Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Right to park and solicitors legal "explanation"

Land, Registered Land, Planning law etc.

Re: Right to park and solicitors legal "explanation"

Postby miner » Mon Aug 15, 2016 10:50 pm

atticus wrote:
But, as dls says, be wary of getting into a big neighbour dispute.


Yes, but this needs nipping in the bud with a polite but unequivocal "go forth and multiply" type of response to the solicitors without delay, along the lines suggested by TCDT.

Given the information before us, I'm rather surprised that the solicitors acted in the way they have, instead of telling their client not to be such a prat trying to pursue this.
miner
 
Posts: 2341
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:22 am

Re: Right to park and solicitors legal "explanation"

Postby Horticgirl » Tue Aug 16, 2016 7:30 am

Thank you all for your input.
I will just try to cover some of the points raised.

The right of way is very simply worded. I can dig it out later but I know it's very much along the lines of pass and repass for all purposes, and nothing more. As atticus suggested it is the means of accessing his plot from the highway and is perhaps the first 15 metres of our narrow drive. Later in the conveyance document there is a reference to us having an obligation to maintain the drive, and the neighbour has to contribute half of the cost (he's making a fuss about this too in an equally ridiculous way as all we've proposed is a dumpy bag of gravel - the first for about 10 years).

Also, yes atticus, they have in effect restricted the size of vehicle that can get onto their plot and therefore that can use the drive. In practice that's not a problem as it's easy enough to pull up on the road and drivers of most largish vehicles would choose that anyway as the whole access is quite difficult to negotiate.

As for persuading his solicitors to pursue this , he is just the sort of person who will do that. We have had problems with him for 10 years now. What may surprise you is that his house is for sale, and yet he has raised this issue for the first time now. (Hoping to tell prospective purchasers that it's ok to stop and unload perhaps?) It is the "right" that we would want to prevent. Normally of course we would permit something occasionally, just as we did when he first moved in and relations were amicable, but a right could and no doubt would be pushed to its limits, particularly if the house becomes a holiday let.


I will draft a letter as suggested by miner. Any helpful wording would be welcome. Do I give my reasons or just say that we reject their assertion?
Horticgirl
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:41 pm

Re: Right to park and solicitors legal "explanation"

Postby atticus » Tue Aug 16, 2016 8:02 am

You word it in a way tha advances things and does not have them going to court for an injunction.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19712
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Right to park and solicitors legal "explanation"

Postby shootist » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:19 am

With regards to the solicitor's letter, there can come a point where the only rational response goes along the lines of "Thank you for your letter dated xxxxxx, the contents of which have been noted." I am witness to such an argument that has been keeping solicitors in funds for over 10 years because both side want to argue and 'win' any issue raised, instead of the polite thank you letter approach. It takes two to argue.

There can be some joy in knowing that every letter the solicitor writes at the behest of the other party has to be paid for by them and replying in a manner that offers nothing but perhaps invites a reply is a fun way of spending their money, but it only goes so far. Sooner or later you reach a point where they should be invited to excrete or get off the pot. If you have satisfied yourself that they have no case worth their effort then I would suggest the above response will be adequate. And whenever you see your neighbours be sure to smile, wave and be utterly polite and charming to them at all times. That is guaranteed to piss them off more than anything.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3540
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Right to park and solicitors legal "explanation"

Postby atticus » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:34 am

If solicitors have really been exchanging letters for 10 years, then it casts strong doubt on the intention of the possible claimant to start any court action. I would question the wisdom of continuing to reply.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19712
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Right to park and solicitors legal "explanation"

Postby Horticgirl » Tue Aug 16, 2016 12:42 pm

I have now found an old estate agents details of the neighbours property. It describes it as having space to park two vehicles. That would seem to me to be evidence that when the right of way was granted there was ample space to unload even a largish vehicle on their own land.
Horticgirl
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:41 pm

Re: Right to park and solicitors legal "explanation"

Postby miner » Tue Aug 16, 2016 3:52 pm

atticus wrote:If solicitors have really been exchanging letters for 10 years, then it casts strong doubt on the intention of the possible claimant to start any court action. I would question the wisdom of continuing to reply.


I disagree. In my view, Horticgirl should definitely reply, and have what hopefully is the last word on the combined stupidity of the neighbour and her solicitors. Otherwise, no reply could be interpreted as Horticgirl not disputing or disagreeing what these idiots are stating.
miner
 
Posts: 2341
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:22 am

Re: Right to park and solicitors legal "explanation"

Postby atticus » Tue Aug 16, 2016 4:06 pm

That was in relation to something shooter wrote!
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19712
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Right to park and solicitors legal "explanation"

Postby shootist » Tue Aug 16, 2016 4:20 pm

miner wrote:
atticus wrote:If solicitors have really been exchanging letters for 10 years, then it casts strong doubt on the intention of the possible claimant to start any court action. I would question the wisdom of continuing to reply.


I disagree. In my view, Horticgirl should definitely reply, and have what hopefully is the last word on the combined stupidity of the neighbour and her solicitors. Otherwise, no reply could be interpreted as Horticgirl not disputing or disagreeing what these idiots are stating.


The problem word there is 'hopefully'. If the other party is intent on maintaining their aggression via their solicitor then the solicitor will most likely, upon request and payment from the other party, continue to send letters. It sounds like the original poster has already made their position clear. I doubt that further silence on the subject can be interpreted as anything other than silence. If a judge heard a complain along the lines of "We've been demanding this or that for ten years now and received answers rejecting our proposals. Our last demand was not answered so they must now agree with it." I can't see that holding water somehow.

Perhaps the original poster could make a charge to the solicitor and his client for time spent researching and answering the query?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3540
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Right to park and solicitors legal "explanation"

Postby miner » Tue Aug 16, 2016 4:30 pm

shootist wrote: Perhaps the original poster could make a charge to the solicitor and his client for time spent researching and answering the query?


I like that idea. It might be the most effective solution!

Horticgirl, go for it!
miner
 
Posts: 2341
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:22 am

PreviousNext

Return to Land Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron