Avoiding the obstruction of a right of way

Re: Avoiding the obstruction of a right of way

Postby MikeJG » Mon Jun 05, 2017 4:32 pm

Mac, thanks, such a simple answer I was seeking
Thank you others, you made good reading.
MikeJG
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:05 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: Avoiding the obstruction of a right of way

Postby jdfi » Mon Jun 05, 2017 4:37 pm

MikeJG wrote:I have also written to the Land Registry to ask them why they haven't asked for the land to be registered


This bit is easy. Presumably Tregarran Ltd (can't find on companies house, so you may wish to check spelling etc) have owned this accessway since before compulsory registration (if they were the grantor in 1932 that would support the same) and havent undertaken voluntary registration.

It may be in their interests to now register their land, however.

Regarding your 12 foot entitlement, do you have the exact wording of the deed?
jdfi
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:39 pm

Re: Avoiding the obstruction of a right of way

Postby arborlad » Mon Jun 05, 2017 4:40 pm

pilman wrote:Can we once and for all clarify what an injunction is.

It is a temporary order granted by a judge stopping an action being committed.
There then has to be a decision made at a subsequent court hearing when the facts of the case have to be decided.

This concept that a DIY injunction costs £150 seems unrealistic.
The claimant must also guarantee that they will pay court costs if the subsequent hearing finds against them.
The costs of the subsequent court case can be limited if a DIY case is presented, but if the defendant uses legal counsel their costs are also a possible liability if the claim is lost.

A court case is not cheap. If a solicitor is used then often they will require a minimum payment to be made before proceeding to issue a claim in court.
For an ordinary lay person to attempt a DIY injunction should never be advised with such regularity as it is on this web-site unless a full explanation of the entire legal process is given.
An injunction may be the first action to start the legal process but it is never the action where it will finish. There has to be a full trial.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7358
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Avoiding the obstruction of a right of way

Postby MikeJG » Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:08 pm

Folks, I am grateful for your help and see Mac's suggestion; seek a free 1/2 hr consultation with a property lawyer as a god way forward. At the end of the day even just suggesting that an injunction may be taken out may be sufficient to stop the proposal.

I am happy to provide responses to further input provided I am not wasting your time.
After a bit of googling I have found the correct company name; Trengarren Limited, it's is a small organisation that looks as though it is funded by loans from the directors and their families. Indeed there is a family member living in the house that the developer does not wish to demolish. Trengarren bought the property from Grafton Mechanting about a year ago. Grafton bought it from Warwickshire County Council in June 2014. The council owned it for a no. of years, it was intended that Grafton, trading as Buildbase would swap this property with the property Buildbase held which is now being developed as Kenilworth railway station but this fell through due to access issues!

My deeds state; The land tinted blue on the title plan has the benefit of the following rights granted by a Conveyance dated 11 January 1932 between (1) Joseph Henry Lawrence and Eugene Huffer Thornett and (2) Percy Fox (Purchaser)
'Together with a right for the purchaser and his successors in title to use for all the ordinary purposes of a road the twelve feet road coloured blue on the said plan leading from the property hereby conveyed into Warwick Road aforesaid the purchaser and his successors in title paying a proportionate part of the expense of keeping said road in repair'
MikeJG
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:05 pm

Re: Avoiding the obstruction of a right of way

Postby jdfi » Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:12 pm

Please purchase £3 each copies of the title register document for

WK436739
WK425669

and be clear (hopefully) what right has been granted to these parties and over what width?
jdfi
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:39 pm

Re: Avoiding the obstruction of a right of way

Postby MikeJG » Wed Jun 07, 2017 9:04 am

jdfi, I do not want to spend any unnecessary money on finding out what the deeds of these properties state, although I would be interested in knowing who they are. This is not to say I will not but I need a good reason.
My deeds refer to a road marked blue, this is in fact on a copy of a foolscap map that supported the purchase of the row and starts at our property and goes all the way to Warwick Road, over the back of the other houses. The map is in my deeds
Interestingly the owner of 131, 135 & the builders yard does not have a caution over the passageway, perhaps I should challenge him to prove ownership?
MikeJG
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:05 pm

Re: Avoiding the obstruction of a right of way

Postby MacadamB53 » Wed Jun 07, 2017 9:11 am

MikeJG wrote:jdfi, I do not want to spend any unnecessary money on finding out what the deeds of these properties state, although I would be interested in knowing who they are. This is not to say I will not but I need a good reason.
My deeds refer to a road marked blue, this is in fact on a copy of a foolscap map that supported the purchase of the row and starts at our property and goes all the way to Warwick Road, over the back of the other houses. The map is in my deeds
Interestingly the owner of 131, 135 & the builders yard does not have a caution over the passageway, perhaps I should challenge him to prove ownership?
I'd recommend you spend the £6 so you're fully armed when consulting the sols (concerned you're reluctant to spend £6 - you're going to struggle to battle a developer if £6 is a barrier).
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 5969
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Avoiding the obstruction of a right of way

Postby mr sheen » Wed Jun 07, 2017 9:28 am

MikeJG wrote: perhaps I should challenge him to prove ownership?


You can try but he doesn't have to prove anything.
You are the person making claims so you have the burden of proof.


A 'suggestion of an injunction' or actual threat of legal action to a developer by a neighbour is a daily occurrence so you can forget the idea that such a 'threat' will stop a developer. Actually taking them to court is the only time they will take threats of legal action seriously and at that time they will have asked for 'disclosure' of all evidence so will know whether or not there is legitimate claim.
mr sheen
 
Posts: 2076
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Avoiding the obstruction of a right of way

Postby MikeJG » Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:02 am

OK I am persuaded to buy the documents, in fact I have tried but I do not have that degree in rocket science that the Land Registry require to navigate their website. I can see how to apply using the address of a property but not using the WK ref. And if I inquire by address it does not give me the WK no.
Also it gives me a choice of documents; register, plan and flood risk. Which do I need?
MikeJG
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:05 pm

Re: Avoiding the obstruction of a right of way

Postby MacadamB53 » Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:46 am

MikeJG wrote:OK I am persuaded to buy the documents, in fact I have tried but I do not have that degree in rocket science that the Land Registry require to navigate their website. I can see how to apply using the address of a property but not using the WK ref. And if I inquire by address it does not give me the WK no.
Also it gives me a choice of documents; register, plan and flood risk. Which do I need?
use the "Detailed enquiry" option on the HMLR "Find a property" website - this allows you to search by address OR Title No.

I would buy the register entries and title plans for both (totalling £12) - the entries ascertain if the properties come with a ROW, the plans if the land over which the passage runs is included in the property.

if you need any help just post back.

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 5969
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Avoiding the obstruction of a right of way

Postby MikeJG » Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:26 am

Mac, it took me an hour to crack the system, as you indicate. I selected the documents and went to pay. It said my account had been deleted and now I need another hour or so to sort that out
MikeJG
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:05 pm

Re: Avoiding the obstruction of a right of way

Postby jdfi » Wed Jun 07, 2017 3:14 pm

Also buy an updated version of your own title and the 131/135 title.

Id also want to see 133 too (though i appreciate their access is a different way - but they might have some entitlement).
jdfi
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:39 pm

Re: Avoiding the obstruction of a right of way

Postby MikeJG » Wed Jun 07, 2017 3:21 pm

Right, got there in the end. This input seems to cross with an input from jdfi where I can add that I have recent titles for myself and 131/135, and one of the cautions relates to 133

One title is simply a caution raised by who appears to have been the owner of the builder's yard in 2007. It is a caution against first registration of the access road claiming that 'he' uses it to gain access to the main road. I can only guess that he subsequently sold the land to Warwickshire County Council and onwards and this property was subsequently absorbed into WK436183. WK436183 does describe this land as being originally sold by the same people who sold us the lane width in 1932 and gives it the benefit of a row and cartway to the Warwick Road

The other title is a caution claiming an interest in the estate and claims the rights to a twelve feet wide road exactly as in my deeds (and have been stated earlier). This caution was raised by The Peacock Hotel who purchased the property behind us in recent years. Originally this was the property know as 133 Warwick Road and was small holding created in 1932 when the bottom of our garden was sold off and the 12 foot row purchased to enable a lorry access.

I a not sure where this leaves us, I await a response form the Land Registry to my enquiry 'why is the passageway not registered?' and would consider that my map of the 12 foot access sufficient evidence that it exists. But then again I know nothing on this subject.
MikeJG
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:05 pm

Re: Avoiding the obstruction of a right of way

Postby jdfi » Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:09 pm

MikeJG wrote:Right, got there in the end. This input seems to cross with an input from jdfi where I can add that I have recent titles for myself and 131/135, and one of the cautions relates to 133

One title is simply a caution raised by who appears to have been the owner of the builder's yard in 2007. It is a caution against first registration of the access road claiming that 'he' uses it to gain access to the main road. I can only guess that he subsequently sold the land to Warwickshire County Council and onwards and this property was subsequently absorbed into WK436183. WK436183 does describe this land as being originally sold by the same people who sold us the lane width in 1932 and gives it the benefit of a row and cartway to the Warwick Road

The other title is a caution claiming an interest in the estate and claims the rights to a twelve feet wide road exactly as in my deeds (and have been stated earlier). This caution was raised by The Peacock Hotel who purchased the property behind us in recent years. Originally this was the property know as 133 Warwick Road and was small holding created in 1932 when the bottom of our garden was sold off and the 12 foot row purchased to enable a lorry access.


So there are two cautions registered over the passageway:

(there should be a third for your property arguably, to recognise your legal right of way)
-one a legal agreement giving the former Peacock now number 133 a 12' right of access
-one giving what is now the combined 131/135/builders yard title a _claimed_ right of access

MikeJG wrote:I a not sure where this leaves us, I await a response form the Land Registry to my enquiry 'why is the passageway not registered?' and would consider that my map of the 12 foot access sufficient evidence that it exists. But then again I know nothing on this subject.


I've already told you

jdfi wrote:
MikeJG wrote:I have also written to the Land Registry to ask them why they haven't asked for the land to be registered


This bit is easy. Presumably Tregarran Ltd (can't find on companies house, so you may wish to check spelling etc) have owned this accessway since before compulsory registration (if they were the grantor in 1932 that would support the same) and havent undertaken voluntary registration.

It may be in their interests to now register their land, however.

Regarding your 12 foot entitlement, do you have the exact wording of the deed?


Basically the next step is you speaking to Trengarren Ltd along the following:

-reminding them that a ROW was granted to your property in 1932 and to number 133 also in 1932.

-advising that another party is claiming prescription

-asking whether they wish to assert their rights as owners

-stating that you require your 12' protecting at all times unless someone negotiates a lower width and substantial payment to you.

Do i understand correctly that your objective is the latter?
jdfi
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:39 pm

Re: Avoiding the obstruction of a right of way

Postby MikeJG » Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:52 am

The main objective is to have the developer provide a passageway as wide as it was approved 2 years ago. All the neighbours approved this (and the building of 12 properties) but ever since this approval the developer has sought to keep the property he would have to demolish = extra profit. As at least one contributor to this forum has suggested these are devious people but so far all the plans have kept the road width purchased in 1932 so I saw no reason to raise the issue. In the final analysis I think the road width purchased in 1932 is a red line but may be sufficient to achieve the main objective since the passageway was deemed unsafe for pedestrians at the last planning committee meeting.

I will raise the issue as soon as the next, revised planning application is posted on the WDC website. I think jdfi, you have made a good observation in recognizing that the Peacock Hotel believe they owned the passageway, obtained when they purchased 133 off 'us' a few years ago. But they had their fingers burnt when they built over their end of the passageway and had to buy the land off our previous owner.

Just as a fyi there are other factors which will help the cause. Since the 'changed' passageway will be private (rather than the approved adoptable) the 12 new households will be expected to carry their green bin (garden waste), 2 red boxes (paper and bottles) and 2 white bags (cardboard, plastic, etc.) over 100m one way every fortnight and there are pipes that protrude from 131 which future narrow the passageway. I am not looking for comment just letting you know all is not dependent on this row issue, it is only now that it can be used and I wanted to understand better where I stood. Thank you all.
MikeJG
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:05 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.
 
PreviousNext

Return to Rights of Way

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests