Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

ukmicky
Posts: 4725
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:13 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20
Location: London

Re: RoW shown in C-Section - Why?

Post by ukmicky » Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:17 am

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
You property register contains any rights which benefit your land. Your charges register notes burdens over your land. So if your land has an express easement in the form of a right of way over a neighbours land it will be noted in your property register as a benefit ,it will not be in their property register as they own the land you have a right of way over and as they own the land you have a right of way over and are burdened by it , it will be noted in their charges register.

This land may have shared use in respect to a ROW but it will be owned by the person who has it in their charges register . If you have a right of way over their land you can only use it to get to and from your property on foot or by vehicles if allowed under the terms of your easement. The actual owner of the land will be able to use their land to a far greater degree providing they do not substantially prevent your use of your right of way.
Advice given is not legally qualified and you are advised to gain a professional opinion

MacadamB53
Posts: 6338
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:13 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 100
Number of topics per page: 50

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Post by MacadamB53 » Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:11 am

stufe35 wrote:But it would not be unlawful ? in the right circumstances.
in which circumstances are you suggesting veering off land you own an interest in onto land you don’t would be lawful? if you don’t own this other land, or own an interest in it then how on earth do you know who does at the time you veer on to it?

kind regards, Mac

stufe35
Posts: 811
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:06 pm

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Post by stufe35 » Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:31 am

The circumstances I have in mind are where you have a right of way through the middle of your neighbours property, they own the land either side of the right of way, and they deliberately block your legitimate right of way in an attempt to prevent perfect legal and reasonable movements to and from your property. I find myself needing to exit my property to take my daughter to her A level exam , I come across an obstruction deliberately placed by my neighbour. I contact him , tell him he has 5 minutes to shift it , I phone the police, they don't arrive,(as I have built in 15 mins spare time to ensure I get my daughter to her exam)...if he doesn't I do the minimum necessary to get off my property eg. move the obstruction or divert on to other land belonging to him...my actions are reasonable ..his are unreasonable...I have done nothing that a court would find is unlawful. ?

arborlad
Posts: 7777
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Post by arborlad » Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:31 am

arborlad

smile...it confuses people

MacadamB53
Posts: 6338
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:13 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 100
Number of topics per page: 50

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Post by MacadamB53 » Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:06 am

stufe35 wrote:The circumstances I have in mind are where you have a right of way through the middle of your neighbours property, they own the land either side of the right of way, and they deliberately block your legitimate right of way in an attempt to prevent perfect legal and reasonable movements to and from your property. I find myself needing to exit my property to take my daughter to her A level exam , I come across an obstruction deliberately placed by my neighbour. I contact him , tell him he has 5 minutes to shift it , I phone the police, they don't arrive,(as I have built in 15 mins spare time to ensure I get my daughter to her exam)...if he doesn't I do the minimum necessary to get off my property eg. move the obstruction or divert on to other land belonging to him...my actions are reasonable ..his are unreasonable...I have done nothing that a court would find is unlawful. ?
how would you know the bit in bold?

stufe35
Posts: 811
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:06 pm

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Post by stufe35 » Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:48 am

In my case I know what each of my neighbours own, the extent of the land connected to their houses is fairly obvious. But I guess your right he could have sold a portion of his garden off the day before I diverted across it and I wouldn't necessarily know.

ukmicky
Posts: 4725
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:13 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20
Location: London

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Post by ukmicky » Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:22 am

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


Not all land that falls under a title has to be edged in red , it can also be identified as being part of the title by colour tinting on the title plan and references to it in the register of title..
Advice given is not legally qualified and you are advised to gain a professional opinion

arborlad
Posts: 7777
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Post by arborlad » Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:03 am

desperate drof63 wrote:trying to upload schematic... again !


Thanks for uploading the plan, makes the understanding so much easier. Not all easements are fully documented, sometimes it's the age and layout of the properties that is the evidence, I don't think there can be any doubt what the original intention of the developer was - all the properties have a ROW over that alleyway.

With the fence at the rear of 67, only yourself and 65 are affected by it, how has 65 dealt with it?

With the 'bolted panel' between 71 &73, there are ten, possibly eleven, affected, how are the rest dealing with it?
arborlad

smile...it confuses people

desperate drof63
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:58 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 10
Number of topics per page: 1

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Post by desperate drof63 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:50 pm

Now thatis interesting arborlad for some of the wrong reasons! I've always been led to believe that the Red Highlight is essentially the be-all-and -end-all to a property's demarcation on the Title Map - you say this is not necessarily so ! Hmmm... have I been labouring under a misapprehension ? You see this nugget of gen is the sort of thing I'm seeking as it has ramifications for my case here.

I am going to upload a schematic of No.71's Title Map - I assure you their Map is similar to all others, including mine, but with slight additions, such as the shading in grey of the alleyway which appears to be attached to No71, but not contained within it - hence the confusion and their insistence of ownership. The alleyway does not appear to be highlighted in red though.

I obviously agree that all the properties benefit from a historical, Implied RoW over the land that forms the alleyway. Its logical, surely? ...and legal, probably ?

No one else 'deals' with this problem sadly - literally no one and nothing. Not their problem - don't want to get involved - nothing to do with me... Some of the properties don't even have gates with which to enter the alley so this antithipy only serves the protagonists cause. In the 21 years we've been here I have only seen one other person actually use the alley (other than me) and he is one of the Protagonists from No.75 - and he used to use the alleyway as his personal depository for all sorts of noxious chemicals and junk, and the ginnel for his personal store of junk wood and a dilapidated old bike.

With the Ginnel and passage being locked and blocked at both ends from the inside, the only users are that of No71 & No.75 the Perpetrators of this current conflict. I don't know of No.73 but I assume they can? I was told in writing that should I need to use the Passage, that I should ask their permission preferably in writing. I told them that I don't need their permission because it is, and, I have, a Right of Way over that Passage - they then doubled the bolts on the new gate and changed the lock to the gate that enters the main road - I used to have a key for this gate, you see. They told me the key belonged to them and demanded its return - I refused because it was rightly given to me many years ago for the purpose of unlocking and gaining lawful entry to the RoW that serves our property... by the then owner of... yup, No.71 !!
I don't know of any other resident having a keys for these gates - I think they don't else some one would have said so me thinks

The 30 year owner of No.65 doesn't use the Alley at all as shes quite old though she has a small dilapidated, useless gate there never locked - so physically this business does not affect her. When she had her fencing renewed they brought it through the house!

I have since removed the fencing from blocking the Alley to the rear of No.67. I literally lifted the fence panels & posts out of the ground, all still attached, and "gave" them back to No.67 still in one piece. There! Alley unblocked ! And yes, it was as though I had opened the Gates of Hades as they descended upon me like a posse of screeching Banshees - Police as well. Ahh, what a larf we had that day...

I did warn them what I was going to do (finally, after 3 years) and I did it. I exercised my lawful right to remove the barriers unlawfully and maliciously blocking, the, my RoW. I also lawfully removed the new gate they had installed to prevent access to the Passage and Ginnel - this lasted a week before they re-installed it. I removed it again. They re-installed it...

So no one but the Perpetrator & the Protagonist can use the alley ect without their express permission, and I am denied absolutely... or so they think...!

desperate drof63
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:58 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 10
Number of topics per page: 1

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Post by desperate drof63 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:52 pm

"antipathy

desperate drof63
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:58 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 10
Number of topics per page: 1

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Post by desperate drof63 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:31 pm

ukmicky wrote:
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
Not all land that falls under a title has to be edged in red , it can also be identified as being part of the title by colour tinting on the title plan and references to it in the register of title..
Thanking ukmicky - getting my posts slightly mixed up but- interesting gen as I didn't know this. No.71 may well own the Ginnel and Passageway though they haven't managed to prove this. I have said that the Red Highlight on their Map is ambiguous. They cant do anything with this land as it is "Subject to Rights of Way" (plural). So even if they do have Ownership beyond that of mere Legal Interest, they are the Servient Tenement because that land, their land, is burdened with the Dominant Tenement Rights of Way (on Foot). It stands then, that they MUST not hinder or deny access over this land to us lawful 'users' - this will naturally include not blocking and bolting gates at either end causing Actionable Interference. It may be their land, if this proves to be the case in due course, but they cannot do with it anything they wish - because others have a Legal Interest in the land?

ukmicky
Posts: 4725
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:13 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20
Location: London

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Post by ukmicky » Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:02 am

The legal term is substantial interference. The servient owner of the land can’t substantially interfere you the dominant tenements right of access but they can do a lot of things that will not amount to substantial interference .

They can’t block it and prevent your use by making you remove obstructions but they can place a gate with a bolt at either end and make you open it every time you need to pass through. There is plenty of case law that have ruled on the issue of gates . They can’t make you close it but they can make you open it. They can also place items on the ROW provided you can still pass by the obstruction even it that means you have to alter you path . They can even occasional block for a few minutes . The dominant tenament rights only go as far as access and the law says you are not entitled to use every inch of the right of way all of the time in order to get to and from your property.
Advice given is not legally qualified and you are advised to gain a professional opinion

desperate drof63
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:58 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 10
Number of topics per page: 1

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Post by desperate drof63 » Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:46 pm

My reference is a document outside of this forum by Christopher Cant, Barrister, downloaded from internet titled "Actionable Interference" - Substantial Interference is quoted within also. I think I understand enough of this to judge whether these people are substantially interfering with my rights - and they are.

They are maliciously blocking the Passageway to prevent my use, and only my use. But of course in doing so they prevent anybody else from using also.
They are not blocking by putting movable obstacles, else I would've done so as I have before and moved the stuff. funnily enough, the guy who used to block the passage was not the 'owner' and he doesn't live at No.71 - he is the main Protagonist who lives at No.75 They have even tried to scare me off by instigating Trespass litigation a year ago. I don't know what they think they were doing but I had some quite ridiculous letters from their Solicitor who seemed to have no knowledge of land law - certainly less than you contributer's here ! Strangely enough there was no discernable evidence. They didn't even send a copy of their Deeds and Map - the fundamental basis for any RoW argument I would've thought ?

I have no issue with gates being installed for the right reasons - minimal security - but not for the current purpose which is solely to deny me. As I say, I used to have a key for the old gate, had so for 15 years or so I guess - right up until they changed the locks this summer and I had no issue opening, using, and even closing it after me all this time - its just not a problem. I don't even mind if they put "some stuff" in the passage occasionally so long as I can get passed. And I don't really mind the passage being blocked for good reasons occasionally - hey, that's life, not the end of the World.

What I do object to is being totally denied any access for any reason, at any time. They are not going to take these gates down or unlock them or give me a set of keys. This is unlawful I read from mr.sheen - so what am I to do ukmicky ??

desperate drof63
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:58 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 10
Number of topics per page: 1

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Post by desperate drof63 » Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:53 pm

P.S.
I only want access as before, nothing else. I want the use of this footpath so I can walk freely to and from my property as and when I choose, carrying what I can reasonably manage, or with a barrow ect... you get the idea!

ukmicky
Posts: 4725
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:13 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20
Location: London

Re: Stabbed in the Head by NFH over Blocked ROW

Post by ukmicky » Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:30 pm

They can’t lock the gate
Advice given is not legally qualified and you are advised to gain a professional opinion

Post Reply