3 not wise men

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby arborlad » Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:34 pm

liveinpeace wrote:..............we have been unreasonable and breached calderbank rules




There's simply no way that preventing unauthorised access over your land can be anything other than reasonable.



the simple solution would have been to declare the drive shared access so we could park on the drive and they could access the back




The simple solution would've been to employ a decent architect who stays within the bounds of his clients land and not to block access from front to rear. There's no reason on earth why you should declare the drive shared, it isn't, it is wholly owned by you and no other. It is not for you to declare it shared, it is up to them to prove that it is - they can't!



they also say they have had uninterrupted access to our drive until we moved in.




This one actually gave me a chuckle, sorry, whatever they might claim to have been doing, they were trespassing - plain and simple................that solicitor needs to go back to school.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7518
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.
 

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby liveinpeace » Wed Jan 03, 2018 9:57 am

we have to admit it did cause us to chuckle on many points

why are your clients so reluctant to agree to the simple solution of a pedestrian gate and shared access?

boundary disputes are always resolved by instructing a surveyor firstly, the boundary will be determined by the original deeds

my client have behave in a reasonable manner and personally tried to come to a resolution with your clients it is your clients who have caused the dispute.
liveinpeace
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:29 pm

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby arborlad » Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:26 pm

liveinpeace wrote:we have to admit it did cause us to chuckle on many points

why are your clients so reluctant to agree to the simple solution of a pedestrian gate and shared access?

boundary disputes are always resolved by instructing a surveyor firstly, the boundary will be determined by the original deeds

my client have behave in a reasonable manner and personally tried to come to a resolution with your clients it is your clients who have caused the dispute.




Dear Mr. Deluded Solicitor. There are no easements over my land that favour your clients land, any such easement would burden and restrict the use of my land to an unacceptable degree. There will be no grant of an easement as it will devalue my land. The problems your clients are experiencing with rear access are entirely of their own making and they must find a solution to that problem within the bounds of the land that they own.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7518
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby despair » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:01 pm

DITTO
despair
 
Posts: 16108
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby liveinpeace » Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:32 pm

thanks I would love to send that to their solicitor.
I am meeting with mine on Monday so I am going to go through my posts and note down the points that I think he might be able to use. I have spent today going through all my documents and evidence trying to get it all organised and in chronological order.

If Pilman has been reading any of my posts, please would you be kind enough to give me some advice
liveinpeace
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:29 pm

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby liveinpeace » Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:58 pm

so these are the points I am going to ask my solicitor about from the information I have got from the forum

you cannot state that you own our land and that you have a right of access over the property, it is one or the other.

we do not have to rely on the original deeds as being definitive

we cannot be forced into appointing a joint surveyor

creating a shared access (that had never been there before) would devalue our property.

they gave evidence of the extent of their land as published by themselves to an authority, when they put in a planning application.

There are only two ways they can legitimately be on that land, they own it or have an easement, either by grant or prescription, to use it. If by grant, they will be waving it under your nose, if by prescription, they would have to have used it openly, without force or secrecy for a minimum of 20 years.

The time to take action on any real or perceived encroachment is as soon as you become aware of it, a delay of a few decades is nothing short of preposterous.
liveinpeace
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:29 pm

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby despair » Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:27 pm

Plus

There is no possible way on earth their behaviour has been in any way reasonable instead its bullying , threats and harassment along with blatant theft
despair
 
Posts: 16108
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby MacadamB53 » Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:40 pm

Hi liveinpeace,

have they sent any correspondence to either your or your predecessor that acknowledges (outright or by implication) that you own all of your drive or that they do not own any of it?

this is what I’d be asking my sols to check - because if they have then their claim is dead and your sols should point this out to them in a final response.

kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6158
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby pilman » Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:18 pm

It was pointed out to me by e-mail that I should look at this thread, which is what I have just done.

At very little cost the first thing to do is to place a caution on the unregistered property with Land Registry, as was suggested by Arborlad a few postings earlier.
The details are on this web-site.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... gistration

Your need for a caution is because you claim that the unregistered land has moved its legal boundary during the last two years to include part of the land registered under your title.

Only be seeing the plan included with the conveyance when that property was sold to the current owner, will any court be able to decide where the legal boundary is located.
That is the only evidence that the brothers can furnish should this matter need to be decided by a court, but after reading this thread it seems as though there will be no clear evidence of what has happened to the boundary in the period from the date of that conveyance.
You think the father built a brick wall at the front and back of the house. That will need to be supported by statements of truth by anyone capable of confirming that fact.

The brick wall at the back was taken down and replaced with a wooden fence with a gate inserted into it two years ago.
That will need to be supported by statements of truth by anyone capable of confirming that fact.

The letter from the brothers' solicitor will need to be carefully considered in order to establish if there is a point of law that has merit in any claim being made.

If you want a personal opinion expressed on that matter then you will need to read the Private Message I will send you.

Before meeting with a solicitor that will incur legal costs, I am prepared to express an opinion based on years of experience dealing with land as a planning consultant and as a property developer, that will not cost you anything.

Registering a caution will ensure that anyone intending to buy the house next door will immediately be aware that there is a dispute about the boundary position. That is the first thing to be done.
pilman
 
Posts: 2861
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:08 pm

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby despair » Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:41 pm

Thankyou Pilman for reading this thread aftervi slerted you to it

Seems we are agreed on the way fwd
despair
 
Posts: 16108
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby liveinpeace » Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:45 pm

thanks you very much despair
liveinpeace
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:29 pm

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby liveinpeace » Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:35 pm

thank you pilman I will take you up on your very kind offer.

the previous owner of our house who lived here from the 80s, has given me an aerial photo and lots of family photos supporting the fact that the wall at the front and the wall at the back before being moved was there since the mid 80s. she has said she will act as a witness.


we have sadly had to get a solicitor already and spent a considerable amount of money so far. They sent us several strong solicitors letters saying we had to agree to a joint survey and the boundaries need to be put back to where they where in the 50s,.we tried to fight an argument for adverse possession , but we were quite concerned that we were going to say something wrong and was out of our depth. we are both skilled manual workers but
there is no access or ROW on any deeds and this has all arisen because the brothers require access to the back of their house since internal building work has completely blocked access through the garage .
liveinpeace
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:29 pm

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby pilman » Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:33 pm

There are occasions where there is a shared drive located between houses that are at each end of a pair of separate semi-detached properties, but then there is a carefully worded right of way over one half of a shared driveway that is often found to be the only way access can be obtained by a vehicle to a garage located behind a house.

What you are describing where the next door property had a garage located alongside the main house does not indicate an intention by the original builder to create a shared accessway to that back garden.

If one was able see the houses in question on plans, or by looking on Google Street View that would often be the first thing to look at when trying to understand what was the original intention when the neighbouring proprieties were built.

I use https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/ to look at the earlier OS maps where the original lay-outs are often shown, as well as sometimes buying the register of title for the other house attached to the neighbouring semi. £3 is not a lot to pay before taking matters any further than research.
If you have your title plan I presume that the other houses in the road are already shown on that OS plan used by Land Registry with the black lines drawn on the plan presumable indicating the physical boundary features surveyed by Ordnance Survey.

Although not conclusive proof of where a wall or fence was located it is still evidence of what was seen by a surveyor working for OS.
pilman
 
Posts: 2861
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:08 pm

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby arborlad » Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:50 pm

liveinpeace wrote:thanks I would love to send that to their solicitor.
I am meeting with mine on Monday




How did the meet with the solicitor go?
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7518
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby liveinpeace » Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:42 pm

where did everybody go, thought I had lost my gardenlaw friends for a while there! or I had been removed for over posting.

A rather rare bout of man flu(as even I caught it) has just run through our household so we have not been able to see our solicitor, last thing I wanted was to give it him and be in his bad books. we are booked in for the end of next week, so been spending spare time getting all my evidence together.
thank you very much Arborlad for asking though
liveinpeace
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:29 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 Boundaries

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest