Back again

[kipper]

The only reason I can't provide a copy of the Land registry map is that I haven't yet worked out how to copy it in small enough KB resolution, but I haven't deviated from the original except that I am a naff artist

Upload it to an image hosting site like photobucket or imageshack then paste the forum code you are given into a reply on here.

[Jerseymum]

[URL=http://s981.photobucket.com/user/s ... .jpg[/img][/url]

Our house is outlined in red on Mill Bank. Our parcel of garden land is the red box behind 32's garden which we access over 36's garden. The deed then says that the ROW continues over 36's land to the garden path at the rear of said property as a means of maintaining the rear of the property. One of no. 30's arguments is that the communal pathway hasn't been used for a long time, but I would counter that it couldn't be used because he/his predecessor blocked it off 'for security' this closing the ROW cutting the rear of 36, 34 and 32 off from any maintenance access. All sewers for these houses are at the rear of the properties and there is a telephone pole on the path roughly where no's 32 and 36's boundary meet by the path.
Does that make it any clearer?

also, thanks for the photobucket tip: if I'd had any sleep these last three months, I might have thought about that.

[Jerseymum]

[URL=http://s981.photobucket.com/user/s ... .jpg[/img][/url]
This is 28's land: the bit in green was the parking space and associated ROW to the road sold to no. 30

[Jerseymum]

[URL=http://s981.photobucket.com/user/s ... .jpg[/img][/url]
this is no. 32's land. She wants the path to be used so that workmen can access her land at the rear.

[Jerseymum]

This is no. 30's property: he has fenced across the pathway.

[Jerseymum]

This is the hand drawn map from when the land 32-36 was split three ways in the 1960s

[Jerseymum]

Just got some information that is at least moving things forward. Thanks for the help.