Vehicular ROW dispute - claim of false deeds!

Post Reply
Bellatrix LeStrange
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:29 am
Number of Posts per Page: 10

Re: Vehicular ROW dispute - claim of false deeds!

Post by Bellatrix LeStrange » Sun May 12, 2019 12:04 pm

Roblewis wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 11:07 am
We are becoming involved in a confusion between the Civil remedy for fraud and the criminal. The two are separate and issues about misrepresentation on the SPIF are not an issue necessarily. The Fraud Act is about a persons actions ie using a false plan to attempt to extinguish part of a Row in order to make a gain, whether financial or not.
Hello Rob Lewis of Halfway to Paradise

Thank you for your succinct reply regarding the 'fraud discussion'. You are spot on, it says "The offence is entirely focussed on the conduct of the defendant."

I'd say his conduct has been dishonest at best.

Bellatrix LeStrange
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:29 am
Number of Posts per Page: 10

Re: Vehicular ROW dispute - claim of false deeds!

Post by Bellatrix LeStrange » Sun May 12, 2019 12:17 pm

Anyway, Pilman and Mac are right, my focus has been diverted by the enormously satisfying thought of my neighbour being banged up for a 14 stretch... :lol: (I'm actually cracking myself up, the thought is so entertaining for me).

But, as much fun as that may be, I'll keep it to myself going forward. Let's get back to the real business at hand.

Latest update, excluding Fraud Squad, I emailed his solicitor Friday afternoon. I made them aware that I had a copy of a falsified plan, and reiterated all my previous points. I've told him the window of opportunity for negotiation is closing and gave him 7 days to grant ROW as per the deeds or offer an alternative remedy. Haven't seen sight nor sound or my neighbour since. He's probably holed up at home, expecting the Rozzers to knock at the door anytime soon :lol:

Let's see what happens in the next 7 days.

Bellatrix LeStrange
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:29 am
Number of Posts per Page: 10

Re: Vehicular ROW dispute - claim of false deeds!

Post by Bellatrix LeStrange » Mon May 20, 2019 4:36 pm

Hello, it's time for an update on the sitch.

Last week I finally received a letter from my neighbours solicitor, post their meeting with the "planning expert". The letter was two and a half pages long and apart from 3 lines dealing with the false plan, it was entirely focussed on the planning permission angle again. They haven't shared any sort of report, just told me they've had input and that this person agreed the terms of the letter. Apparently I am supposed to simply take his word for this.

In a nut shell he says that the planning permission was given based on certain drawings and that therefore "the developer did not have the power or right to lawfully grant or give the vehicular rights over such areas." He follows this by saying that "even if the areas shown by the relevant shading on the plans to each of these transfers are intended by the developers, those rights can not be enforced as a consequence of the statutory breach of the terms of the planning permission that would ensue."

Apparently my neighbour's position is that "he is not prepared to have the planted area on the land of no.4 removed so as to put himself in breach of that planning permission."

He finishes up by saying the following..."Mr Neighbour and I remain keen to resolve this matter if a mutually agreeable solution can be achieved, but any such solution must respect the the terms of the planning permission to which the site is subject. The terms of that permission do not alter or become any less enforceable simply as a result of the passage of time."

So....I've been told by my solicitor last year and people on here that the planning permission has no legal bearing. Arghhhhh...is this true? I have asked Neighbours sol for any case law refs re his position twice now and his last reply was that the onus was on me the back up my statement (that pp has no legal bearing). I'd take that as he doesn't have any to supply. Does anyone know if there are any?

Would the council have any power or even give a whatsis about the planter being removed? I can't imagine they'd give two hoots but I don't know that for sure. It's a planter on private land, how can they have any say on whether it is removed or not?

And lastly, for now, I've become aware that beneath the gravel there is a drain cover that sits flush against the wall of the planter. In fact it is so close that it looks as tho the wall of the planter is sat on top of the wall of the drain. Are there no building regs about building walls so close to drains. Could the drain position have been a reason for the developers to change their plans re the proposed landscaping? Does anyone know if you can access building regs files at the council like you can planning permission ones?

All replies welcome. All info useful. Thanks in advance chaps.
BLS

Bellatrix LeStrange
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:29 am
Number of Posts per Page: 10

Re: Vehicular ROW dispute - claim of false deeds!

Post by Bellatrix LeStrange » Mon May 20, 2019 4:42 pm

Re the false plan, my neighbour "cannot say with any certainty how it came to be in his possession. He can say with certainty that not was not created by him..." That's handy for him isn't it? He also "apologises if he has been the cause of any confusion in that respect."

Oh and he also disagrees with the point Pilman made about Mr Neighbour currently not having a legal right to park on his own property. He didn't give me any reasons as to why he disagrees, just that he does.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Getting nowhere fast.

Collaborate
Posts: 1794
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:17 am
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20

Re: Vehicular ROW dispute - claim of false deeds!

Post by Collaborate » Mon May 20, 2019 5:49 pm

PP definitely does not overide the rights of third parties over land. If that were the case then anyone wanting to obstruct someone's ROW would simply apply for PP that includes an obstruction.

This thread has gone on so long now I forget- do you have legal expenses insurance? Time for talking is almost over.

Reading between the lines he's been told by his solicitor that he hasn't got a leg to stand on, so they'll try this PP argument but it's unlikely to work.

ukmicky
Posts: 4955
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:13 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20
Location: London

Re: Vehicular ROW dispute - claim of false deeds!

Post by ukmicky » Mon May 20, 2019 11:11 pm

Collaborate wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 5:49 pm
PP definitely does not overide the rights of third parties over land. If that were the case then anyone wanting to obstruct someone's ROW would simply apply for PP that includes an obstruction



Planning permission is statutory law which is superior to common law and whilst PP cant grant permission for someone to come onto your land and dig it up or develop it if they have no rights of ownership, it can prevent third party rights such as easements from being exercised if the grant of the easement required the breech of a planning condition imposed as part of the planning application .

In such circumstances the granter of the easement misrepresented the sale of the land with the easement and the only redress the dominant tenement owner would have would be to sue the granter for that misrepresentation.

You can’t bypass a planning condition by granting third party rights over the land . If you do the planning permission and any attached conditions will win every time.




However the neighbour is probably bullshitting you on this one because unless it was a planning condition saying that the planting area had to be there ,it didn't or doesn’t have to be there. And the chances of this being a planning condition are very slim indeed and would require the neighbour to of somehow got a copy of the planning application from 40 years ago ,which we know he hasn’t got .

There are many things that maybe drawn onto plans ,like a flower bed ,a garden pathway etc but unless the placement of those things was a requirement of the planning permission as a condition required for the planning application to gain consent they don’t have to be put there.
Any information provided is not legal advice and you are advised to gain a professional opinion

Collaborate
Posts: 1794
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:17 am
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20

Re: Vehicular ROW dispute - claim of false deeds!

Post by Collaborate » Tue May 21, 2019 7:34 am

ukmicky wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 11:11 pm
Collaborate wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 5:49 pm
PP definitely does not overide the rights of third parties over land. If that were the case then anyone wanting to obstruct someone's ROW would simply apply for PP that includes an obstruction



Planning permission is statutory law which is superior to common law and whilst PP cant grant permission for someone to come onto your land and dig it up or develop it if they have no rights of ownership, it can prevent third party rights such as easements from being exercised if the grant of the easement required the breech of a planning condition imposed as part of the planning application .

I'm not sure you intended to write this. It is demonstrably wrong.

When developing land you require authority from the state (A)

You also need to have an interest in the land (B)

These are two separate and distinct things.

If someone has rights over another's land, say a right of way, let's assume that there is already A (authority from the state to use the land in that particular way) in place.

If the servient owner then acquires PP for a development that involves erection of a boundary feature that blocks the ROW, that does not give the servient owner the right, as against the dominant owner, to erect that boundary feature. If the servient owner tries to defend an action brought by the dominant owner by pleading PP for the boundary feature they will lose.

Bellatrix LeStrange
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:29 am
Number of Posts per Page: 10

Re: Vehicular ROW dispute - claim of false deeds!

Post by Bellatrix LeStrange » Tue May 21, 2019 1:08 pm

Collaborate wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 5:49 pm
PP definitely does not overide the rights of third parties over land. If that were the case then anyone wanting to obstruct someone's ROW would simply apply for PP that includes an obstruction.

This thread has gone on so long now I forget- do you have legal expenses insurance? Time for talking is almost over.

Reading between the lines he's been told by his solicitor that he hasn't got a leg to stand on, so they'll try this PP argument but it's unlikely to work.
Hello Collaborate, thank you for your comment.

Question, what if the PP comes before the ROW was granted as in my case?
I don't have legal expenses cover, or I didn't when the dispute started. I do now but I don't think it will cover a dispute already in progress.

Collaborate
Posts: 1794
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:17 am
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20

Re: Vehicular ROW dispute - claim of false deeds!

Post by Collaborate » Tue May 21, 2019 1:40 pm

Bellatrix LeStrange wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 1:08 pm

Question, what if the PP comes before the ROW was granted as in my case?
I don't have legal expenses cover, or I didn't when the dispute started. I do now but I don't think it will cover a dispute already in progress.
The question then will turn on what the intention of the parties was when the original ROW was granted.

Bellatrix LeStrange
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:29 am
Number of Posts per Page: 10

Re: Vehicular ROW dispute - claim of false deeds!

Post by Bellatrix LeStrange » Tue May 21, 2019 1:40 pm

ukmicky wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 11:11 pm
Collaborate wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 5:49 pm
PP definitely does not overide the rights of third parties over land. If that were the case then anyone wanting to obstruct someone's ROW would simply apply for PP that includes an obstruction



Planning permission is statutory law which is superior to common law and whilst PP cant grant permission for someone to come onto your land and dig it up or develop it if they have no rights of ownership, it can prevent third party rights such as easements from being exercised if the grant of the easement required the breech of a planning condition imposed as part of the planning application .

In such circumstances the granter of the easement misrepresented the sale of the land with the easement and the only redress the dominant tenement owner would have would be to sue the granter for that misrepresentation.

You can’t bypass a planning condition by granting third party rights over the land . If you do the planning permission and any attached conditions will win every time.




However the neighbour is probably bullshitting you on this one because unless it was a planning condition saying that the planting area had to be there ,it didn't or doesn’t have to be there. And the chances of this being a planning condition are very slim indeed and would require the neighbour to of somehow got a copy of the planning application from 40 years ago ,which we know he hasn’t got .

There are many things that maybe drawn onto plans ,like a flower bed ,a garden pathway etc but unless the placement of those things was a requirement of the planning permission as a condition required for the planning application to gain consent they don’t have to be put there.
Hey UKmicky. Thanks for posting your comments.

My questions would be what exactly is deemed as the terms of the planning permission? The only condition attached to the planning permission regarding landscaping is no.14 see below.
IMG_5966.jpeg

It does talk about landscaping but the detailed plans is says are required within 3 years do not exist at the council so I have assumed, maybe incorrectly, that these were never supplied, and therefore the landscaping was not implemented per plan. None of it exists per plan. Also, and I think importantly, there is no mention that this is all required because of the parking/entry & exit/flow of traffic/safety. The only reason given is about the appearance etc.

I have pointed this out to neighbours sol before, so this time he says he is not referring to the conditions when he talks about the terms of the PP, hence my initial question. Basically what he is saying is that...

"...condition 14 merely set out the mechanism for how the local authority was to be notified of/approve how those areas were to be planted. Condition 14 does not relate to the size or position of those planted areas. The planning decision by its reference to that plan does that."

So. Does he have a point or is it bullshit. Surely if the council were that concerned about the parking and entry/exit scheme it would be a part of the conditions? Apparently no.3 (me) is in breach of the planning permission for not having the planted areas on the approved plans. Personally I think he's full of crap. But I'm not a legal professional, obvs.

BTW we both have copies of the planning permission docs, obtained from the council.

What do you think in light of the above?
Thanks BLS
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Bellatrix LeStrange
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:29 am
Number of Posts per Page: 10

Re: Vehicular ROW dispute - claim of false deeds!

Post by Bellatrix LeStrange » Tue May 21, 2019 1:45 pm

Collaborate wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 5:49 pm

Time for talking is almost over.

Reading between the lines he's been told by his solicitor that he hasn't got a leg to stand on, so they'll try this PP argument but it's unlikely to work.
I think this too Collaborate. Thanks.

Bellatrix LeStrange
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:29 am
Number of Posts per Page: 10

Re: Vehicular ROW dispute - claim of false deeds!

Post by Bellatrix LeStrange » Tue May 21, 2019 1:57 pm

Collaborate wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 1:40 pm
Bellatrix LeStrange wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 1:08 pm

Question, what if the PP comes before the ROW was granted as in my case?
I don't have legal expenses cover, or I didn't when the dispute started. I do now but I don't think it will cover a dispute already in progress.
The question then will turn on what the intention of the parties was when the original ROW was granted.
Thank you Collaborate.
And by parties, you are talking about the developers themselves, not anyone at the council, yes?
And by intentions of those parties, we take the easement itself to be the intention, yes?
So we are back to PP being irrelevant, unless there is a specific condition attached that states that the landscaping must actively prevent round building access...I think...?

pilman
Posts: 2995
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:08 pm

Re: Vehicular ROW dispute - claim of false deeds!

Post by pilman » Tue May 21, 2019 2:53 pm

Planning permission is statutory law which is superior to common law and whilst PP cant grant permission for someone to come onto your land and dig it up or develop it if they have no rights of ownership, it can prevent third party rights such as easements from being exercised if the grant of the easement required the breech of a planning condition imposed as part of the planning application .
This previous post was completely wrong.

It is necessary to compare the different requirements of the Law of Property Act 1925, the Land Registration Act 1925 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, as amended by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

All of which are examples of Statutory Law rather than having anything to do with Common Law.

The person who owned the freehold estate in the The Old School registered that legal estate with Land Registry as required by Section 123 Land Registration Act 1925.

Land Registry issued a title number that related to all the land in that title as it was identified on a title plan using a current version of the Ordnance Survey map available in 1984.

The owner of the legal estate had already made a planning application as required by the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

That successful application has sought to divide an original building used as a school into four separate dwellings, which is what the developer who became the new owner of the legal estate went on to complete.

The planning permission was granted for this development by the Local Planning Authority acting under the power granted by the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

When the school had successfully been divided into four separate dwellings, the owner of the registered title sold off parts of that title to four separate individuals, as he was entitled to under Section 52 Law of Property Act 1925 as long as he executed each transfer using a deed.

Each new owner of a legal estate was compelled to register a new title under Section 123 Land Registration Act 1925.

The first time the owner of the original legal estate transferred one of the newly created dwellings occurred when No. 3 was transferred on 18th January 1985. That Transfer Deed included two separate properties as defined in Section 1 Law of Property Act 1925.

It transferred the legal estate in the land identified on the transfer plan and it transferred a legal interest over the retained land, which showed the position of the right of way that was located entirely on the land retained by the Transferor when the transfer was executed on 18th January 1985.

That is an absolute fact of law as defined by Section 1 Law of Property Act 1925.

That this was the intention of the Transferor was confirmed when successive transfers of the other parts of the original title were completed over the next two months.

Each of the other dwellings at 1, 2 and 4 The Old School had a reservation included into each Transfer Deed that set out the fact that No.3 had been granted a right of way with or without vehicles over the identified part of land subsequently being transferred.

Where or not the Developer chose to ignore the conditions imposed by the LPA when it granted planning permission had no effect on the property included in the transfer for each of the dwellings, whether that transfer deed imposed a legal burden on each property that was transferred after No. 3 had been transferred.

Why a solicitor acting for the owner of No.4 had sought an opinion from a "planning expert" makes no sense whatsoever when matters of property are concerned.
That this solicitor then sets out in writing what is absolute nonsense when matters regarding planning law are stated to have precedence to matters regarding property law, is an example of what is know as "bullshit baffles brains"

It seems that this is a classic example of when a few untruths and misrepresentation are purported to be a statement of the law.

There is no way that planning law can ever have precedence over property law, which has existed in its present form since 1925, when fundamental changes were made to earlier enactments relating to how property matters were to be dealt with.

The Law of Property Act 1925 remains the current law in England and Wales, which is why the concept that planning law can override a statute with over 94 years of legal authority behind it is complete and utter nonsense.

A legally granted right of way cannot be extinguished by any section of the Town and Country Planning Act, which was first enacted by Parliament in 1948 and last amended in 1990.

ukmicky
Posts: 4955
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:13 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20
Location: London

Re: Vehicular ROW dispute - claim of false deeds!

Post by ukmicky » Tue May 21, 2019 10:09 pm

Wow , seriously .

I apply for planning permission to build 4 bungalows. Consent is given but a condition is attached requiring a wall to be built to the side of one of the bungalows.

I build the bungalows and and sell them but also grant an access easement that runs directly through the wall which would require removal of the wall which would then cause a breech of the condition.


Are you seriously telling me the easement takes precedence over the planning condition. Seriously

Without compliance of the planning condition the development is unlawful . A planning condition cannot be bypassed by the granting an easement right.

As far as I am aware the granting of any easement right in this case came after the granting of planning permission to build to houses . And if so If the planning permission had a condition that certain features had to be built to make the development lawful they had to be built . And in such circumstances the developer then would not be in a position to grant a legal easement due to features on the ground that had to be there prior to the granting of the easement if it required the removal of the feature. So planning permission and any conditions do take precedence over the granting of an easement.

Bellatrix

What came first the planning permission or the granting of the easement. As it was a house conversion I think I’m safe to assume the planning came first.
Last edited by ukmicky on Tue May 21, 2019 11:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Any information provided is not legal advice and you are advised to gain a professional opinion

ukmicky
Posts: 4955
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:13 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20
Location: London

Re: Vehicular ROW dispute - claim of false deeds!

Post by ukmicky » Tue May 21, 2019 10:50 pm

A legally granted right of way cannot be extinguished by any section of the Town and Country Planning Act, which was first enacted by Parliament in 1948 and last amended in 1990
Did I say extinguish.

No I didn’t say planning permission can extinguish an easement right.. but it can prevent an easement from being legally granted when the planning condition and it’s compliance came before the granting of the easement right.
Any information provided is not legal advice and you are advised to gain a professional opinion

Post Reply