ROW irrelevant by default?

ROW irrelevant by default?

Postby Freckle » Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:06 am

Hi all,
I’ll try to keep emotions out of this as its very complicated and been a very long 3 years. There are three things to consider for this case and I have attached a diagram to try and help with events and locations.

1. Leasehold Deed (1961)
2. Freehold Deed (1903)
3. Neighbours new extension (built 2016)

We have lived in our property for 12 years (at the time), firstly as flats (6 years is each) then converted to a house (land still registered as two properties). It is a usual shared access driveway, split down the middle, owned by each of us but have ROW across each for reason to pass repass on foot and vehicular etc.

Freehold deed showing equal split(shown by dotted line) straight down the middle, Leasehold differs slightly which caters for the turning of a car at the top (shown by yellow line).
In moves a new neighbour, immediately adopts the “me and my castle mentality” your shed is not straight so move it, our new grass is not straight so you are on our land, one can park on ones drive if one wants too…. You get the idea.

We then get wind of a new extension(rear and loft) being built (by permitted dev), through another neighbour. Not a problem until we see where they plan to extend, across the ROW on the leasehold deed, marked orange. We immediately notified a solicitor who confirms they cannot build across. Note: our aim was not to prevent them from building (as it was a great idea), but in doing so would it affect us should be come to sell, i.e. garage is no longer usable for vehicular access. That said, we dropped the case against them, as we confirmed to our insurance company solicitor that we have never used the garage for a car, so they could not guarantee we would win, but off the record said that SoL still stands and we had a good chance of winning as they are clearly building across the ROW as per leasehold.

During this time we had to force the neighbour to adopt the PWA, which they have no intention of doing, another battle with this one…

Fast forward 2 years to the day…. It is now our turn, we need to knock down said garage detailed in the lease, which was damaged by our neighbour he’s admitted liability (pending outcome with insurance). He has never likes the location of this garage btw and it has stood undamaged since 1961....

Questions I have are;

1. We will be rebuilding a similar structure in height to the garage when it is demolished will we need PWA?
2. We would like to extend the wall (highlighted in solid red) to meet the house. In doing so does not change the width of their ROW. They have removed some of their/our ROW space already by building the extension. Your thoughts?
3. What would you do, would you care given their actions and lack of consideration and go ahead and build the wall?
4. Would you request an official review and wait for their response? This comes with a risk as they have already requested us to split the driveway (they have erected double gates at the bottom of the drive between two houses (with our permission). This may give them the go ahead to split the driveway (this is a very likely scenario) they are very audacious.
5. Would you rebuild similar structure to were the garage is and instead use a wooden fence to extend to the house (red line on plan). That way it is easily rectified should it come to them suing us. (unlikely as we have leverage to come back on i.e building and double gate erected)
6. If you also notice on the plan highlighted in Blue, a diagonal fence they put in place before building works and have used that against us saying it has been there for years. (only up for a year). It is no longer there, simply the remaining green line where it shows notation “old garage)

We are sick and tired of these people who see fit to do what they want, we are considering take additional action against them as we have to ask them to move their car every time we need access.

Any advice, professional or otherwise welcome  Thank you all in advance!
Freckle
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 7:03 pm

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 

Re: ROW irrelevant by default?

Postby Freckle » Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:18 am

Sorry everyone, it seems the system does not support PDF or Photo uploads :(.
Freckle
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 7:03 pm

Re: ROW irrelevant by default?

Postby MacadamB53 » Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:01 pm

Freckle wrote:Sorry everyone, it seems the system does not support PDF or Photo uploads :(.
new forum members need to submit a minimum of three postings before they can post images or URLs.

the site's storage had been maxed out for some time now so uploading an image will almost certainly fail.

the workaround is to upload to a third party site (I use www.tinypics.com) and then share the URL here.

does that make sense?
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 5960
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: ROW irrelevant by default?

Postby Freckle » Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:31 pm

It makes sense thank for the heads up. However, I don't have permission to post URL's ;( I've tried to post in file comments, not sure if it will come through though.
Freckle
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 7:03 pm

Re: ROW irrelevant by default?

Postby stufe35 » Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:41 pm

I think you have to make 3 posts before it will let you...so your nearly there !
Last edited by stufe35 on Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
stufe35
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:06 pm

Re: ROW irrelevant by default?

Postby Freckle » Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:09 pm

aha I gottcha thanks. :lol:
Freckle
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 7:03 pm

Re: ROW irrelevant by default?

Postby Freckle » Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:11 pm

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cof2px54lrccq ... 0.pdf?dl=0 Finally! So, it is of course upside down grr, I have a quote bubble with a key to explain the lines a bit further.

Thanks everyone and I have learnt a new thing today... saving to an online source!
Freckle
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 7:03 pm

Re: ROW irrelevant by default?

Postby arborlad » Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:02 am

You'll get a better response by having everything in one thread:

Freckle wrote:Hello,

We are in the process of having a substantial (> 40m2) garage demolished. It is feet from my neighbours new extension. It is being demolished because our neighbour had accidently damaged it following their extension works.

When the garage is demolished we would like to replace it with a wall, same height (10ft) and location of the existing garage. We are unable to rebuild the garage as it no longer serves a purpose due to our neighbours extension, I.e. it crosses over what would have been our ROW but we never used it for a car so no heartache.

1) Will we need planning permission if we are replacing like for like in terms of height and width of the wall?
2) Will we need PWA? I understand it is within the 3 metres of their new extension for digging foundation but I'm not sure the new wall will need more than 1mtre foundation, which would make it a requirement to fall under PWA.... right?
3) Any other thoughts?

Thanks in advance
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7349
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: ROW irrelevant by default?

Postby arborlad » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:29 pm

Best to stick to one thread:


Freckle wrote:Hi everyone,
I'll keep this as simple as possible.

Neighbour has damaged our garage, their insurance company has paid out eventually. It has been a very very long battle. Now we need to repair the garage with the money. We wrote to neighbour asking politely if we can erect protective hoarding, they refused. Instead they got a very rude surveyor to site the details of the neighbouring act. We simply said "look, we are.simply asking to protect his property and family", we don't have to erect hoarding nor access his land to do the work. The surveyor has sent us 3 very rude and intimidating emails stating harassment on our part and malicious bullying and intent to cause harm to the neighbour, that we need to produce a schedule.of works, compensate for damage and inconvience, start end date etc. It's very upsetting. That we have no right to block his access onto his drive (we have clear ROW) We have been advised that there is censored all they can do about it but we are afraid of the consequences in repairing the building that was caused by the neighbour. He's the silent bullying type and would not be surprised if he put his children next to the garage to prevent us from doing the work. Ps. The insurance company has told us the garage is dangerous and if it falls will fall into their garden.

What would you do?
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7349
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: ROW irrelevant by default?

Postby Freckle » Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:49 am

Thanks bit i wasnt getting a response a response to others and things have changed quite a bit so this is no longer a ROW query.
Freckle
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 7:03 pm

Re: ROW irrelevant by default?

Postby arborlad » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:59 am

Freckle wrote:Thanks bit i wasnt getting a response a response to others and things have changed quite a bit so this is no longer a ROW query.




It's rare for one problem to fit neatly into the various categories of the Forum, it's better to have one problem under the umbrella of one thread and stray into a different category, than have one problem fragmented under several different threads.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7349
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: ROW irrelevant by default?

Postby Freckle » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:45 pm

Please can you delete these post then. Thanks
Freckle
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 7:03 pm

Re: ROW irrelevant by default?

Postby arborlad » Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:06 am

Freckle wrote:Please can you delete these post then. Thanks




I think we may have our wires crossed, only a Moderator has the power to delete or merge posts.

I have requested a merging of your threads.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7349
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 

Return to Rights of Way

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests