Access rights with complications...

arborlad
Posts: 7831
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Access rights with complications...

Post by arborlad » Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:21 am

StaffordshireBlue wrote:Hello ArborLad - what do you think the advantages of keypads vs keys are? Not thought about one being better than the other so I'd be interested to know your thinking.


The most obvious advantage is the absence of any expensive keys, I've generally found that 'non copyable' is a misnomer and usually means it can be copied - but at greater expense. Where there are multiple legitimate users, the (usually) four digit code can be set by yourself and conveyed to those who require it at minimal or no expense to yourself.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people

arborlad
Posts: 7831
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Access rights with complications...

Post by arborlad » Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:28 am

jonahinoz wrote: As they erected it on your land, it immediately became your gate, I believe there is a Latin term to cover that. Anybody?


John W


This: It's a basic tenet of land law: Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit , "whatever is affixed to the soil belongs to the soil"............if you own the fence you own the land - if you own the land you own the fence.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people

Collaborate
Posts: 1502
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:17 am
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20

Re: Access rights with complications...

Post by Collaborate » Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:01 pm

if you own the fence you own the land - if you own the land you own the fence.
It doesn't work both ways round. In fact both propositions defeat the other.

The rule works so that whoever owns the land owns whatever is built on it. So when the land is sold whatever is built on it is sold as well.

If you own a fence, and build it on someone's land, you don't thereby own the land it stands on.

arborlad
Posts: 7831
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Access rights with complications...

Post by arborlad » Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:28 pm

Collaborate wrote:
if you own the fence you own the land - if you own the land you own the fence.
It doesn't work both ways round. In fact both propositions defeat the other.

The rule works so that whoever owns the land owns whatever is built on it. So when the land is sold whatever is built on it is sold as well.

If you own a fence, and build it on someone's land, you don't thereby own the land it stands on.


Not again :roll: https://www.gardenlaw.co.uk/phpBB2/view ... =6&t=20320

Are you ntdwm :?:
arborlad

smile...it confuses people

Collaborate
Posts: 1502
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:17 am
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20

Re: Access rights with complications...

Post by Collaborate » Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:41 am

arborlad wrote: Are you ntdwm :?:
You've never quite got over her have you?

http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Land/Fixtur ... attels.php

arborlad
Posts: 7831
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Access rights with complications...

Post by arborlad » Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:43 am

Collaborate wrote:
arborlad wrote: Are you ntdwm :?:
You've never quite got over her have you?


Well, I'm here and she's not - make of that what you will. Any further discussion would be best continued on a separate thread!
arborlad

smile...it confuses people

Collaborate
Posts: 1502
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:17 am
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20

Re: Access rights with complications...

Post by Collaborate » Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:18 pm

arborlad wrote:
Collaborate wrote:
arborlad wrote: Are you ntdwm :?:
You've never quite got over her have you?


Well, I'm here and she's not - make of that what you will. Any further discussion would be best continued on a separate thread!
My final comment on this thread - She's probably not thinking about you...

StaffordshireBlue
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:20 am

Re: Access rights with complications...

Post by StaffordshireBlue » Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:34 am

I confess I don't understand the most recent posts!

However, thanks to this, and the beauty of Google (other search engines are available) I think I can summarise my legal position as this:

In Re Ellenborough Park, [1956] Evershed confirmed four things must be present in order for an easement to exist:
  • there must be a dominant and servient tenement;
    an easement must "accommodate" the dominant tenant (the use of the land in question must be "connected" to the use of the dominant land;
    the dominant and servient owners must be different people; and
    the right must be capable of being the subject matter of a grant*.
*this is because easements cannot be passed by possession, because they do not physically exist – they can only pass through grants
*the right must be a "right of utility and benefit", and not merely for recreation or amusement

(http://casebrief.wikia.com/wiki/Re_Ellenborough_Park)

Properties that derive no utility or benefit from the alleyway (as they cannot use the alley-way to enter and exit the properties) do not meet the conditions necessary to be the subject matter of a grant. For this reason an easement (prescriptive or otherwise) cannot be granted.

In our situation, it is the installation of the gates in the boundary fences of the B-properties that changes the position from 'recreation and amusement' (i.e. the ability to merely walk up and down the alley-way) to one of 'utility and benefit' (i.e. the ability to use the alley-way to enter and exit the properties). Therefore it is the date of the installation of the boundary gates (not the gate that we own) that determines whether the properties can claim a prescriptive easement.

Thanks for all your comments and help.

MacadamB53
Posts: 6357
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:13 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 100
Number of topics per page: 50

Re: Access rights with complications...

Post by MacadamB53 » Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:00 am

Hi SB,

you understand the situation perfect.

kind regards, Mac

arborlad
Posts: 7831
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Access rights with complications...

Post by arborlad » Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:30 am

StaffordshireBlue wrote:I'm sure the gates were put in by the individual occupiers. Naturally the sticking point is when. I did try and wheedle this out of one company who I know put in one gate... But although the timeline seemed to be in my favour I wasn't able to confirm that there hadn't been a gate there before.

Can you carbon date fencing?!

SB


Some photos might help.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people

arborlad
Posts: 7831
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Access rights with complications...

Post by arborlad » Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:22 am

StaffordshireBlue wrote:I confess I don't understand the most recent posts!


This: Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit , "whatever is affixed to the soil belongs to the soil"..........
is an absolute and can be relied upon, it was quoted on another thread where the ownership of a fence was in question, it's effect - and even its existence, was unsuccessfully challenged.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people

StaffordshireBlue
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:20 am

Re: Access rights with complications...

Post by StaffordshireBlue » Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:36 pm

Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit
I understand.

It was the discussion between you and Collaborate about ntdwm I was lost on...!

arborlad
Posts: 7831
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Access rights with complications...

Post by arborlad » Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:58 pm

StaffordshireBlue wrote:
Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit
I understand.

It was the discussion between you and Collaborate about ntdwm I was lost on...!

Which is why I posted this:

arborlad wrote: Any further discussion would be best continued on a separate thread!
arborlad

smile...it confuses people

pilman
Posts: 2919
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:08 pm

Re: Access rights with complications...

Post by pilman » Sun Feb 11, 2018 1:40 pm

I take this thread as clear evidence that something offered in "good will" turns out to be more trouble than it's worth.

The simple answer is to treat your land as an owner would.

Write to each occupier of the B houses and confirm in writing that you will no longer tolerate their use of your land. Any previous permission granted is now withdrawn.

Then when you erect a new gate that you consider more suitable for your needs, you will need to come to an agreement with the two owners of property A.

If you can agree to share costs with the A owners, then erect a chain link fence parallel to the boundaries of the B houses.

That extra cost will then stop all future use of the right of way by unauthorised users.

Using a coded lock will also allow the owners of A to inform their visitors of that code if the right of way needs to be used by someone authorised by an individual owner to come to the back door of one of the two houses that have a lawful right of way.

Post Reply