[Daftasabrush]

Could do with some advice if you could.

There are three plots, they share access across a piece of land.

Plot 2 owns the shared access land.

Plot 3 no longer needs to use the land (created new entrance).

Plots 1, 2 and 3 all have right of way over said piece of land.

As plot 3 no longer uses land, plot two is deciding to use land as parking, despite plot 1 using it as a turning space. Claims that as plot 3 no longer uses it, the right of way is void.

First image shows all three plots, blue hatching is the right of way, pink outline is disputed space. Second image is plot 2's plot. Third image is text in plot 1's deeds (unknown if plots 2 and 3 have same text) outlining rights.

[Watsey]

I'd say it's pretty clear : a right of way is a right of way, irrespective of whether all parties which have legal right to use the right of way are actually using it (or not).

A right of "way" is exactly that - a route to gain access/thoroughfare. Parking one of more vehicles in/on a right of way prevents access/thoroughfare and should therefore be a breach of the covenant (assuming that's how the RoW is represented in the deeds). On that basis your neighbour in Plot 2 is being a cheeky bastard.

However, the wording of the RoW does not explicitly state that each party's right to use the RoW is purely to gain access to their respective plot, although it could be assumed/interpreted that using the RoW to gain access to one's property, and only for that use, would be the only reasonable application of the right to use the RoW. On the 'reasonableness' test, you may not have a strong position to argue.

Obviously in your shoes I'd argue the first point.

BTW, I'm not qualified to provide legal advice

[Daftasabrush]

Originally Posted by Watsey

I'd say it's pretty clear : a right of way is a right of way, irrespective of whether all parties which have legal right to use the right of way are actually using it (or not).

A right of "way" is exactly that - a route to gain access/thoroughfare. Parking one of more vehicles in/on a right of way prevents access/thoroughfare and should therefore be a breach of the covenant (assuming that's how the RoW is represented in the deeds). On that basis your neighbour in Plot 2 is being a cheeky bastard.

However, the wording of the RoW does not explicitly state that each party's right to use the RoW is purely to gain access to their respective plot, although it could be assumed/interpreted that using the RoW to gain access to one's property, and only for that use, would be the only reasonable application of the right to use the RoW. On the 'reasonableness' test, you may not have a strong position to argue.

Obviously in your shoes I'd argue the first point.

BTW, I'm not qualified to provide legal advice

Exactly my view too although not sure I agree with the last point, a RoW is a RoW regardless of use. Public footpaths are RoWs over private land, you don't have to be going somewhere to use it, you could enter and leave and the RoW is still valid.

I think the kicker will be the wording of the other deeds and if there's any reference to the 'right' of way but that may be difficult to see.

[PaulT_M5]

You always used to be able to view deeds to any property at the local land registry offices. I'm not sure whether you still can, but you can definitely get them for a small fee:

https://www.gov.uk/get-information-a...opies-of-deeds

[Alscoob]

A right of way is exactly that and obviously set up at the outset to allow for vehicle movements to & fro for the 3 properties. Do you have a copy of the original planning approval, assuming it was reasonably recent as there may be conditions on that approval relating to access arrangements (to allow vehicle turning on site so that car can exit in a forward gear and not to reverse on to the highway).

Although not specifically mentioned in the RoW it would allow for turning within the site as you have a right over the land you can pass over it for what ever purpose is deemed reasonable.

The neighbours argument that No.3 doesn't use it so its void is tosh. It is still valid in perpetuity and can only be changed by a legal change to the title deeds of all properties party to the RoW.

Your neighbour at No.3 despite his own access could at will, at any time, seek to use the access, so unless a gentleman's agreement takes place whilst all 3 of you live there, the original intent must be maintained. Any new owner from No.3 (should the current person sell), could instantly use the land irrespective of any informal agreement between the 3 current occupiers.

[Cilonen]

My wife, who is a commercial property lawyer & deals with RoW and shared access daily, has been consulted - the RoW stands, and the plot owner would have to PROVE total abandonment of the RoW by ALL parties for a prolonged period before they could even think of applying to court to revoke the RoW (that is what it would take to remove it).
She believes (would have to check case law to be sure) that it would need somewhere in the region of 20 years of proven abandonment of use in order for a court to consider revoking the RoW

[R99]

Sounds like plot 2 is a clot & a nightmare neighbour type....

have you spoken to them about it?

[Daftasabrush]

Originally Posted by Alscoob

A right of way is exactly that and obviously set up at the outset to allow for vehicle movements to & fro for the 3 properties. Do you have a copy of the original planning approval, assuming it was reasonably recent as there may be conditions on that approval relating to access arrangements (to allow vehicle turning on site so that car can exit in a forward gear and not to reverse on to the highway).

Although not specifically mentioned in the RoW it would allow for turning within the site as you have a right over the land you can pass over it for what ever purpose is deemed reasonable.

The neighbours argument that No.3 doesn't use it so its void is tosh. It is still valid in perpetuity and can only be changed by a legal change to the title deeds of all properties party to the RoW.

Your neighbour at No.3 despite his own access could at will, at any time, seek to use the access, so unless a gentleman's agreement takes place whilst all 3 of you live there, the original intent must be maintained. Any new owner from No.3 (should the current person sell), could instantly use the land irrespective of any informal agreement between the 3 current occupiers.

Exactly my understanding/thoughts too, thanks.

Originally Posted by Cilonen

My wife, who is a commercial property lawyer & deals with RoW and shared access daily, has been consulted - the RoW stands, and the plot owner would have to PROVE total abandonment of the RoW by ALL parties for a prolonged period before they could even think of applying to court to revoke the RoW (that is what it would take to remove it).
She believes (would have to check case law to be sure) that it would need somewhere in the region of 20 years of proven abandonment of use in order for a court to consider revoking the RoW

Perfect, thank you, makes complete sense.

Originally Posted by R99

Sounds like plot 2 is a clot & a nightmare neighbour type....

have you spoken to them about it?

Yup spoken to them, they're adamant they're right. Never had an issue with them before, been there 29 years without any problems (they've not been there as long but still 22 years)

[JD6]

Originally Posted by Daftasabrush

been there 29 years without any problems...

No doubt the point made by Cilonen is correct.

I am going through a RoW issue currently too and in addition to the above point, if there was any doubt about your right to use specifically the pink-outlined land, given that it isn't strictly required to access your plot, the fact that you have been freely using it without challenge as a turning space for over 20 years, should create a prescriptive right, allowing you to continue permanently.

We are relying on a similar prescriptive right to continue using a neighbour's driveway which runs along side our property to access a gate. We use it occasionally to bring tractors, diggers and other vehicles into our garden and the land beyond.

One (free) way of veryifying the position is to use the legal expenses insurance which tends to be attached to buildings insurance. They will probably start you off with a legal helpline, but refer you on to a lawyer at their expense if it can't be resolved that way.