Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Postby desperate drof63 » Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:07 pm

Please have a look at this sectional scan of a Title Plan issued in 1952 and give any good reason why I, living at No.63 cannot gain entry to my rear garden because neighbours 67 71 & 75 have blocked the Passageway marked in Red. Either I just don't get it or I've horrendously missed something or... it is they that are unlawfully wrong as I think !

My thanks to anyone helpful who can enlighten me.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
desperate drof63
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:58 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: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Postby desperate drof63 » Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:15 pm

Hello again, hope you can help?

"No.71" has their RoW-by-Deed listed in the 'C Section' of their Title - The Charges Register.
Do I understand correctly that the Charges Register deals with matters that encumber the property - It deals with interests adversely affecting, and so, burdening the property ?

Why is it that No.71 has a RoW statement in their Charges Register (C-Section) - it simply states that "the Land (the Passageway) tinted blue on their filed plan is subject to Rights of Way" (Rights : plural) when some other localised properties have their RoW shown in their A-Section, The Property Register?

Is this significant ? The Owner of No.71 claims that this indicates his ownership of the Passageway Land - I think not, as the red highlight line on HMLR Plan does not appear to surround the Land that forms the Passageway, but only the building plot of 71 and its rear garden, omitting the Passageway. The Passageway is after all supposed to be shared

thanks to all
desperate drof63
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Postby desperate drof63 » Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:31 pm

Hi
another confirmation please.

I've always understood that if a RoW be blocked then a rightful user has the right to go around the blockage, so finding an alternative route.
If the PRoW is a Passageway and is blocked - Actionable Interference - and there is no alternative route, then the rightful user has the lawful right to remove the blockage being sufficiently careful not to criminally damage said blockage, say, a locked gate(s) or fencing and return it to the offender; it being that blocking a RoW is unlawful (different from illegal) ?

T.V.M Desperate
desperate drof63
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Postby arborlad » Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:42 pm

You're not helping yourself by starting multiple threads:


desperate drof63 wrote:Please have a look at this sectional scan of a Title Plan issued in 1952 and give any good reason why I, living at No.63 cannot gain entry to my rear garden because neighbours 67 71 & 75 have blocked the Passageway marked in Red. Either I just don't get it or I've horrendously missed something or... it is they that are unlawfully wrong as I think !

(The attached plan didn't survive the c+p - perhaps the OP can rectify.)

My thanks to anyone helpful who can enlighten me.



desperate drof63 wrote:Hello again, hope you can help?

"No.71" has their RoW-by-Deed listed in the 'C Section' of their Title - The Charges Register.
Do I understand correctly that the Charges Register deals with matters that encumber the property - It deals with interests adversely affecting, and so, burdening the property ?

Why is it that No.71 has a RoW statement in their Charges Register (C-Section) - it simply states that "the Land (the Passageway) tinted blue on their filed plan is subject to Rights of Way" (Rights : plural) when some other localised properties have their RoW shown in their A-Section, The Property Register?

Is this significant ? The Owner of No.71 claims that this indicates his ownership of the Passageway Land - I think not, as the red highlight line on HMLR Plan does not appear to surround the Land that forms the Passageway, but only the building plot of 71 and its rear garden, omitting the Passageway. The Passageway is after all supposed to be shared

T.V.M
arborlad

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

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Postby desperate drof63 » Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:12 pm

Yup, you expert being asked to help, me novice not really having much of a clue what to do... so I was mistaken - it happens. sorry.
Cant up load files - computer says No Permission
have you got anything useful to contribute rather than knocking me?
Only Mac has had the decency to help so far and he's gone quite, so I started a new post; no verbose waffle, clear and concise questions that someone might, just might, be interested in answering... someone wrote me "losing will to live". Yup, me too now...
I had thought I might be tapping into a world of useful information, not a world of slap-me-down. I've had years of that from the Crims next door

PLEASE help or advise
Ta
desperate drof63
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Postby desperate drof63 » Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:09 pm

trying to upload schematic... again !
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
desperate drof63
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Postby MacadamB53 » Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:30 pm

desperate drof63 wrote:Yes, Mac. On several of our Deed Copies it says "Copy in Certificate". This is shown in several of the Deed copies. My understanding of this is that we can in fact purchase an original copy from HMLR for use in Court? Can I assume this will show & confirm what I already have downloaded?

No.71 has their RoW-by-Deed listed in the 'C Section' of their Title - The Charges Register.
Do I understand correctly that the Charges Register deals with matters that encumber the property - It deals with interests adversely affecting, and so, burdening the property ?

Q? Why is it that No.71 has a RoW statement in their Charges Register (C-Section) - it simply states that "the Land (the Passageway) tinted blue on the filed plan is subject to Rights of Way" (Rights : plural)
Is this significant ? The Owner of No.71 claims that this indicates his ownership of the Passageway Land - I think not - though I do have a theory...

...and thanks Mac
Hi desperate drof63,

here’s the answers to the three questions I’ve picked out above:

1. you assume wrong - the document filed at HMLR is not the original of what you downloaded (the title plan and register entries) it’s a copy of the original document that was submitted with the application to register the property and, although it will have been used as a reference when HMLR created the title plan and title register entries, there is a significant chance it contains greater detail (hence the decision to keep a copy on file).

2. yes - the C Register contains details of the burdens...

3. the reason that statement appears in the C register for No 71 is because the original plan and conveyance details submitted for first registration for that property showed that some of the land included in that title is burdened by a RoW - this does not mean ALL the passage is part of No 71 and if none of the passage is included in the red outline on the title plan for No 71 it is almost certain that none of the passageway is part of No 71.

does this all make sense?

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

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Postby MacadamB53 » Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:32 pm

desperate drof63 wrote:Hi
another confirmation please.

I've always understood that if a RoW be blocked then a rightful user has the right to go around the blockage, so finding an alternative route.
If the PRoW is a Passageway and is blocked - Actionable Interference - and there is no alternative route, then the rightful user has the lawful right to remove the blockage being sufficiently careful not to criminally damage said blockage, say, a locked gate(s) or fencing and return it to the offender; it being that blocking a RoW is unlawful (different from illegal) ?

T.V.M Desperate
the bit in bold is wrong - you understanding is not correct
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6158
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Postby desperate drof63 » Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:17 pm

Hi Mac
Helpful, but Could you expand on why that's wrong please? Is it because it pertains to Public Rights of Way, which is where I read it...?

You see, I agree with you that its probably wrong & I suspected as much, that one cannot find an alternative route on a Private RoW. Indeed our Covenants specifically forbid it sensibly.

T.V.M
desperate drof63
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Postby MacadamB53 » Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:14 pm

Hi desperate drof63,

if a RoW is obstructed a dominant owner has a lawful right to try and remove the obstruction - without causing wilful damage.

your misunderstanding isn’t really applicable to PROWs either - a member of the public can’t veer off the road and drive over the adjacent land.

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

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Postby desperate drof63 » Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:26 pm

Yes Mac, it makes sense to me. Apologies as Ive copied enquiries into another post in an attempt to upload a Map detail for your understanding. Been told of already, but hey...

1 - I can obtain an original more detailed copy from HMLR - But I can rely on the current modern Title Map available - of which I have a copy which I'll upload - for its accuracy as its compiled from the Original Plan - correct ? (The partial Map I've loaded here is identical to those downloaded from HMLR, though better quality )

2 - Understood. Their burden is my benefit / advantage. Correct ?

3 - No.71 is at the very best the Servient Tenement should it be found they 'own' the Land that forms the Passageway. The rest of us are the Dominant Tenements. Correct ?
I doubt they own it but I'm not sure? How do I find out for sure? No one else who lived there over the years has claimed ownership - the last was in 1979 I presume ? Their Title Map is inconclusive as the red highlight we rely on to determine their boundary is vague, it appears to be obscured by the grey colouring used to highlight the RoW itself - the red does not appear to include the passageway.

The key question for me is; Does No.71 own the Land that forms the Passageway ? This has formed the basis of their argument for not allowing me access through the Passageway. I think its nonsense, ridiculous, but its not me that needs persuading, its them !

T.V.M
desperate drof63
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Postby stufe35 » Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:44 pm

I disagree , my understanding is that if your right of way is blocked due to the servient owners actions or inactions, and moving the blockage is not reasonably practical, you can divert around the blockage so long as you remain on the servient owners land. If you went on a third parties land you would obviously be trespassing.
stufe35
 
Posts: 796
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:06 pm

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Postby MacadamB53 » Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:08 am

desperate drof63 wrote:Yes Mac, it makes sense to me. Apologies as Ive copied enquiries into another post in an attempt to upload a Map detail for your understanding. Been told of already, but hey...

1 - I can obtain an original more detailed copy from HMLR - But I can rely on the current modern Title Map available - of which I have a copy which I'll upload - for its accuracy as its compiled from the Original Plan - correct ? (The partial Map I've loaded here is identical to those downloaded from HMLR, though better quality )

2 - Understood. Their burden is my benefit / advantage. Correct ?

3 - No.71 is at the very best the Servient Tenement should it be found they 'own' the Land that forms the Passageway. The rest of us are the Dominant Tenements. Correct ?
I doubt they own it but I'm not sure? How do I find out for sure? No one else who lived there over the years has claimed ownership - the last was in 1979 I presume ? Their Title Map is inconclusive as the red highlight we rely on to determine their boundary is vague, it appears to be obscured by the grey colouring used to highlight the RoW itself - the red does not appear to include the passageway.

The key question for me is; Does No.71 own the Land that forms the Passageway ? This has formed the basis of their argument for not allowing me access through the Passageway. I think its nonsense, ridiculous, but its not me that needs persuading, its them !

T.V.M


1. not quite - you can rely on the title plan to help you identify whereabouts on planet Earth the property being described in the register can be found (I assume the title plans don’t have shaded areas to indicate the RoW?)

2. not quite - something found in the C register for No 71 concerns No 71, not your property (see next answer)

3. not quite - if he owns the servient property it follows that there must be a dominant property but it doesn’t have to mean you own a dominant property (you almost certainly do, though, given the layout).

but in bold - is any of the passageway included in the red outline for No 71?

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

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Postby MacadamB53 » Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:10 am

stufe35 wrote:I disagree , my understanding is that if your right of way is blocked due to the servient owners actions or inactions, and moving the blockage is not reasonably practical, you can divert around the blockage so long as you remain on the servient owners land. If you went on a third parties land you would obviously be trespassing.
of course you can divert round, but you don’t own a right to do so - two wrongs don’t make a right
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6158
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Postby stufe35 » Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:39 am

But it would not be unlawful ? in the right circumstances.
stufe35
 
Posts: 796
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:06 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 1 guest