- Posts: 8407
- Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
- Location: Hertfordshire
Collaborate wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 26, 2018 6:57 pm
I don't think OP's mother-in-law's property will be involved in the sale of any new ROW - MrD would not need to enter the path immediately behind her property.
That does seem a logical conclusion to draw from what we know but I don't think we know enough for any degree of certainty.
D does seem to have gone to expense and trespass to place the concrete, but we don't know what standard it was laid to.
smile...it confuses people
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2014 6:28 am
It's my understanding that even legitimate users of ROWs aren't allowed to change the surface to be of a different description - so even one of the 3 houses legitimately using the ROW couldnt have changed the surface from cobblestones to concrete without consent from the other two.
I'd have fired off a solicitor letter to him from all 3 of you telling him to reinstate the surface the second he swopped it.
NB; I certainly agree with blocking his illicit access - eg with a fence. In fact I'd be inclined to block it with a fence, rather than a wall. Something rather more difficult to remove.
Apologies for not giving exact personal details in my posts - you never know who is reading....