Parking dispute
Discussion
The very fact that the old dear has moved from acquiring the land by default to being gifted it just within living memory means she is blagging it.
I agree that an appropriately worded letter from your solicitor to 'cease and desist' will likely do the trick.
Failing that put a barrier and let her squeal.
I agree that an appropriately worded letter from your solicitor to 'cease and desist' will likely do the trick.
Failing that put a barrier and let her squeal.
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Friday 20th June 12:49
Somewhere on another forum, on the internet, a sweet middle aged lady has started a thread
"I've been parking next to my house for 20 years"
My old neighbours were lovely, never had any issues with them, new ones have 2 cars & want to evict me.
Even though I paid for a dropped curb, please give me advice..
"I've been parking next to my house for 20 years"
My old neighbours were lovely, never had any issues with them, new ones have 2 cars & want to evict me.
Even though I paid for a dropped curb, please give me advice..
blueg33 said:
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.
IAAL. I used to do a reasonable bit of property work, FWIW. If you have a property lawyer who's read this thread and says there is no chance in hell the old lady has a claim based on proprietary estoppel, I hope he has good PII cover. 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.
When issues like this pop up pre-acquisition, they can be dealt with, paid off, negotiated away, beaten off, whatever. But, to take the example of the third party claiming such a right and ultimately shutting up when asked to put up or shut up, pre-contract that's all fine. They spend money, you spend money and they get nowhere.
Once the land's been bought, the same process applies. possibly in litigation, possibly in sabre-rattling. But it all costs money.
From a litigator's pov, you'd be running a high risk game telling the OP's son to block her off the land. Because you might just find yourself on the wrong end of an interim injunction preventing you from interfering with whatever rights she asserts. And then at trial you'd be cast as the heavy handed defendant who'd tried to bully the little old lady. Not good.
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.
I would guess that if a previous owner were to state that he gave her the land, then he would be setting himself up for some serious trouble. If the land is still on the LR title, then that means he sold it, and if he had already given it away, then he sold something that wasn’t his to sell. 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.
Interesting points above.
This is a screen shot of the land registry forms dated 02/04/14. It wouldn't let me convert from my documents as it says it is password protected. Not by me it's not
The red area is obviously ours/sons. The section circled (by me) is the area that is in dispute. It shows the boundary lines with the footpath and Mrs neighbour's house. I think the white area was originally with the house and the shaded area is extra land purchased by someone in the past. (would make sense if it was that way) Not sure why it shows the wooden fence line on there, purchased at different times perhaps.
This is a screen shot of the land registry forms dated 02/04/14. It wouldn't let me convert from my documents as it says it is password protected. Not by me it's not
The red area is obviously ours/sons. The section circled (by me) is the area that is in dispute. It shows the boundary lines with the footpath and Mrs neighbour's house. I think the white area was originally with the house and the shaded area is extra land purchased by someone in the past. (would make sense if it was that way) Not sure why it shows the wooden fence line on there, purchased at different times perhaps.
Greg66 said:
blueg33 said:
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.
IAAL. I used to do a reasonable bit of property work, FWIW. If you have a property lawyer who's read this thread and says there is no chance in hell the old lady has a claim based on proprietary estoppel, I hope he has good PII cover. 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.
When issues like this pop up pre-acquisition, they can be dealt with, paid off, negotiated away, beaten off, whatever. But, to take the example of the third party claiming such a right and ultimately shutting up when asked to put up or shut up, pre-contract that's all fine. They spend money, you spend money and they get nowhere.
Once the land's been bought, the same process applies. possibly in litigation, possibly in sabre-rattling. But it all costs money.
From a litigator's pov, you'd be running a high risk game telling the OP's son to block her off the land. Because you might just find yourself on the wrong end of an interim injunction preventing you from interfering with whatever rights she asserts. And then at trial you'd be cast as the heavy handed defendant who'd tried to bully the little old lady. Not good.
Buying development land as I do, I see this type of issue all of the time.
An injuction put in place by any individual is very rare, the cost to most people to put one in place is prohibitive and they would normally be looking for a lawyer to advise them that they have a strong case.
As I experience it, with property law, in particular prescriptive rights, encraochments, easements and adverse posession the right and wrong is usually easily proven where there is a registered title. The rules around adverse posession are clear, if at any time the neighbour states that she had the permission of the previous landowner then her position is compromised.
I have been on both sides of this, often risking tens if not undreds of thousdands of pounds on the outcome.
I would take legal advice, but I know what it will say. I have never lost money on this type of risk judgement.
Sometimes the cautious approach just doesnt work. Developers know that, and its why we get called bullies at times.
Jonathan27 said:
I would guess that if a previous owner were to state that he gave her the land, then he would be setting himself up for some serious trouble. If the land is still on the LR title, then that means he sold it, and if he had already given it away, then he sold something that wasn’t his to sell.
Its clear he owns the land.I would suggest in the past either someone let her use the space or she took to using it when someone left and the assumption looking at it is half the land is hers.
If your son is serious he will need to send the cease and desist letter, if she doesnt cme back with cast solid written proof of ownership she is screwed. Then either fence it off for his parking or bollards. I assume he was told at point of offer that he only had one space and the land registry says otherwise.
Its her tough luck if she has spent money on it.
The only issue is this will be like full blown war and there is a poss she is a evil cow and may seek revenge. Disputes with neighbours can be a nightmare and in my experience its rarely worth however right his claim on the land is.
Having just moved from somewhere there was a dispute over two parks spaces and have around £300 of damage done to may cars on these spaces and the hassle of months of checking my cars for damage etc. Is it worth it.
Thanks again for all the replies.
So it seems not as straight forward as saying get off my land
The main worry is costs involved if it went on to a solicitor war. It is the first house for both of them and money is not exactly overflowing out of the pot.
They both work during the day so parking there to block her out is difficult. Mrs neighbour doesn't work as far as I know so she is parked up most of the day. As anywhere is nowadays, off road parking is difficult to come across so this house did tick all the boxes.
My lad is big and butch but filled with marsh mallow. He is concerned about upsetting an old lady (she's only 4 years older than me ffs). Whilst this shouldn't matter, to him it does. But he doesn't see the upset she is causing him and his girly.
Will update again when things go further, but I think a strongly worded solicitors letter to mrs neighbour is the way to go.
So it seems not as straight forward as saying get off my land
The main worry is costs involved if it went on to a solicitor war. It is the first house for both of them and money is not exactly overflowing out of the pot.
They both work during the day so parking there to block her out is difficult. Mrs neighbour doesn't work as far as I know so she is parked up most of the day. As anywhere is nowadays, off road parking is difficult to come across so this house did tick all the boxes.
My lad is big and butch but filled with marsh mallow. He is concerned about upsetting an old lady (she's only 4 years older than me ffs). Whilst this shouldn't matter, to him it does. But he doesn't see the upset she is causing him and his girly.
Will update again when things go further, but I think a strongly worded solicitors letter to mrs neighbour is the way to go.
TOPTON said:
Thanks again for all the replies.
So it seems not as straight forward as saying get off my land
The main worry is costs involved if it went on to a solicitor war. It is the first house for both of them and money is not exactly overflowing out of the pot.
They both work during the day so parking there to block her out is difficult. Mrs neighbour doesn't work as far as I know so she is parked up most of the day. As anywhere is nowadays, off road parking is difficult to come across so this house did tick all the boxes.
My lad is big and butch but filled with marsh mallow. He is concerned about upsetting an old lady (she's only 4 years older than me ffs). Whilst this shouldn't matter, to him it does. But he doesn't see the upset she is causing him and his girly.
Will update again when things go further, but I think a strongly worded solicitors letter to mrs neighbour is the way to go.
That's what I would do next.So it seems not as straight forward as saying get off my land
The main worry is costs involved if it went on to a solicitor war. It is the first house for both of them and money is not exactly overflowing out of the pot.
They both work during the day so parking there to block her out is difficult. Mrs neighbour doesn't work as far as I know so she is parked up most of the day. As anywhere is nowadays, off road parking is difficult to come across so this house did tick all the boxes.
My lad is big and butch but filled with marsh mallow. He is concerned about upsetting an old lady (she's only 4 years older than me ffs). Whilst this shouldn't matter, to him it does. But he doesn't see the upset she is causing him and his girly.
Will update again when things go further, but I think a strongly worded solicitors letter to mrs neighbour is the way to go.
As a matter of interest, when your son purchased did his solicitor ask the seller any questions about encroachment and people using the land? Also was the property sold with vacant posession? It clearly wasn't vacant, and your sons solicitor may have some questions to answer, as may the seller.
If your son has legal cover on your home insurance, they may pick up the tab for legal fees. If your son has a mortgage, the mortgage company may also get involved as it has a material impact on the value of the property.
to answer jbsportech
"I assume he was told at point of offer that he only had one space and the land registry says otherwise."
The house was a part ex property with Barratt Homes, so was empty of the previous owner. Barratts office is in Manchester so we were dealing with a local estate agent. They knew naff all about the property on the first visit, " never been here before and we are just keyholders" was her answer to my questions.
So I got in touch with Barrett and they sent out the land registry docs. So from the beginning we knew it was all ours.
"I assume he was told at point of offer that he only had one space and the land registry says otherwise."
The house was a part ex property with Barratt Homes, so was empty of the previous owner. Barratts office is in Manchester so we were dealing with a local estate agent. They knew naff all about the property on the first visit, " never been here before and we are just keyholders" was her answer to my questions.
So I got in touch with Barrett and they sent out the land registry docs. So from the beginning we knew it was all ours.
TOPTON said:
The house was a part ex property with Barratt Homes, so was empty of the previous owner. Barratts office is in Manchester so we were dealing with a local estate agent. They knew naff all about the property on the first visit, " never been here before and we are just keyholders" was her answer to my questions.
So I got in touch with Barrett and they sent out the land registry docs. So from the beginning we knew it was all ours.
So it is possible that she has only used the space since the property was left empty and the 20 year claim is complete bullsSo I got in touch with Barrett and they sent out the land registry docs. So from the beginning we knew it was all ours.
t ....Has anyone been and waved the land registry printout above under her nose?
This is my house, this is my garden and this is your house, the red area is the land I bought with the house, so you can see, that parking space is on my land.
I'd really appreciate it if you would stop parking there.
This is my house, this is my garden and this is your house, the red area is the land I bought with the house, so you can see, that parking space is on my land.
I'd really appreciate it if you would stop parking there.
oOTomOo said:
Has anyone been and waved the land registry printout above under her nose?
This is my house, this is my garden and this is your house, the red area is the land I bought with the house, so you can see, that parking space is on my land.
I'd really appreciate it if you would stop parking there.
Says they have in the first post.This is my house, this is my garden and this is your house, the red area is the land I bought with the house, so you can see, that parking space is on my land.
I'd really appreciate it if you would stop parking there.
I'm too wondering if the parking only started after the previous owner moved out and she thought she'd bluff her way into a free parking space. Any clues on Google Streetview (ie. her car there, or another car there and hers on the street for instance)?
blueg33 said:
Thats the thing, yu are a lawyer, and you used to do a bit of property work. I am talking about a partner of a major law firm that does property day in day out and also has a substantial litigation department.
Buying development land as I do, I see this type of issue all of the time.
An injuction put in place by any individual is very rare, the cost to most people to put one in place is prohibitive and they would normally be looking for a lawyer to advise them that they have a strong case.
As I experience it, with property law, in particular prescriptive rights, encraochments, easements and adverse posession the right and wrong is usually easily proven where there is a registered title. The rules around adverse posession are clear, if at any time the neighbour states that she had the permission of the previous landowner then her position is compromised.
I have been on both sides of this, often risking tens if not undreds of thousdands of pounds on the outcome.
I would take legal advice, but I know what it will say. I have never lost money on this type of risk judgement.
Sometimes the cautious approach just doesnt work. Developers know that, and its why we get called bullies at times.
Let's not make this into a pissing contest, because that helps no one, least of all the OP's son. Buying development land as I do, I see this type of issue all of the time.
An injuction put in place by any individual is very rare, the cost to most people to put one in place is prohibitive and they would normally be looking for a lawyer to advise them that they have a strong case.
As I experience it, with property law, in particular prescriptive rights, encraochments, easements and adverse posession the right and wrong is usually easily proven where there is a registered title. The rules around adverse posession are clear, if at any time the neighbour states that she had the permission of the previous landowner then her position is compromised.
I have been on both sides of this, often risking tens if not undreds of thousdands of pounds on the outcome.
I would take legal advice, but I know what it will say. I have never lost money on this type of risk judgement.
Sometimes the cautious approach just doesnt work. Developers know that, and its why we get called bullies at times.
I'm a practising barrister. Partners - the litigation ones - in major law firms come to me for advice.
It's inevitable you and I will have different perspectives on this, and equally inevitable that mine is likely to be more risk averse than yours. But I have done proprietary estoppel trials, and I do know what I'm talking about when I say there's risk here.
Now the OP's question was whether the little old lady's solicitor was right in saying she is 100% entitled to park there. The answer to that is "no". But that doesn't mean that the OP's son is 100% right in saying he can chuck her off.
As I said earlier, a contested claim such as this will cost a lot. If the OP's son has just bought a house, I'd bet he has bobbins all spare cash. Maybe the little old lady doesn't either, but she's a better bet. Neither of them are in a position - as you may well be - to risk tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds on this. So it seems to me that what you might see as a risk worth taking may well not be a risk that the OP's son should take.
It may well be that at a practical level, blocking her out and staring her down will work. But it would be a mistake, at least in my view, for the OP's son to go down that road thinking that there's nothing she can do about it if he were to try that, and that it is for him an essentially risk free course of action.
Surprisingly, perhaps, but ask a litigator whether an individual should litigate and 9 times out of 10 you'll be told "no". Same goes for doing something that might invite litigation.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 20th June 14:24
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.
What a strange post.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.
If you moved into a new house, and someone started parking on your front garden, would you ask yourself if you "really needed the space?"
It's HIS land. He bought the house because it has two parking spaces. Why should he live with only having one because of some old woman with a cock-and-bull story about right to it?
Dealing with this correctly is the key. I'd invite her over for a chat and lay it down to her firmly but fairly with solicitor back-up
If she still won't play ball, solicitor letter and some kind of bollard device.
Greg66 said:
blueg33 said:
Thats the thing, yu are a lawyer, and you used to do a bit of property work. I am talking about a partner of a major law firm that does property day in day out and also has a substantial litigation department.
Buying development land as I do, I see this type of issue all of the time.
An injuction put in place by any individual is very rare, the cost to most people to put one in place is prohibitive and they would normally be looking for a lawyer to advise them that they have a strong case.
As I experience it, with property law, in particular prescriptive rights, encraochments, easements and adverse posession the right and wrong is usually easily proven where there is a registered title. The rules around adverse posession are clear, if at any time the neighbour states that she had the permission of the previous landowner then her position is compromised.
I have been on both sides of this, often risking tens if not undreds of thousdands of pounds on the outcome.
I would take legal advice, but I know what it will say. I have never lost money on this type of risk judgement.
Sometimes the cautious approach just doesnt work. Developers know that, and its why we get called bullies at times.
Let's not make this into a pissing contest, because that helps no one, least of all the OP's son. Buying development land as I do, I see this type of issue all of the time.
An injuction put in place by any individual is very rare, the cost to most people to put one in place is prohibitive and they would normally be looking for a lawyer to advise them that they have a strong case.
As I experience it, with property law, in particular prescriptive rights, encraochments, easements and adverse posession the right and wrong is usually easily proven where there is a registered title. The rules around adverse posession are clear, if at any time the neighbour states that she had the permission of the previous landowner then her position is compromised.
I have been on both sides of this, often risking tens if not undreds of thousdands of pounds on the outcome.
I would take legal advice, but I know what it will say. I have never lost money on this type of risk judgement.
Sometimes the cautious approach just doesnt work. Developers know that, and its why we get called bullies at times.
I'm a practising barrister. Partners - the litigation ones - in major law firms come to me for advice.
It's inevitable you and I will have different perspectives on this, and equally inevitable that mine is likely to be more risk averse than yours. But I have done proprietary estoppel trials, and I do know what I'm talking about when I say there's risk here.
Now the OP's question what whether the little old lady's solicitor was right in saying she is 100% entitled to park there. The answer to that is "no". But that doesn't mean that the OP's son is 100% right in saying he can chuck her off.
As I said earlier, a contested claim such as this will cost a lot. If the OP's son has just bought a house, I'd bet he has bobbins all spare cash. Maybe the little old lady doesn't either, but she's a better bet. Neither of them are in a position - as you may well be - to risk tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds on this. So it seems to me that what you might see as a risk worth taking may well not be a risk that the OP's son should take.
It may well be that at a practical level, blocking her out and staring her down will work. But it would be a mistake, at least in my view, for the OP's son to go down that road thinking that there's nothing she can do about it if he were to try that, and that it is for him an essentially risk free course of action.
Surprisingly, perhaps, but ask a litigator whether an individual should litigate and 9 times out of 10 you'll be told "no". Same goes for doing something that might invite litigation.
I agree on the litigation point too, the advice is always to resolve it before you end up in court. But generaly, the type of issue the op is decribing tends to be clear.
Ultimately, its for the OP's son to take professional advice, as I would do in the situation. What I am recounting is 20 or so years of experience specicically in sorting out this type of issue. Developers tend to get land with issues and sort it out so that its saleable.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff