Official channels to address nuisance neighbour
Discussion
Long story so I will keep this short.
The plot our house was built on has been subdivided over time so there are now 4 houses, ours was the first. Access to 3 houses uses a private driveway over land of the last to be built, so we have a right of way. Let's call that #4.
She says that we should maintain the drive and has locked on to my wife and I. We are happy to pay a share of maintaining the fabric. I have cleared the driveway too...my own time, money and effort to keep the peace. However, she is trying to push responsibilities on to our shoulders that are not ours.
In October, I cleared all the leaves and put them in her garden bin.
In January, she emptied that bin back nto the driveway covering it back in leaves. When branches fall from storms, I have moved them off the driveway so we can get passed. I placed them on her garden off the driveway. She puts them back on the driveway at the edge.
We caught her doing this a few years ago. Doing school run, we had to move a branch off driveway. Coming back from school 20 minutes later, the branch was back and blocking our way. My wife got out of car and threw branch to side. Neighbour swoops in, picks it up again, threw it at my wife and it hit her. We called Police who went to speak to her.
So, it's now like the tale of Billy Goat Gruff with the neighbour being like the troll under the bridge. This weekend she pulled leaves off her garden, onto the driveway, and left a clear margin down the side. Her message clearly is, clean them up..its your job. As above though, no point in me doing anything as she could just throw them back again if I put them in her bin. I don't want to become responsible for removing and disposing of debris that is not mine.
I have spoken to local council. They say it is a 'civil matter". They also say its not 'harassment".
Where do we go from here? It's wearing.
The plot our house was built on has been subdivided over time so there are now 4 houses, ours was the first. Access to 3 houses uses a private driveway over land of the last to be built, so we have a right of way. Let's call that #4.
- 4 is a woman in her 60s who I think is on a spectrum of one form or another. Her house and garden are scruffy. She tries to get money out of us. In the past she let her garden over grow the drive so cars were getting scraped. The drive also fell into disrepair. We have had run ins with her over the last 3 years.
She says that we should maintain the drive and has locked on to my wife and I. We are happy to pay a share of maintaining the fabric. I have cleared the driveway too...my own time, money and effort to keep the peace. However, she is trying to push responsibilities on to our shoulders that are not ours.
In October, I cleared all the leaves and put them in her garden bin.
In January, she emptied that bin back nto the driveway covering it back in leaves. When branches fall from storms, I have moved them off the driveway so we can get passed. I placed them on her garden off the driveway. She puts them back on the driveway at the edge.
We caught her doing this a few years ago. Doing school run, we had to move a branch off driveway. Coming back from school 20 minutes later, the branch was back and blocking our way. My wife got out of car and threw branch to side. Neighbour swoops in, picks it up again, threw it at my wife and it hit her. We called Police who went to speak to her.
So, it's now like the tale of Billy Goat Gruff with the neighbour being like the troll under the bridge. This weekend she pulled leaves off her garden, onto the driveway, and left a clear margin down the side. Her message clearly is, clean them up..its your job. As above though, no point in me doing anything as she could just throw them back again if I put them in her bin. I don't want to become responsible for removing and disposing of debris that is not mine.
I have spoken to local council. They say it is a 'civil matter". They also say its not 'harassment".
Where do we go from here? It's wearing.
Edited by TUS373 on Monday 22 April 07:38
Edited by TUS373 on Monday 22 April 07:39
Edited by TUS373 on Monday 22 April 07:40
ARHarh said:
Why if your neighbour is nuts would you put leaves you swept up in her bin? Why not deal with the branch correctly by chopping it up and putting it in your bin, rather than just pushing it to one side?
I my mind you are not really helping / avoiding the confrontation.
We have done previously. She was OK about it. Now she is not. Random behaviour. Not done in since as I have not cleared drive since. No point otherwise I am making my self responsible for disposing of all her garden debris. I put 3 full green bins out every fortnight. Sometimes, she does not bother to use hers. I my mind you are not really helping / avoiding the confrontation.
She is is an odd character. In years gone by she would come to our but not knock on door. She would stand staring through window. No hellos or goodbyes from her.
Some of the issue I think you are making worse if what you say is accurate rather than simplified.
You are part correct in that stuff gathered from "their" tree/foliage/leaves etc is still theirs but you are supposed to get agreement for you to put them back where you believe they belong/came from.
For one, if I was clearing leaves/branches etc, I would just get rid myself, not worth the hassle.
That aside she clearly needs taking to task officially over the incident with your wife as that sounds like assault to me.
You are part correct in that stuff gathered from "their" tree/foliage/leaves etc is still theirs but you are supposed to get agreement for you to put them back where you believe they belong/came from.
For one, if I was clearing leaves/branches etc, I would just get rid myself, not worth the hassle.
That aside she clearly needs taking to task officially over the incident with your wife as that sounds like assault to me.
TUS373 said:
ARHarh said:
Why if your neighbour is nuts would you put leaves you swept up in her bin? Why not deal with the branch correctly by chopping it up and putting it in your bin, rather than just pushing it to one side?
I my mind you are not really helping / avoiding the confrontation.
We have done previously. She was OK about it. Now she is not. Random behaviour. Not done in since as I have not cleared drive since. No point otherwise I am making my self responsible for disposing of all her garden debris. I put 3 full green bins out every fortnight. Sometimes, she does not bother to use hers. I my mind you are not really helping / avoiding the confrontation.
She is is an odd character. In years gone by she would come to our but not knock on door. She would stand staring through window. No hellos or goodbyes from her.
If you want to keep the drive clear, you're going to have to do it yourself and dispose of it yourself. She clearly isn't bothered.
If you don't want to do that, move.
The perils of share driveways........ *shudder*
There is a lot of history, too much to detail, but I will give some quick examples.
Just to add. We are on a steep hill so I don't want to be carrying stuff up the hill to dispose of it.
Some years ago, our recycling bins were not emptied. I raised this with the appropriate department at the Council. She had been out to see the crew and told them that they were not allowed to take their truck up the driveway. It took us ages to speak to various people there. The crew were upset too as she lied about them to their bosses. Can't recall what.
Our concession....every fortnight I wheel full bins down the hill and the driveway. I then walk down and drag them back up the hill.
So...if you will understand, I don't want to be saddled with her deliberately littering the driveway with debris such as leaves and branches, then taking it all the way up the hill and then all the way down again. I will end up being her gardener.
If we can get back to the...what avenues are open to us? She has had a visit from the Police over the assault but that was 3 years ago. Recently her behaviours have escalated. She actions I believe are deliberate and aimed at us. It is upsetting for us and it is like she is trying to cause confrontation. We want to play it by the book, but I'm not sure how.
As said, the Council antisocial behaviour team don't count this as harassment. I don't feel the Police should be occupied with things like this. I could send a solicitors letter, but that may cost £1,000.
Edited to add:
The Land Registry documentation of #4 possesses two relevant convenants:
1. for #4 to pay 1/3 of the cost of maintenance of the driveway.
The 3 houses that use the driveway paid 75% rather than 33% of the driveway resurfacing back in 2021. We take maintenance as being the fabric of the driveway. Even though we did that, the woman in question was pushing for extra additions such as: installing a power cable below the driveway to her derelict greenhouse, installing draining channels on both sides of the driveway (it did not have any previously), rebuilding walls to the side of the driveway (that had fallen into disrepair). We pushed back on all of these.
She elected to have the walls repaired at her cost by the driveway contractors UNTIL they arrived to do the work. The business owner had pulled together a team who turned up at her house at 8.00am one morning to do the work. She sent them away saying she had changed her mind.
2. "Not to do or suffer to be done on the property hereby conveyed anything which may grow to be a nuisance of annoyance to the Vendors or successors in title to the retained land'."
Just to add. We are on a steep hill so I don't want to be carrying stuff up the hill to dispose of it.
Some years ago, our recycling bins were not emptied. I raised this with the appropriate department at the Council. She had been out to see the crew and told them that they were not allowed to take their truck up the driveway. It took us ages to speak to various people there. The crew were upset too as she lied about them to their bosses. Can't recall what.
Our concession....every fortnight I wheel full bins down the hill and the driveway. I then walk down and drag them back up the hill.
So...if you will understand, I don't want to be saddled with her deliberately littering the driveway with debris such as leaves and branches, then taking it all the way up the hill and then all the way down again. I will end up being her gardener.
If we can get back to the...what avenues are open to us? She has had a visit from the Police over the assault but that was 3 years ago. Recently her behaviours have escalated. She actions I believe are deliberate and aimed at us. It is upsetting for us and it is like she is trying to cause confrontation. We want to play it by the book, but I'm not sure how.
As said, the Council antisocial behaviour team don't count this as harassment. I don't feel the Police should be occupied with things like this. I could send a solicitors letter, but that may cost £1,000.
Edited to add:
The Land Registry documentation of #4 possesses two relevant convenants:
1. for #4 to pay 1/3 of the cost of maintenance of the driveway.
The 3 houses that use the driveway paid 75% rather than 33% of the driveway resurfacing back in 2021. We take maintenance as being the fabric of the driveway. Even though we did that, the woman in question was pushing for extra additions such as: installing a power cable below the driveway to her derelict greenhouse, installing draining channels on both sides of the driveway (it did not have any previously), rebuilding walls to the side of the driveway (that had fallen into disrepair). We pushed back on all of these.
She elected to have the walls repaired at her cost by the driveway contractors UNTIL they arrived to do the work. The business owner had pulled together a team who turned up at her house at 8.00am one morning to do the work. She sent them away saying she had changed her mind.
2. "Not to do or suffer to be done on the property hereby conveyed anything which may grow to be a nuisance of annoyance to the Vendors or successors in title to the retained land'."
Edited by TUS373 on Monday 22 April 10:17
Go on to the gardenlaw forum and read threads on rights of way. Bottom line, the subservient owner (her in #4) has no obligation to maintain the ROW, nor do you. The dominant owners (you) have a right of access and a right to maintain your right of way if you choose to. Under common law she doesn't have to pay a thing - you do. You might be able to enforce a covenant but that's challenging
Because you "own" something - the legal right of access, her in #4 cannot impede your ROW. If she does this, ultimately you can seek an injunction to stop her doing it. She cannot stop you maintaining it to the extent that the ROW is useable for the intent it was provided.
Number 4 may own the land, but they do not own the right of way - you do.
This is relevant
Repair to right of way
Carter v Cole
[2006] EWCA Civ 398.
This was a dispute relating to the repair of a right of way, and payment of contributions to the cost of repair, that turned upon the express terms of a reservation. However, the Court of Appeal usefully set out the general principles that apply at common law in the absence of any such express clause. They are as follows:
(1) A grantor of a right of way ("the servient owner") is under no obligation to construct the way;
(2) The grantee may enter the grantor's land for the purpose of making the grant of the right of way effective viz to construct a way which is suitable for the right granted to him ("the dominant owner");
(3) Once the way exists, the servient owner is under no obligation to maintain or repair it;
(4) Similarly, the dominant owner has no obligation to maintain or repair the way;
(5) The servient owner (who owns the land over which the way passes) can maintain and repair the way, if he chooses;
(6) The dominant owner (in whose interest it is that the way be kept in good repair) is entitled to maintain and repair the way and, if he wants the way to be kept in repair, must himself bear the cost. He has a right to enter the servient owner's land for the purpose but only to do necessary work in a reasonable manner.
In Newcomen v Coulson (1877) 5 Ch. D. 133 by an award under an Inclosure Act allottees were given a right of way on foot and on horseback and with their carts and carriages and with horses, oxen and cattle, doing as little damage to the soil or the corn, grass or herbage as may be. The award expressly contemplated that the allottees might "street out" the way, and in such event a particular width was specified. Pursuant to the award, a road of the specified width was made. The Defendants, who owned part of an allotment, commenced forming a solid granite road in place of the previous cart road. The Plaintiff lord of the manor sought to restrain the improvement of the road and the erection of the bridge. Malins V.-C. refused the application saying (at p. 140):
"I mean [the Defendants] to have the fullest right of metalling the road and making it the best road they can to meet the circumstances."
This court dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal. Sir George Jessel M.R. (with whom James L.J. agreed) said at pp. 143-4:
"Then it was said, admitting the owner of each house to have a right of way, still the grantees have no right to enter upon the allotments over which the right of way is granted for the purpose of laying down a metalled road. Now it was conceded to be the principle of law that the grantee of a right of way has a right to enter upon the land of the grantor over which the way extends for the purpose of making the grant effective, that is, to enable him to exercise the right granted to him. That includes not only keeping the road in repair but the right of making a road. If you grant to me over a field a right of carriage-way to my house, I may enter upon your field and make over it a carriage-way sufficient to support the ordinary traffic of a carriage-way, otherwise the grant is of no use to me, because my carriage would sink up to the naves of the wheels in a week or two of wet weather. It cannot be contended that the word "repair" in such a case is limited to making good the defects in the original soil by subsidence or washing away, it must include the right of making the road such that it can be used for the purpose for which it is granted. Therefore I think the Defendants have a right to make an effective carriage-way going, as they are going, by the shortest route, and not interfering with the land to a greater extent in width that the width of the street pointed out by the deed itself."
Because you "own" something - the legal right of access, her in #4 cannot impede your ROW. If she does this, ultimately you can seek an injunction to stop her doing it. She cannot stop you maintaining it to the extent that the ROW is useable for the intent it was provided.
Number 4 may own the land, but they do not own the right of way - you do.
This is relevant
Repair to right of way
Carter v Cole
[2006] EWCA Civ 398.
This was a dispute relating to the repair of a right of way, and payment of contributions to the cost of repair, that turned upon the express terms of a reservation. However, the Court of Appeal usefully set out the general principles that apply at common law in the absence of any such express clause. They are as follows:
(1) A grantor of a right of way ("the servient owner") is under no obligation to construct the way;
(2) The grantee may enter the grantor's land for the purpose of making the grant of the right of way effective viz to construct a way which is suitable for the right granted to him ("the dominant owner");
(3) Once the way exists, the servient owner is under no obligation to maintain or repair it;
(4) Similarly, the dominant owner has no obligation to maintain or repair the way;
(5) The servient owner (who owns the land over which the way passes) can maintain and repair the way, if he chooses;
(6) The dominant owner (in whose interest it is that the way be kept in good repair) is entitled to maintain and repair the way and, if he wants the way to be kept in repair, must himself bear the cost. He has a right to enter the servient owner's land for the purpose but only to do necessary work in a reasonable manner.
In Newcomen v Coulson (1877) 5 Ch. D. 133 by an award under an Inclosure Act allottees were given a right of way on foot and on horseback and with their carts and carriages and with horses, oxen and cattle, doing as little damage to the soil or the corn, grass or herbage as may be. The award expressly contemplated that the allottees might "street out" the way, and in such event a particular width was specified. Pursuant to the award, a road of the specified width was made. The Defendants, who owned part of an allotment, commenced forming a solid granite road in place of the previous cart road. The Plaintiff lord of the manor sought to restrain the improvement of the road and the erection of the bridge. Malins V.-C. refused the application saying (at p. 140):
"I mean [the Defendants] to have the fullest right of metalling the road and making it the best road they can to meet the circumstances."
This court dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal. Sir George Jessel M.R. (with whom James L.J. agreed) said at pp. 143-4:
"Then it was said, admitting the owner of each house to have a right of way, still the grantees have no right to enter upon the allotments over which the right of way is granted for the purpose of laying down a metalled road. Now it was conceded to be the principle of law that the grantee of a right of way has a right to enter upon the land of the grantor over which the way extends for the purpose of making the grant effective, that is, to enable him to exercise the right granted to him. That includes not only keeping the road in repair but the right of making a road. If you grant to me over a field a right of carriage-way to my house, I may enter upon your field and make over it a carriage-way sufficient to support the ordinary traffic of a carriage-way, otherwise the grant is of no use to me, because my carriage would sink up to the naves of the wheels in a week or two of wet weather. It cannot be contended that the word "repair" in such a case is limited to making good the defects in the original soil by subsidence or washing away, it must include the right of making the road such that it can be used for the purpose for which it is granted. Therefore I think the Defendants have a right to make an effective carriage-way going, as they are going, by the shortest route, and not interfering with the land to a greater extent in width that the width of the street pointed out by the deed itself."
Edited by mr rusty on Monday 22 April 10:25
TUS373 said:
Long story so I will keep this short.
The plot our house was built on has been subdivided over time so there are now 4 houses, ours was the first. Access to 3 houses uses a private driveway over land of the last to be built, so we have a right of way. Let's call that #4.
She says that we should maintain the drive and has locked on to my wife and I. We are happy to pay a share of maintaining the fabric. I have cleared the driveway too...my own time, money and effort to keep the peace. However, she is trying to push responsibilities on to our shoulders that are not ours.
In October, I cleared all the leaves and put them in her garden bin.
In January, she emptied that bin back nto the driveway covering it back in leaves. When branches fall from storms, I have moved them off the driveway so we can get passed. I placed them on her garden off the driveway. She puts them back on the driveway at the edge.
We caught her doing this a few years ago. Doing school run, we had to move a branch off driveway. Coming back from school 20 minutes later, the branch was back and blocking our way. My wife got out of car and threw branch to side. Neighbour swoops in, picks it up again, threw it at my wife and it hit her. We called Police who went to speak to her.
So, it's now like the tale of Billy Goat Gruff with the neighbour being like the troll under the bridge. This weekend she pulled leaves off her garden, onto the driveway, and left a clear margin down the side. Her message clearly is, clean them up..its your job. As above though, no point in me doing anything as she could just throw them back again if I put them in her bin. I don't want to become responsible for removing and disposing of debris that is not mine.
I have spoken to local council. They say it is a 'civil matter". They also say its not 'harassment".
Where do we go from here? It's wearing.
I think putting stuff in her bin is wrong.The plot our house was built on has been subdivided over time so there are now 4 houses, ours was the first. Access to 3 houses uses a private driveway over land of the last to be built, so we have a right of way. Let's call that #4.
- 4 is a woman in her 60s who I think is on a spectrum of one form or another. Her house and garden are scruffy. She tries to get money out of us. In the past she let her garden over grow the drive so cars were getting scraped. The drive also fell into disrepair. We have had run ins with her over the last 3 years.
She says that we should maintain the drive and has locked on to my wife and I. We are happy to pay a share of maintaining the fabric. I have cleared the driveway too...my own time, money and effort to keep the peace. However, she is trying to push responsibilities on to our shoulders that are not ours.
In October, I cleared all the leaves and put them in her garden bin.
In January, she emptied that bin back nto the driveway covering it back in leaves. When branches fall from storms, I have moved them off the driveway so we can get passed. I placed them on her garden off the driveway. She puts them back on the driveway at the edge.
We caught her doing this a few years ago. Doing school run, we had to move a branch off driveway. Coming back from school 20 minutes later, the branch was back and blocking our way. My wife got out of car and threw branch to side. Neighbour swoops in, picks it up again, threw it at my wife and it hit her. We called Police who went to speak to her.
So, it's now like the tale of Billy Goat Gruff with the neighbour being like the troll under the bridge. This weekend she pulled leaves off her garden, onto the driveway, and left a clear margin down the side. Her message clearly is, clean them up..its your job. As above though, no point in me doing anything as she could just throw them back again if I put them in her bin. I don't want to become responsible for removing and disposing of debris that is not mine.
I have spoken to local council. They say it is a 'civil matter". They also say its not 'harassment".
Where do we go from here? It's wearing.
Edited by TUS373 on Monday 22 April 07:38
Edited by TUS373 on Monday 22 April 07:39
Edited by TUS373 on Monday 22 April 07:40
Putting stuff on her garden is wrong.
If you're liable for a share of maintaining the drive, that includes clearing leaves and trimming branches that grow over it and getting rid of fallout.
You should arrange to do that properly or get it done.
If one party is being unreasonable, the other parties have to be very careful to be always right.
OutInTheShed said:
TUS373 said:
Long story so I will keep this short.
The plot our house was built on has been subdivided over time so there are now 4 houses, ours was the first. Access to 3 houses uses a private driveway over land of the last to be built, so we have a right of way. Let's call that #4.
She says that we should maintain the drive and has locked on to my wife and I. We are happy to pay a share of maintaining the fabric. I have cleared the driveway too...my own time, money and effort to keep the peace. However, she is trying to push responsibilities on to our shoulders that are not ours.
In October, I cleared all the leaves and put them in her garden bin.
In January, she emptied that bin back nto the driveway covering it back in leaves. When branches fall from storms, I have moved them off the driveway so we can get passed. I placed them on her garden off the driveway. She puts them back on the driveway at the edge.
We caught her doing this a few years ago. Doing school run, we had to move a branch off driveway. Coming back from school 20 minutes later, the branch was back and blocking our way. My wife got out of car and threw branch to side. Neighbour swoops in, picks it up again, threw it at my wife and it hit her. We called Police who went to speak to her.
So, it's now like the tale of Billy Goat Gruff with the neighbour being like the troll under the bridge. This weekend she pulled leaves off her garden, onto the driveway, and left a clear margin down the side. Her message clearly is, clean them up..its your job. As above though, no point in me doing anything as she could just throw them back again if I put them in her bin. I don't want to become responsible for removing and disposing of debris that is not mine.
I have spoken to local council. They say it is a 'civil matter". They also say its not 'harassment".
Where do we go from here? It's wearing.
I think putting stuff in her bin is wrong.The plot our house was built on has been subdivided over time so there are now 4 houses, ours was the first. Access to 3 houses uses a private driveway over land of the last to be built, so we have a right of way. Let's call that #4.
- 4 is a woman in her 60s who I think is on a spectrum of one form or another. Her house and garden are scruffy. She tries to get money out of us. In the past she let her garden over grow the drive so cars were getting scraped. The drive also fell into disrepair. We have had run ins with her over the last 3 years.
She says that we should maintain the drive and has locked on to my wife and I. We are happy to pay a share of maintaining the fabric. I have cleared the driveway too...my own time, money and effort to keep the peace. However, she is trying to push responsibilities on to our shoulders that are not ours.
In October, I cleared all the leaves and put them in her garden bin.
In January, she emptied that bin back nto the driveway covering it back in leaves. When branches fall from storms, I have moved them off the driveway so we can get passed. I placed them on her garden off the driveway. She puts them back on the driveway at the edge.
We caught her doing this a few years ago. Doing school run, we had to move a branch off driveway. Coming back from school 20 minutes later, the branch was back and blocking our way. My wife got out of car and threw branch to side. Neighbour swoops in, picks it up again, threw it at my wife and it hit her. We called Police who went to speak to her.
So, it's now like the tale of Billy Goat Gruff with the neighbour being like the troll under the bridge. This weekend she pulled leaves off her garden, onto the driveway, and left a clear margin down the side. Her message clearly is, clean them up..its your job. As above though, no point in me doing anything as she could just throw them back again if I put them in her bin. I don't want to become responsible for removing and disposing of debris that is not mine.
I have spoken to local council. They say it is a 'civil matter". They also say its not 'harassment".
Where do we go from here? It's wearing.
Putting stuff on her garden is wrong.
If you're liable for a share of maintaining the drive, that includes clearing leaves and trimming branches that grow over it and getting rid of fallout.
You should arrange to do that properly or get it done.
If one party is being unreasonable, the other parties have to be very careful to be always right.
- she consented to putting debris in her bin previously. It was a surprise to see it tipped out again, and on the road. Read into that what you will.
Putting stuff on her garden is wrong - but she is putting stuff from her garden on to the drive. It is not all just falling onto the drive. She has been raking muck onto the drive. The only things I have put onto her garden are fallen branches. e.g. I have gone out at school time, found a branch across the drive, picked it of the drive and put it on the verge of the drive, so technically on her garden, but I have not flung it randomly on there. I return from school, to find it back on the drive. What should be read into her behaviour from that?
mr rusty said:
Go on to the gardenlaw forum and read threads on rights of way. Bottom line, the subservient owner (her in #4) has no obligation to maintain the ROW, nor do you. The dominant owners (you) have a right of access and a right to maintain your right of way if you choose to. Under common law she doesn't have to pay a thing - you do. You might be able to enforce a covenant but that's challenging
Because you "own" something - the legal right of access, her in #4 cannot impede your ROW. If she does this, ultimately you can seek an injunction to stop her doing it. She cannot stop you maintaining it to the extent that the ROW is useable for the intent it was provided.
Number 4 may own the land, but they do not own the right of way - you do.
This is relevant
Repair to right of way
Carter v Cole
[2006] EWCA Civ 398.
This was a dispute relating to the repair of a right of way, and payment of contributions to the cost of repair, that turned upon the express terms of a reservation. However, the Court of Appeal usefully set out the general principles that apply at common law in the absence of any such express clause. They are as follows:
(1) A grantor of a right of way ("the servient owner") is under no obligation to construct the way;
(2) The grantee may enter the grantor's land for the purpose of making the grant of the right of way effective viz to construct a way which is suitable for the right granted to him ("the dominant owner");
(3) Once the way exists, the servient owner is under no obligation to maintain or repair it;
(4) Similarly, the dominant owner has no obligation to maintain or repair the way;
(5) The servient owner (who owns the land over which the way passes) can maintain and repair the way, if he chooses;
(6) The dominant owner (in whose interest it is that the way be kept in good repair) is entitled to maintain and repair the way and, if he wants the way to be kept in repair, must himself bear the cost. He has a right to enter the servient owner's land for the purpose but only to do necessary work in a reasonable manner.
In Newcomen v Coulson (1877) 5 Ch. D. 133 by an award under an Inclosure Act allottees were given a right of way on foot and on horseback and with their carts and carriages and with horses, oxen and cattle, doing as little damage to the soil or the corn, grass or herbage as may be. The award expressly contemplated that the allottees might "street out" the way, and in such event a particular width was specified. Pursuant to the award, a road of the specified width was made. The Defendants, who owned part of an allotment, commenced forming a solid granite road in place of the previous cart road. The Plaintiff lord of the manor sought to restrain the improvement of the road and the erection of the bridge. Malins V.-C. refused the application saying (at p. 140):
"I mean [the Defendants] to have the fullest right of metalling the road and making it the best road they can to meet the circumstances."
This court dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal. Sir George Jessel M.R. (with whom James L.J. agreed) said at pp. 143-4:
"Then it was said, admitting the owner of each house to have a right of way, still the grantees have no right to enter upon the allotments over which the right of way is granted for the purpose of laying down a metalled road. Now it was conceded to be the principle of law that the grantee of a right of way has a right to enter upon the land of the grantor over which the way extends for the purpose of making the grant effective, that is, to enable him to exercise the right granted to him. That includes not only keeping the road in repair but the right of making a road. If you grant to me over a field a right of carriage-way to my house, I may enter upon your field and make over it a carriage-way sufficient to support the ordinary traffic of a carriage-way, otherwise the grant is of no use to me, because my carriage would sink up to the naves of the wheels in a week or two of wet weather. It cannot be contended that the word "repair" in such a case is limited to making good the defects in the original soil by subsidence or washing away, it must include the right of making the road such that it can be used for the purpose for which it is granted. Therefore I think the Defendants have a right to make an effective carriage-way going, as they are going, by the shortest route, and not interfering with the land to a greater extent in width that the width of the street pointed out by the deed itself."
Thank you so much. This is the kind of advice I was looking for. Interesting and useful. Thank you.Because you "own" something - the legal right of access, her in #4 cannot impede your ROW. If she does this, ultimately you can seek an injunction to stop her doing it. She cannot stop you maintaining it to the extent that the ROW is useable for the intent it was provided.
Number 4 may own the land, but they do not own the right of way - you do.
This is relevant
Repair to right of way
Carter v Cole
[2006] EWCA Civ 398.
This was a dispute relating to the repair of a right of way, and payment of contributions to the cost of repair, that turned upon the express terms of a reservation. However, the Court of Appeal usefully set out the general principles that apply at common law in the absence of any such express clause. They are as follows:
(1) A grantor of a right of way ("the servient owner") is under no obligation to construct the way;
(2) The grantee may enter the grantor's land for the purpose of making the grant of the right of way effective viz to construct a way which is suitable for the right granted to him ("the dominant owner");
(3) Once the way exists, the servient owner is under no obligation to maintain or repair it;
(4) Similarly, the dominant owner has no obligation to maintain or repair the way;
(5) The servient owner (who owns the land over which the way passes) can maintain and repair the way, if he chooses;
(6) The dominant owner (in whose interest it is that the way be kept in good repair) is entitled to maintain and repair the way and, if he wants the way to be kept in repair, must himself bear the cost. He has a right to enter the servient owner's land for the purpose but only to do necessary work in a reasonable manner.
In Newcomen v Coulson (1877) 5 Ch. D. 133 by an award under an Inclosure Act allottees were given a right of way on foot and on horseback and with their carts and carriages and with horses, oxen and cattle, doing as little damage to the soil or the corn, grass or herbage as may be. The award expressly contemplated that the allottees might "street out" the way, and in such event a particular width was specified. Pursuant to the award, a road of the specified width was made. The Defendants, who owned part of an allotment, commenced forming a solid granite road in place of the previous cart road. The Plaintiff lord of the manor sought to restrain the improvement of the road and the erection of the bridge. Malins V.-C. refused the application saying (at p. 140):
"I mean [the Defendants] to have the fullest right of metalling the road and making it the best road they can to meet the circumstances."
This court dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal. Sir George Jessel M.R. (with whom James L.J. agreed) said at pp. 143-4:
"Then it was said, admitting the owner of each house to have a right of way, still the grantees have no right to enter upon the allotments over which the right of way is granted for the purpose of laying down a metalled road. Now it was conceded to be the principle of law that the grantee of a right of way has a right to enter upon the land of the grantor over which the way extends for the purpose of making the grant effective, that is, to enable him to exercise the right granted to him. That includes not only keeping the road in repair but the right of making a road. If you grant to me over a field a right of carriage-way to my house, I may enter upon your field and make over it a carriage-way sufficient to support the ordinary traffic of a carriage-way, otherwise the grant is of no use to me, because my carriage would sink up to the naves of the wheels in a week or two of wet weather. It cannot be contended that the word "repair" in such a case is limited to making good the defects in the original soil by subsidence or washing away, it must include the right of making the road such that it can be used for the purpose for which it is granted. Therefore I think the Defendants have a right to make an effective carriage-way going, as they are going, by the shortest route, and not interfering with the land to a greater extent in width that the width of the street pointed out by the deed itself."
Edited by mr rusty on Monday 22 April 10:25
To add a further question then - whilst I have momentum on this.
I can clear the driveway of my own accord as I have the right to do so. I may dispose of what debris is on the driveway as #4 may not want it or allow it.
However - if they deliberately litter the driveway again with debris - what is the cause of action from there? Am I supposed to accept that and continue to clear up the deliberate mess? Is that behaviour 'harassment' or 'antisocial behaviour'.
It is a relevant question as I have already tidied up the driveway and as said, last time, she took it upon herself to deliberately litter it again.
I can clear the driveway of my own accord as I have the right to do so. I may dispose of what debris is on the driveway as #4 may not want it or allow it.
However - if they deliberately litter the driveway again with debris - what is the cause of action from there? Am I supposed to accept that and continue to clear up the deliberate mess? Is that behaviour 'harassment' or 'antisocial behaviour'.
It is a relevant question as I have already tidied up the driveway and as said, last time, she took it upon herself to deliberately litter it again.
Antony Moxey said:
What part do the other two houses play - do either of them clear up driveways and leaves? Can't debris go in all four houses' bins? Seems there's four houses but two are being childish and two are keeping themselves to themselves.
Good question, glad you asked.The immediate neighbour (let's call them #3) to #4 is somewhat fearful of them. They actually said to me "she's a nutter". They have tolerated her behaviour because they live right next door, and have the most to lose. #4 appear to be using part of #3's plot to house bins, green bin, recycling and compost bins. #3 think that there is a boundary dispute on the horizon but do not want to push it because it is so awkward.
Number 3 cannot really be seen to be supporting us at #1, but are perhaps less than neutral giving us moral support. I understand that they are in a difficult situation and are a bit of a hostage in this. I think the boundary issue with exist until someone sells up, but I do not see that as happening at any time soon. #3 recently extended t heir house. #4 don't do very much of anything.
The other house, let's call them #2. They recently moved in. They are a retired couple in their 80s and tend to spend a lot of time away from their house. It has kicked off whilst they have been away. Previously, they have enjoyed clean driveways, but only because I have done all of the work. I expect they will solve the problem with a cheque book - but I must reiterate that #4 will be more than happy for the other houses to pay. It was suggested sometime ago by #4 that they get a gardener in to clear the driveway. That was OK until the quote was for about 3 hours of work to do something that may take 45 minutes. Again, #4 will try and take liberties at everyone else's expense. Fundamentally, they are lazy, awkward and all for sponging.
[footnote]/footnote]
Edited by TUS373 on Monday 22 April 11:10
RSTurboPaul said:
Some might ponder on the benefits of a new patio.
You are not wrong. I have never met the woman's husband in all the 12 years I have lived at this house. Until recently, we did not even know what he looked like. I presumed he was kept chained up in the cellar. It is an odd set up.
TUS373 said:
RSTurboPaul said:
Some might ponder on the benefits of a new patio.
You are not wrong. I have never met the woman's husband in all the 12 years I have lived at this house. Until recently, we did not even know what he looked like. I presumed he was kept chained up in the cellar. It is an odd set up.
They're odd people, maybe even a bit nuts, as been described by neighbours.
Do you really want to engage in the official channels?
Doesn't a dispute have to be disclosed when selling a property?
Isn't this going to cost you in legal fees?
Will they get even more "nuts" if you take them on with solicitors letters etc?
People who maybe a bit "nuts" can go on to start making wild accusations.
Considers these, as I've seen several times neighbour disputes turn nasty, and expensive, along with mental torture.
Worst case it costs the three neighbours a few quid to maintain the driveway that the 4th doesnt use.
TUS373 said:
To add a further question then - whilst I have momentum on this.
I can clear the driveway of my own accord as I have the right to do so. I may dispose of what debris is on the driveway as #4 may not want it or allow it.
However - if they deliberately litter the driveway again with debris - what is the cause of action from there? Am I supposed to accept that and continue to clear up the deliberate mess? Is that behaviour 'harassment' or 'antisocial behaviour'.
It is a relevant question as I have already tidied up the driveway and as said, last time, she took it upon herself to deliberately litter it again.
You will need to record such behaviour - video ideally.I can clear the driveway of my own accord as I have the right to do so. I may dispose of what debris is on the driveway as #4 may not want it or allow it.
However - if they deliberately litter the driveway again with debris - what is the cause of action from there? Am I supposed to accept that and continue to clear up the deliberate mess? Is that behaviour 'harassment' or 'antisocial behaviour'.
It is a relevant question as I have already tidied up the driveway and as said, last time, she took it upon herself to deliberately litter it again.
Then submit it to the council and hope they change their mind regarding it being anti-social behaviour.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff