Neighbour issues, shared access
Discussion
We live in a barn conversion and it's a single building divided into 10 dwellings. To all intents and purposes it's a kind of terraced arrangement with all the houses next to each other with access to the rear only via either end (or via the inside of your property). There is a shared courtyard and other shared interests so there is a management company which deals with all of these shared interests and things like liabilities, and we all jointly own it, and pay a small amount each month for this.
We were warned shortly after moving in that our direct neighbour who is on one of the ends is a problem. He was actually OK with us for the first couple of years, despite no one else getting on with him. He has numerous grievances with the shared arrangements, responsibilities etc. Despite this, somehow, he is the longest standing resident. He lives on his own, in a 5 bed house, but seemingly hates everything about it, and having to live near people etc. I don't know why he continues to do so, but he does.
I won't go into all the issues, but the biggest one at the moment is rear access.
There is nothing in the deeds about shared access - a point he keeps referring back to as the only thing that matters, which is inaccurate. There are deliberately designed access ways such as gates and gaps all along the rear between the gardens. The conversion from a barn happened in the 90s so is long standing. Also, as I understand it, courts acknowledge that where properties are subdivided like this, there are concessions and compromises that residents have to make to help each other out a bit.
The intent is clearly that the houses on one side of the barn access the rear via the house at that end, and the ones in the other half at the other end. As he is at one end, it is his gate that people must use, and then walk through all the gardens to get to their own house rear.
No one loves it - however it is what it is. It works as long as people don't take the piss (which they do not) and all get on fine (which they would do).
He absolutely hates people using his land, and has previously tried to impose all sorts of conditions and constraints on how, when and why it can be used. No one has ever used it out of reasonable hours, for any unreasonable purpose, or very frequently, or caused even the slightest damage etc. It is just the way things are here, and everyone else accepts it, but for some reason he does not. Or, importantly, has recently decided he does not.
There is no concept of requesting and approving or denying access. It was always left that it just has to be reasonable.
I had a shed kit delivered, and directed the delivery people to take it through his gate. Now, I probably should have informed him beforehand, and resolve to do so in future, but when they arrived it was too late and he was also out. I didn't even think he would notice. Now this is on me but honestly if you had to quantify the inconvenience it would be zero. The gardens have been used without my prior awareness and I just let people get on with it as it's clear they need to do it.
So, he has kicked off about this, massive ranting email, making stuff up about forcing access and the need to 'prove' access is a right or whatever. He has put a bike lock on his gate to prevent access until "this is all sorted out".
You have to understand that this is all in the context of numerous other grievances, some of which are really unreasonable, and the lack of willingness from him to extend any slack to anyone else. He seems himself as the owner of the access, fundamentally, when in fact this is a shared thing we all tolerate by living here.
Something else to mention is that we have had 5 tyre punctures on our cars in the last couple of years, and some other looser pieces of evidence that he may have been involved. Nothing that might be seen as proof however... but this is really the sort of person we are dealing with.
Yes I should have pre-warned him, but if it wasn't this, it would be the next thing and the next thing and and and.
What would you do?
We were warned shortly after moving in that our direct neighbour who is on one of the ends is a problem. He was actually OK with us for the first couple of years, despite no one else getting on with him. He has numerous grievances with the shared arrangements, responsibilities etc. Despite this, somehow, he is the longest standing resident. He lives on his own, in a 5 bed house, but seemingly hates everything about it, and having to live near people etc. I don't know why he continues to do so, but he does.
I won't go into all the issues, but the biggest one at the moment is rear access.
There is nothing in the deeds about shared access - a point he keeps referring back to as the only thing that matters, which is inaccurate. There are deliberately designed access ways such as gates and gaps all along the rear between the gardens. The conversion from a barn happened in the 90s so is long standing. Also, as I understand it, courts acknowledge that where properties are subdivided like this, there are concessions and compromises that residents have to make to help each other out a bit.
The intent is clearly that the houses on one side of the barn access the rear via the house at that end, and the ones in the other half at the other end. As he is at one end, it is his gate that people must use, and then walk through all the gardens to get to their own house rear.
No one loves it - however it is what it is. It works as long as people don't take the piss (which they do not) and all get on fine (which they would do).
He absolutely hates people using his land, and has previously tried to impose all sorts of conditions and constraints on how, when and why it can be used. No one has ever used it out of reasonable hours, for any unreasonable purpose, or very frequently, or caused even the slightest damage etc. It is just the way things are here, and everyone else accepts it, but for some reason he does not. Or, importantly, has recently decided he does not.
There is no concept of requesting and approving or denying access. It was always left that it just has to be reasonable.
I had a shed kit delivered, and directed the delivery people to take it through his gate. Now, I probably should have informed him beforehand, and resolve to do so in future, but when they arrived it was too late and he was also out. I didn't even think he would notice. Now this is on me but honestly if you had to quantify the inconvenience it would be zero. The gardens have been used without my prior awareness and I just let people get on with it as it's clear they need to do it.
So, he has kicked off about this, massive ranting email, making stuff up about forcing access and the need to 'prove' access is a right or whatever. He has put a bike lock on his gate to prevent access until "this is all sorted out".
You have to understand that this is all in the context of numerous other grievances, some of which are really unreasonable, and the lack of willingness from him to extend any slack to anyone else. He seems himself as the owner of the access, fundamentally, when in fact this is a shared thing we all tolerate by living here.
Something else to mention is that we have had 5 tyre punctures on our cars in the last couple of years, and some other looser pieces of evidence that he may have been involved. Nothing that might be seen as proof however... but this is really the sort of person we are dealing with.
Yes I should have pre-warned him, but if it wasn't this, it would be the next thing and the next thing and and and.
What would you do?
A very difficult scenario
Are you absolutely sure there is nothing in the deeds detailing the access?
If there isn't did you get a declaration from the previous owners stating that the access had been used unhindered?
In any event, it's an extremely difficult scenario as if the neighbour wants to be difficult there isn't an easy answer.
Are you absolutely sure there is nothing in the deeds detailing the access?
If there isn't did you get a declaration from the previous owners stating that the access had been used unhindered?
In any event, it's an extremely difficult scenario as if the neighbour wants to be difficult there isn't an easy answer.
Nicetobenice said:
A very difficult scenario
Are you absolutely sure there is nothing in the deeds detailing the access?
If there isn't did you get a declaration from the previous owners stating that the access had been used unhindered?
In any event, it's an extremely difficult scenario as if the neighbour wants to be difficult there isn't an easy answer.
there is nothing. However a bit of research says that there doesn't need to be. If it is deliberately designed or intended to be used that way, has been used that way for a long time, and also if it is subdivided properties then these things are actually all enough on their own and this situation is all three.Are you absolutely sure there is nothing in the deeds detailing the access?
If there isn't did you get a declaration from the previous owners stating that the access had been used unhindered?
In any event, it's an extremely difficult scenario as if the neighbour wants to be difficult there isn't an easy answer.
borcy said:
I assume he wants people to stop using his gate for any reason? If so you've not many options beyond some sort of legal action.
What's he like to talk to?
his reasons are just that he doesn't like it and he doesn't believe it is a right. What's he like to talk to?
I am sure most people could sort of relate to how that might feel, but if you spoke to him in person you may feel a bit less understanding of him as a human.
If it's his land and there's nothing in the deeds , he has every right to stop people using his garden for access . There's nothing that says a neighbour has to be reasonable.
However, it does surprise me if this is the case , that your solicitor did not point this out to you when you purchased the property , after all that's why they do the searches. I would take it up them.
However, it does surprise me if this is the case , that your solicitor did not point this out to you when you purchased the property , after all that's why they do the searches. I would take it up them.
The Three D Mucketeer said:
If it's his land and there's nothing in the deeds , he has every right to stop people using his garden for access . There's nothing that says a neighbour has to be reasonable.
However, it does surprise me if this is the case , that your solicitor did not point this out to you when you purchased the property , after all that's why they do the searches. I would take it up them.
If the access has been used for many years then that's not quite true.However, it does surprise me if this is the case , that your solicitor did not point this out to you when you purchased the property , after all that's why they do the searches. I would take it up them.
However as it was converted in the 90s it is surprising that there's no written agreement.
Blown2CV said:
there is nothing. However a bit of research says that there doesn't need to be. If it is deliberately designed or intended to be used that way, has been used that way for a long time, and also if it is subdivided properties then these things are actually all enough on their own and this situation is all three.
Yes that's true.If he locks the gate then he needs to give you a key.
How you make him do so is a difficult issue.
On the one hand you have a right so you shouldn't need to ask permission or provide notice.
On the other, you all need to rub along together. Which is extremely difficult if he's unreasonable.
Blown2CV said:
borcy said:
I assume he wants people to stop using his gate for any reason? If so you've not many options beyond some sort of legal action.
What's he like to talk to?
his reasons are just that he doesn't like it and he doesn't believe it is a right. What's he like to talk to?
I am sure most people could sort of relate to how that might feel, but if you spoke to him in person you may feel a bit less understanding of him as a human.
There's two options, put up with him being difficult or you and the neighbours go through some sort of legal route but that (to me) sounds very expensive and long winded.
I do wonder why he moved there in the first place.
Nicetobenice said:
The Three D Mucketeer said:
If it's his land and there's nothing in the deeds , he has every right to stop people using his garden for access . There's nothing that says a neighbour has to be reasonable.
However, it does surprise me if this is the case , that your solicitor did not point this out to you when you purchased the property , after all that's why they do the searches. I would take it up them.
If the access has been used for many years then that's not quite true.However, it does surprise me if this is the case , that your solicitor did not point this out to you when you purchased the property , after all that's why they do the searches. I would take it up them.
However as it was converted in the 90s it is surprising that there's no written agreement.
If he's previously given permission to use the access, that is 'let' so no right is established.
This is what we pay conveyancers for.
OutInTheShed said:
Even if it's been used for many years, that isn't watertight. 'let or hindrance'.
If he's previously given permission to use the access, that is 'let' so no right is established.
This is what we pay conveyancers for.
I agree.If he's previously given permission to use the access, that is 'let' so no right is established.
This is what we pay conveyancers for.
It will depend on how the path was established.
Could you and neighbours "gang up" and go legal? In order to get something written up about shared access?
If he is being unreasonable then lower yourself to his level so to speak. A collective 9 peoples pot is generally larger than 1 mans, and isnt that what these legal battles boil down to?
IANAL
If he is being unreasonable then lower yourself to his level so to speak. A collective 9 peoples pot is generally larger than 1 mans, and isnt that what these legal battles boil down to?
IANAL
Nicetobenice said:
The Three D Mucketeer said:
If it's his land and there's nothing in the deeds , he has every right to stop people using his garden for access . There's nothing that says a neighbour has to be reasonable.
However, it does surprise me if this is the case , that your solicitor did not point this out to you when you purchased the property , after all that's why they do the searches. I would take it up them.
If the access has been used for many years then that's not quite true.However, it does surprise me if this is the case , that your solicitor did not point this out to you when you purchased the property , after all that's why they do the searches. I would take it up them.
However as it was converted in the 90s it is surprising that there's no written agreement.
https://tsabi.law/news/why-your-neighbour-might-le...
the path was created by the developers when the barn was converted. They placed a route through at the rear. It isn't something which was added later at the agreement of any particular resident. This was nearly 30 years ago and it has been used amicably for, as I understand it, that whole time until 2 years or so ago.
Given the neighbour did not 'grant' access in the first instance, and he simply moved into a property where this route was already created, I think he doesn't really have much of a leg to stand on, legally.
The concept of it being a shared arrangement appears to be lost on him. Aside from the two houses in the centre, everyone has other residents and their suppliers and agents use their garden for access from time to time. There is nothing special about him other than he's the one with the final gate.
I could lock my gate too but as I am not a total d
head I wouldn't dream of doing it!
On the point of conveyancing, the conveyancer passed on the pack of information from the management company detailing all the arrangements in place. The conveyancer wasn't in a position to judge whether the arrangements work or don't work, or if anyone has an issue or dispute around them (unless this was active legal proceedings, which it wasn't). Yes we agreed to it, and we wouldn't do it again. You live and learn. However I don't feel the conveyancer dropped the ball as such, they could only use the information made available to them.
Given the neighbour did not 'grant' access in the first instance, and he simply moved into a property where this route was already created, I think he doesn't really have much of a leg to stand on, legally.
The concept of it being a shared arrangement appears to be lost on him. Aside from the two houses in the centre, everyone has other residents and their suppliers and agents use their garden for access from time to time. There is nothing special about him other than he's the one with the final gate.
I could lock my gate too but as I am not a total d
head I wouldn't dream of doing it! On the point of conveyancing, the conveyancer passed on the pack of information from the management company detailing all the arrangements in place. The conveyancer wasn't in a position to judge whether the arrangements work or don't work, or if anyone has an issue or dispute around them (unless this was active legal proceedings, which it wasn't). Yes we agreed to it, and we wouldn't do it again. You live and learn. However I don't feel the conveyancer dropped the ball as such, they could only use the information made available to them.
Blown2CV said:
the path was created by the developers when the barn was converted. They placed a route through at the rear. It isn't something which was added later at the agreement of any particular resident. This was nearly 30 years ago and it has been used amicably for, as I understand it, that whole time until 2 years or so ago.
Given the neighbour did not 'grant' access in the first instance, and he simply moved into a property where this route was already created, I think he doesn't really have much of a leg to stand on, legally.
The concept of it being a shared arrangement appears to be lost on him. Aside from the two houses in the centre, everyone has other residents and their suppliers and agents use their garden for access from time to time. There is nothing special about him other than he's the one with the final gate.
I could lock my gate too but as I am not a total dhead I wouldn't dream of doing it!
On the point of conveyancing, the conveyancer passed on the pack of information from the management company detailing all the arrangements in place. The conveyancer wasn't in a position to judge whether the arrangements work or don't work, or if anyone has an issue or dispute around them (unless this was active legal proceedings, which it wasn't). Yes we agreed to it, and we wouldn't do it again. You live and learn. However I don't feel the conveyancer dropped the ball as such, they could only use the information made available to them.
In that case it would seem that the right of way is established.Given the neighbour did not 'grant' access in the first instance, and he simply moved into a property where this route was already created, I think he doesn't really have much of a leg to stand on, legally.
The concept of it being a shared arrangement appears to be lost on him. Aside from the two houses in the centre, everyone has other residents and their suppliers and agents use their garden for access from time to time. There is nothing special about him other than he's the one with the final gate.
I could lock my gate too but as I am not a total d
head I wouldn't dream of doing it! On the point of conveyancing, the conveyancer passed on the pack of information from the management company detailing all the arrangements in place. The conveyancer wasn't in a position to judge whether the arrangements work or don't work, or if anyone has an issue or dispute around them (unless this was active legal proceedings, which it wasn't). Yes we agreed to it, and we wouldn't do it again. You live and learn. However I don't feel the conveyancer dropped the ball as such, they could only use the information made available to them.
Still no easy solution but I'd probably be trying to influence the management company to come up with a solution.
Arrivalist said:
Why didn t the developer just shorten everyone s garden by 5ft or thereabouts and make an alley at the rear for access to each garden?
This seems a mad solution where you actually have to walk into another s garden for access. Or am I missing something?
It's quite common in rows of terraces.This seems a mad solution where you actually have to walk into another s garden for access. Or am I missing something?
Blown2CV said:
What would you do?
If it's that huge of a problem, talk to a property lawyer and see how clear cut your interpretation of the deeds is.If it's ambiguous, consider moving.
That sounds extreme maybe, but it this guy is as obstinate as you paint out, you'll just spend a load of money, time and stress arguing with him, likely without much progress.
Think I'd be simply going back the solictors I appointed at time of purchase and getting their written opinion on it to start with.
If they come back saying the right of way exists, then I'd suggest writing to the person in question stating the facts, and that if access continues to be obstructed then you will have little option but to seek an injunction to resolve the matter.
At that point, I'd think he'll find himself with multiple court proceedings against him, and the matter will likely sort itself out relatively quickly.
If they come back saying the right of way exists, then I'd suggest writing to the person in question stating the facts, and that if access continues to be obstructed then you will have little option but to seek an injunction to resolve the matter.
At that point, I'd think he'll find himself with multiple court proceedings against him, and the matter will likely sort itself out relatively quickly.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff