

 

 

Thank you, that's a good point. Yes there are both water main and sewers which run through the gardens. It would be interesting to get a response on this matter from his solicitor. I'm very sure that he would reply that if it was an emergency to fix drains / water mains then he would not object. That would show for sure that he is using this course of action specifically in protest against my development. I wonder however if that would impact on the decision made by a court. 

[woz]

1 minute ago, Temp said:

 

What sort of proof? If its any good (dated photos?) I suggest you send copies to his solicitor. Say these area just examples of some of the evidence you would present that a right of way exists. 

 

Well if you were to take a photo of the back end of the houses you would be able to see that extensions have been built on almost every single one (there are >15 in the street) since they were first built. The most recent was the one that the person complaining built themselves

 

[woz]

1 hour ago, Adsibob said:

My suggested response:

 

Dear Sirs

I refer to your email of [date]. In your email you suggest that “Any use my clients have made of their own property or the passageway is entirely without relevance” as “It would not set any legal precedent on which [I] can rely". You appear to have misunderstood the point. My argument is that all residents on that side of [name of road] have a right of way over that passageway. Therefore, the fact that your client has made use of that passageway to cross other neighbour's land is entirely relevant since it supports my assertion that a right of way exists over the entire passageway, including your client's land, for all residents on that side of the road. I would therefore be relying on your client's use of that land as a matter of fact to support my legal argument, not as a legal precedent. Indeed, the fact that you yourself are referring to the “passageway” as such is telling. It is a passage that shows the way across your clients land for others to make use of to access their own properties.

Your client’s position has no legal merit and your correspondence on this point is misconceived.

It is patently obvious that your client's purported objection on the grounds that no right of way exists is a thinly veiled objection to my development proposals, as evidenced by his prior objection to my planning application, in a new guise. I urge your client to reconsider his position, failing which I will have to escalate matters to protect my rights, all of which remain expressly reserved. Obviously litigation is a costly endeavour, but I will resort to it if necessary and seek my costs of doing so from your client.

Yours

[@woz]

 

Again, thank you for your response. You have provided me with excellent information and a good recommendation for solicitor should I need to resort to one. 

[AliG]

All very good advice here, I agree with almost every word.

 

But you really do need to check the deeds. If you don't have them you can get a copy from the land registry.

 

The reason for this is to see the specific wording. Sometimes this kind of easement may say for maintenance or some such.

 

If it explicitly allows for building work or for any reason, then you can send it to the solicitor and they should really give in and that should be the end of it.

 

If  the easement is more restrictive then you may well have to argue that it is an easement by prescription looking at the legal guidance posted earlier. You should still win this, but it will be  more difficult.

 

Frankly the solicitor doesn't seem much cope. He basically put in the letter that they are trying to use this to get around planning laws. I can't imagine it will look like a genuine effort to enforce the easement correctly to a court.

[Adsibob]

@AliG is right to say that you should check the deeds (for both your property and the property of the neighbour in question) but it is important to keep in mind that easements can also arise outside of the deeds.

I can think of at least two types of easement that might have arisen here on which you could try to rely:

1) rights of way (on foot or by vehicle);

2) rights of access for maintenance purposes;

 

Query though whether this is "maintenance".

 

Also query whether you could circumvent all of this by just bringing in the materials through your house. Is that possible? Issues are likely to be RSJs and large items like sliding doors.

[SteamyTea]

Down here, 'local' can take a dislike to people.  I have seen up country folk driven out of towns because of constant narking and rumours.  All totally unfounded.

 

Then there is the use of social media, and as one old loony does, posts up diatribes on lampposts about non specific individuals who may, or may not, have done anything wrong, or intend to do anything wrong.

Very effective.

Onan hag oll

[Temp]

59 minutes ago, woz said:

Well if you were to take a photo of the back end of the houses you would be able to see that extensions have been built on almost every single one (there are >15 in the street) since they were first built. The most recent was the one that the person complaining built themselves

 

 

Yes but unfortunately that's not evidence that you/previous owners and your/their tradesmen have actually used the route for 20 years. At best it suggests those other house owners might be able to establish their own rights but that doesn't directly give you any. 

 

You really need something more substantial like letters from the previous owner of your house saying they and their builder, gardner, window cleaner, painter etc all used the route to bring a wide variety of materials and equipment to your house for at least 20 years and nobody ever raised any objection or blocked the route. For the whole of that period.

 

 

[woz]

19 hours ago, Adsibob said:

@AliG is right to say that you should check the deeds (for both your property and the property of the neighbour in question) but it is important to keep in mind that easements can also arise outside of the deeds.

I can think of at least two types of easement that might have arisen here on which you could try to rely:

1) rights of way (on foot or by vehicle);

2) rights of access for maintenance purposes;

 

Query though whether this is "maintenance".

 

Also query whether you could circumvent all of this by just bringing in the materials through your house. Is that possible? Issues are likely to be RSJs and large items like sliding doors.

Thank you @Adsibob and @AliG (and the others who also mentioned it) - You and other people in this topic have rightfully suggested that I check the deeds and I have taken that good advice. I don't want to get in trouble with the Land registry by posting the full document here and I certainly don't want to post anything which could be used to identify anybody so I will remove all distinguishing information and also reference to the plans. The following is from the title deeds for the property of the person who has raised the complaint (bits underlined are my edits)

 

"Together with the right in common with the owners and occupiers for the time being of (The houses between the person complaining's property and the end of the row) and all other persons authorised to use the same to go pass and repass on foot only over and along the passage way four feet wide situate at the rear of (the houses between the person complaining property and the end of the row) aforesaid and on the South West side of (The first property in the row where the passage joins the street) Except and Reserving unto the Vendor and his successors in title and the owners and occupiers of (The rest of the houses including mine) aforesaid and all other persons authorised by him or them the right at all times to go pass and repass over and along the passage way Four feet wide at the rear of the premises hereby conveyed and (reference to the plan)."

 

Now... I read that as I have a right to foot access along the row. But ALSO that anyone I can authorise my workers to do the same. 

-There is nothing in here about the right to enjoy property

-There is nothing in here about not being able to move materials

-It specifically allows me to pass at ALL times

 

If I may reiterate a previous posting... I don't believe that I am a monster and I am hopefully not an idiot (although my partner may suggestion otherwise on occasion). I was never going to give the contractor permission to drive motorised vehicles down the easement (it's MAX 4 feet wide and the surface isn't great).  I suppose that his only remaining complaint would be if he considers that wheel barrows, sack truck, and potentially pallet trucks don't constitute foot traffic. However I could then use the evidence that he himself has used barrows, sack trucks, and in one case a custom made dolly truck for moving concrete beams for beam and block flooring to suggest that this is a normal use.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SteamyTea]

5 minutes ago, woz said:

 

"Together with the right in common with...............the plan)."

Think it says what you always knew.

I think motorised vehicles and sack barrows/pallet trucks are different. Gets a bit grey when you think about a push bike (almost certainly allowed) and a motorbike (almost certainly not allowed), so an electric bicycle or scooter is on the cusp of being allowed, as long as it is manually moved.

So this brings in a mini digger. Some are tiny and can be pushed though standard doorways, so they should be allowed, while others can only realistically be driven, so not allowed.

 

Just make sure all your contractors know which house to park in front off.

 

37 years ago, my neighbour got fed up with a local company van always parked outside her house, so called the company.

There response was;

"Strange that as we built him a garage to park the van in"

Two days later, after a visit to the garage, which was full of company goods, the guy was signing on and waiting to be prosecuted for theft.

[Adrian Walker]

23 minutes ago, woz said:

 

 

"Together with the right in common with the owners and occupiers for the time being of (The houses between the person complaining's property and the end of the row) and all other persons authorised to use the same to go pass and repass on foot only over and along the passage way four feet wide situate at the rear of (the houses between the person complaining property and the end of the row) aforesaid and on the South West side of (The first property in the row where the passage joins the street) Except and Reserving unto the Vendor and his successors in title and the owners and occupiers of (The rest of the houses including mine) aforesaid and all other persons authorised by him or them the right at all times to go pass and repass over and along the passage way Four feet wide at the rear of the premises hereby conveyed and (reference to the plan)."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When were these Deeds written?