Parking dispute

[Eclassy]

[quote=oOTomOo]If you didn't know, it is an offence to prevent a car accessing the highway, so some of the advice above, bollards, skip, park behind her could land your son in trouble.
[/quote u]

Putting a skip on your own land wont anyine in trouble neither will installing a bollard.

If a bollard is installed and the lady still chooses to park there when she can see a barrier. If she gets locked in thats her own problem.

This was discussed in a thread whereby a selfish person like OP's sons neighbour decided to park in someone elses garage. The owner of the garage prompltly locked garage and returned to work.

Garage owner was threatned by police but legislation showed the garage owner did absolutley nothing wrong.

[oOTomOo]

Dixy said:

She is spinning one, standard PH advice is put a skip behind her car.

Dixy said:

And putting a skip on your land is not against the law nor is putting up a bollard, doing it to stop her getting to the road is, but that is not why you did it, after all you asked her to move her car.

You didn't say to put it on your land, you said put it behind her car..

I'm not saying blocking her in isn't a good idea, especially if you want to bring the situation to a head. I'm just saying be aware that by doing so, you will not be whiter than white yourself.

[amusingduck]

Interested to see how this plays out

[TOPTON]

New news from the neighbour, she is now saying that the person that bought the land years ago, gave it to her and that she is going to get a statement from him to say that.

Now I know she was very friendly with him for years as neighbours and they may just do this for her, whether true or not. They have nothing to gain or lose apart from doing their friend a favour.

There will be no paper trail from years ago as she is saying it was a verbal agreement.


Does this carry any weight for her, even though we know they are making it up, but no proof.

[PV7998]

If I remember correctly, all contracts for the sale of land must be in writing.

I'm not 100% sure on that so one of the legal experts may correct this.

Either way, it should be on the deeds for the house if what she is saying is correct. Usually the deeds will show a red line drawn around the plan showing exactly what land you're buying.

Sounds like she's making it up as she goes along, although if it was me I'd still try negotiation to make her see the exact legal position before trying builders skips, bollards or old sheds.

[ralphrj]

TOPTON said:

Does this carry any weight for her, even though we know they are making it up, but no proof.

As far as I am aware title to land must be by written contract.

Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989:

[quote]
2. Contracts for sale etc of land to be made by signed writing
(1) A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed and in one document or, where contracts are exchanged, in each.
(2) The terms may be incorporated in a document either by being set out in it or by reference to some other document.
(3) The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the contract ….

[Andyuk911]

Topton, in a word no, you can't just take private land.

You need to stop, speak to YOUR(son's) solicitor and draft up a letter to tell her to stop parking there after 14 days or you will start charging her.

If she does now pay, instigate a small claims.

OR

Put something there ... choice is yours.

[walm]

This thread is brimful of useless advice.
Access rights are far from straightforward - and not something anyone on here is in a position to advise on without full facts.

Your son needs proper legal advice, not the internet.

IANAL but my wife is and despite a pretty strong background in property even she wasn't 100% confident about the ownership status of our party walls, responsibility for upkeep and access rights to our garden door for example.
The Land Registry docs simply don't tell the whole story.

[73mark]

TOPTON said:

New news from the neighbour, she is now saying that the person that bought the land years ago, gave it to her and that she is going to get a statement from him to say that.

Now I know she was very friendly with him for years as neighbours and they may just do this for her, whether true or not. They have nothing to gain or lose apart from doing their friend a favour.

There will be no paper trail from years ago as she is saying it was a verbal agreement.


Does this carry any weight for her, even though we know they are making it up, but no proof.

Then you want money back on price paid for the house and land.
You have a solicitor I think its time to use him/her,this woman will not give up.

[blueg33]

walm said:

This thread is brimful of useless advice.
Access rights are far from straightforward - and not something anyone on here is in a position to advise on without full facts.

Your son needs proper legal advice, not the internet.

IANAL but my wife is and despite a pretty strong background in property even she wasn't 100% confident about the ownership status of our party walls, responsibility for upkeep and access rights to our garden door for example.
The Land Registry docs simply don't tell the whole story.

I disagree, much of the advice is correct. I particular the comments about land contracts having to be in writing and the fact that you cannot gain adverse posession if you have the landowners consent to use the land.

As for the party wall thing and your wif's knowledge, she will know that most titles are silent on the ownership of walls and boundaries unless they were don in the last 15 years or so.

With the OP's sons property, the red line on the land egistry plan, the wording in the title and the points already made about posession and contract make it pretty clear cut to my mind.

(note IANAL, but I buy an aweful lot of property and my daily job involves getting to the bottom of issues like this to clean up titles and make them saleable. Curently buying 50 plus sites per annum and have lost count of the number purchased over the last 20 years or so)

[Zoobeef]

So it must be in writing and she's now trying to get that from someone that doesn't own the land any more.
I'd park my car out when she's out and leave it to her to prove that it's hers.

[anonymous-user]

TOPTON said:

New news from the neighbour, she is now saying that the person that bought the land years ago, gave it to her and that she is going to get a statement from him to say that.

Now I know she was very friendly with him for years as neighbours and they may just do this for her, whether true or not. They have nothing to gain or lose apart from doing their friend a favour.

There will be no paper trail from years ago as she is saying it was a verbal agreement.


Does this carry any weight for her, even though we know they are making it up, but no proof.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is not straightforward, and lawyers will burn up money fast. The single question your son needs to ask is "what is my risk if she brings a claim based on proprietary estoppel". And your average solicitor will give an answer that's worth about as much as a used post-it note, and suggest that the question gets passed to a barrister. Who will, in turn, equivocate because it is a certainty that your son doesn't know all the relevant facts.

As walm said, this thread is brim full of bad advice. Unless your son has money to throw at legal disputes, sort this out consensually. Not least because you have no idea whether the old lady has a little pile of cash that she'd be quite prepared to throw at some lawyers in response to the skip/blocking in/blocking out ideas.

[blueg33]

Greg66 said:

TOPTON said:

New news from the neighbour, she is now saying that the person that bought the land years ago, gave it to her and that she is going to get a statement from him to say that.

Now I know she was very friendly with him for years as neighbours and they may just do this for her, whether true or not. They have nothing to gain or lose apart from doing their friend a favour.

There will be no paper trail from years ago as she is saying it was a verbal agreement.


Does this carry any weight for her, even though we know they are making it up, but no proof.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is not straightforward, and lawyers will burn up money fast. The single question your son needs to ask is "what is my risk if she brings a claim based on proprietary estoppel". And your average solicitor will give an answer that's worth about as much as a used post-it note, and suggest that the question gets passed to a barrister. Who will, in turn, equivocate because it is a certainty that your son doesn't know all the relevant facts.

As walm said, this thread is brim full of bad advice. Unless your son has money to throw at legal disputes, sort this out consensually. Not least because you have no idea whether the old lady has a little pile of cash that she'd be quite prepared to throw at some lawyers in response to the skip/blocking in/blocking out ideas.

I still disagree - so does one of my property lawyers who I have just pointed to this thread.

In 20 plus years, I have never had a single instance of encraochment like this where the 3rd party has proven that then have established any sort of right.

I think this needs a nice clear solicitors letter to the neighbour and steps taken to prevent her from parking on land she does not own.

[Driver101]

Does your son really need the space?

I know ultimately that isn't the question you've asked, but moving into a new area and instantly pissing off neighbours with long residence doesn't bode well.

[Timsta]

aw51 121565 said:

You'll be quoting POFA 2012 (Schedule 4?) next... - and you'd be right!

You would be wrong. That only applies to paid parking.

POFA 2012 (Schedule 4)
1)This Schedule applies where—

(a)the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land; and

(b)those charges have not been paid in full.

[73mark]

Driver101 said:

Does your son really need the space?

I know ultimately that isn't the question you've asked, but moving into a new area and instantly pissing off neighbours with long residence doesn't bode well.

Most neighbours would just accept the fact that the land that they parked on is now in different hands.
She's as you put it,pissing them off now.

[funkyrobot]

Driver101 said:

Does your son really need the space?

I know ultimately that isn't the question you've asked, but moving into a new area and instantly pissing off neighbours with long residence doesn't bode well.

The OP stated earlier in the thread that his son and the gf would like to park their cars on the land.

[tenpenceshort]

Timsta said:

You would be wrong. That only applies to paid parking.

POFA 2012 (Schedule 4)
1)This Schedule applies where—

(a)the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land; and

(b)those charges have not been paid in full.

The relevant part is s54, which does not rely on the parking being paid parking and makes immobilisation an offence.

[blueg33]

funkyrobot said:

The OP stated earlier in the thread that his son and the gf would like to park their cars on the land.

Thes best bet is to start parking on the land.

[0markymark0]

Start with the polite route and a limited timeframe for her ti find an alternative. After that point, stick a large object on it. You will have to suffer the odd time your gf can't oark but it will be more awkward for the neighbour not being able to oark there at all. Leave it for a month then either hope it's resolved or you'll need to put a bollard.

If she plays awkward, send her a bill for her concrete trespassing your land!

Overall, be nice but tell her this will end, then use your right to block her access.