Garden Law Discussion

Your right of way specifically states it is for use with vehicles , hence your are allowed to create a surface fit for that purpose if one does not already exist. There is some case law dating back years on this. Says something like ...a right of way granted is no use if you will sink up to the naiv...

+1.

The person(s) who owns the land either side of the lane ...would be my chief suspects. They are the most likley people to also own the lane and have an interest in preventing its use.

"I’m going to speak to them later to politely request they start using their own path for reasons detailed in my first post and hope they will be reasonable" My advise is that this is like a red rag to bull...They have a right of way across your property, it is for use at their descretion it is not ...

They bought next to a house that was in a poor state of repair, The key point is not that they bought a house next door to a house in a poor state of repair. The key point is that you own a proprety burdened with a right of way running through it; that burden is on you not them. The default positio...

Regarding your right to improve. You need to understand the difference between the case pilman had quoted where a new road was formed as part of the easement, hence no definition of the road type or surface at the time of the grant. Your easement appears to be over a track that was already in existe...

Carter v. Cole (2006) - Court of Appeal The Law apart from clause 3.2 of the Transfer Unsurprisingly the law about construction and repair of rights of way granted as easements has been settled for some centuries. The following propositions (all of which, in principle, are subject to any contrary ag...

I have a proposal for consideration. Get a copy of your easement and a copy of the relevant case law that demonstrates you have the right to repair (it's been posted on here many times in the past) and take it to the police station. Explain your issue which I'm sure they are well aware of by now. Fl...

It is possible to find an argument for any situation you care to mention on the glorious internet. It's whether what you have found actually applies to the situation and wording you have that is the question. Be careful that you don't absorb every paragraph that you see that supports your argument, ...

There is another issue you may have, my understanding is that the covenant you have was made between Scholey and Evershed. Neither you nor the woodland trust are these people, so may not have entered into the covenant and cannot seek to enforce it. It depends if it runs with the land or not. see htt...

If you own the green side why do your deeds give you a right of way over it, it doesn't make sense. Are you sure you own the green side ? If you did you would only need a right of way over the yellow bit.

Who owns the green and yellow land ? Where is your entrance ? The dominant owner is the owner of the property that enjoys the benefit of avright of way. The servient owner is the owner of the property that is burdened with a right of way over it. Your deeds seem to give you a right of way over both ...

Its complicated this stuff, just had a quick ready of Page v convoy and im totally lost. It that devil in the detail thing.

As said; devil is in the detail on a case by case basis. The fact that in your case access points have been expressly mentioned demonstrates that the intention was that the rest of the boundary feature remains.

Whats on the ground is not relevant in this case because the easement is clear.. Look at the wording and the plan with the yellow shaded area- it extends over the full length of the boundary. If a boundary feature was in existence belonging to the servient owner the clear intention is to allow its r...