Conflicting interests PROW

Re: Conflicting interests PROW

Postby melbatoast » Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:15 pm

Stufe35,

Yes, you are correct in your analysis.
melbatoast
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:25 am

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: Conflicting interests PROW

Postby melbatoast » Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:40 pm

Pilman,

Thanks once again for your reply.

So in answer to my question; It seems that I cannot derogate from the 2013 grant which was itself a derogation of the 1965 Conveyance :-/

I completely take on board your suggestion about not incurring high legal costs (I am insured). This cuts both ways though and I'm not the person claiming that nobody can park on the Parking area. I guess it's for No.3 to prove that parking cannot take place on the yellow area? And if they, or if they have insurance, their insurers are willing to pay to prove it.

Would No 3 also have to prove any vehicle parked in the said area was a substantial interference with the questionable granted ROW, as they can and do use all three entrances on a daily basis. Only time I could see that not able to be performed is if No2 has parked a tanker on the yellow area.
melbatoast
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:25 am

Re: Conflicting interests PROW

Postby melbatoast » Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:44 pm

Stufe35,

I will post wording etc. as soon as I am able. :)
melbatoast
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:25 am

Re: Conflicting interests PROW

Postby ukmicky » Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:53 am

melbatoast wrote:Pilman,

Thanks once again for your reply.

So in answer to my question; It seems that I cannot derogate from the 2013 grant which was itself a derogation of the 1965 Conveyance :-/

I completely take on board your suggestion about not incurring high legal costs (I am insured). This cuts both ways though and I'm not the person claiming that nobody can park on the Parking area. I guess it's for No.3 to prove that parking cannot take place on the yellow area? And if they, or if they have insurance, their insurers are willing to pay to prove it.

Would No 3 also have to prove any vehicle parked in the said area was a substantial interference with the questionable granted ROW, as they can and do use all three entrances on a daily basis. Only time I could see that not able to be performed is if No2 has parked a tanker on the yellow area.
If they have 3 entrances it would be extremely hard for them to show substantial interference.
Advice given is not legally qualified and you are advised to gain a professional opinion
ukmicky
 
Posts: 4515
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:13 pm
Location: London

Re: Conflicting interests PROW

Postby melbatoast » Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:05 am

Ukmickey,

Thanks for your reply.

So if No.3 decided to close up his other two entrances (one off the narrower brown part, the other off of the slightly wider beginning of the yellow part), leaving one entrance at the widest, very end of yellow part ( where user No.2 does park their tanker when visiting the pumping station) then what?

Probably not likely but, given the circumstances, even the unlikely seems possible in this situation.

How about a scenario where there is a change of use of the pumping station into maybe a residential property ( there is no mention that the area purchased in the 1965 Conveyance is strictly for the Local Council - who are the owners, to use it as a pumping station)?

Okay, so I'm thickening the plot, a lot! I do realise that this scenario is unlikely to unfold but, you never know.
melbatoast
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:25 am

Re: Conflicting interests PROW

Postby stufe35 » Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:40 am

Does the yellow area lead anywhere else...eg your property ...or is it just a dead end and parking/turning area for no.2 ?
stufe35
 
Posts: 754
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:06 pm

Re: Conflicting interests PROW

Postby melbatoast » Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:54 am

Stufe35,

The yellow area is a dead end for vehicles as it leads to a restricted byway through a narrow gate( this is where the pedestrian access is for the pumping station). Probably of no relevance, there's a public footpath across the Accessway to the byway.

The order in which the properties involved are situated is user 1; User 4 ( me); User 3; then pumping station is on restricted byway, behind user 3's property.
melbatoast
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:25 am

Re: Conflicting interests PROW

Postby arborlad » Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:00 am

Are there any verges or land that isn't surfaced alongside this track?
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7359
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Conflicting interests PROW

Postby melbatoast » Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:10 am

Arborlad,

Yes, along the narrowest part on both sides there is approximately 2ft although, this is raised on one side and drops down steeply on the other side (not suitable for driving on). Around the wider parts it is curbed. I have given approximate measurements in my first post, between the curbs.
melbatoast
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:25 am

Re: Conflicting interests PROW

Postby melbatoast » Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:14 am

That's Kerb :D
melbatoast
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:25 am

Re: Conflicting interests PROW

Postby jdfi » Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:19 pm

stufe35 wrote:If I have the layout correct in my head, no 3 has to go past his original entrance to enter the yellow land. His original entrance was off the brown land. Why was he ever given this right..he had no reason to enter the yellow land before he put in new entrances ?.

A plan, the plans and the various wordings still may help shed a little more light on this situation.


This.

How long ago did number 3 open up these two new accesses? Has anyone tried to stop him?

If you own it cant you charge him for passing over the yellow land? Or at least fence your own yellow land?
jdfi
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:39 pm

Re: Conflicting interests PROW

Postby melbatoast » Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:13 am

:D
jdfi wrote:
stufe35 wrote:If I have the layout correct in my head, no 3 has to go past his original entrance to enter the yellow land. His original entrance was off the brown land. Why was he ever given this right..he had no reason to enter the yellow land before he put in new entrances ?.

A plan, the plans and the various wordings still may help shed a little more light on this situation.


This.

How long ago did number 3 open up these two new accesses? Has anyone tried to stop him?

If you own it cant you charge him for passing over the yellow land? Or at least fence your own yellow land?


jdfi,

The 1st new entrance was approximately 6 months after we purchased our property, the 2nd maybe 6 months after that. We have lived here for just over 3 years.

Yes, friendly conversations were had at the time; I pointed out my perspective and what I believe to be the lawful use of the yellow area but, as you can see from my earlier posts, my neighbour claims otherwise.

Pilman 1st suggested that I could, with the agreement of user No.2, gate and even lock the area, which I have no interest in doing (also would require some serious gating setup over that width and a pedestrian gate for the footpath, to boot). Pilman then went on to say that user 3's right of way could be legitimate , even though this creates a derogation of grant from the 1965 Conveyance and that he could not prevent user 2 from parking but, he may be able to prevent me from doing so because, that would be derogation of their grant. :?

So you see, jdfi, the reason why my neighbour has 3 entrances to his property (2 from the yellow area) is because the transferor of these properties seems to have created a situation where I or my neighbour are unable to clearly state exactly what can and cannot be done by either of us...as clear as mud!

I am having difficulties with my printer and someone has kindly offered to arrange removing names, places etc. off of the Conveyance so that should be posted later, hopefully. Although, I think those who have been kind enough to respond seem to have a pretty good take on the layout. :D
melbatoast
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:25 am

Re: Conflicting interests PROW

Postby jdfi » Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:46 am

So block off these two accesses, and let him start a court case if he believes he has entitlement to cross your land.

Why did you let him do them in the first place?
jdfi
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:39 pm

Re: Conflicting interests PROW

Postby melbatoast » Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:18 am

jdfi wrote:So block off these two accesses, and let him start a court case if he believes he has entitlement to cross your land.

Why did you let him do them in the first place?


jdfi,

I completely understand if that is how you would go about things but, in the interest of neighbourly relations ( it is just him and me), I am trying to establish the lawful , not forceful outcome.

Have you had time to read Pilman posts?
melbatoast
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:25 am

Re: Conflicting interests PROW

Postby jdfi » Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:21 am

melbatoast wrote:
jdfi wrote:So block off these two accesses, and let him start a court case if he believes he has entitlement to cross your land.

Why did you let him do them in the first place?


jdfi,

I completely understand if that is how you would go about things but, in the interest of neighbourly relations ( it is just him and me), I am trying to establish the lawful , not forceful outcome.

Have you had time to read Pilman posts?


Yes. Mr Pilman is the demi-god of this forum. Everyone is in awe of what he posts, and he is invariably correct.

As I see it you can do one of three things:

-do nothing and acquiesce to this (which may cause you future issues with the pumping station)
-block off the illegal accesses to force the issue
-commence a court claim to force the issue.

Anything else and he will see that you are not serious.
jdfi
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:39 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: No registered users and 5 guests