Definitive Map Modification Order - Inquiry Stage

[atticus]

No. I am suggesting that you do not say you have shedloads of evidence if you are not going to submit that evidence.

It is for you to decide whether to submit that evidence.

[dls]

Olivia, what relevance does any harassment have to the issues which will be considered?

[blig]

OK, so at the risk of coming across as really harsh, the statement of case is weak and in need a rethink. Most of it isn't relevant.

we have some evidence statements from neighbors were [the witness claming 20 years use] turned people away claiming it to be a private lane on numerous occasions by at least 3 independent witnesses.

This doesn't contribute anything for or against your case. There can be a public footpath on a private lane.

we have emails from the definitive map officer saying it was as clear as mud why it was marked up

This tends to support the route being a public right of way.

I apologies if the section 130A(6)(a) notice has confused matters again.

This is a distraction of no relevance.

We have photographic evidence the way in question was blocked by scaffolding and in-passable for a period of weeks

This really isn't a long enough period to demonstrate anything - paths can be closed for maintenance.

We are also trying to seek a statement off the previous land owner

This is important and you need something more than a statement that she or he occasionally stopped a few people.

[blig]

Taking some of the emotional language away:

I own the land and use it for exercising my dogs and parking my car. It is not and has never been a public footpath. The land in question has been closed off for a number of periods over the last twenty years, including shown by my photographs, and so has not become a public footpath through twenty years usage. No complaints have ever been made when the land was closed off. I have owned the land for x years. The land was not used as a public footpath during the time of the previous owner and I have a witness statement from them. They lived here for y years and used the land for gardening.

or whatever, etc, etc ...

[Olivia]

Thanks Blig, I need constructive criticism and welcome it!

We have decided to go along the route of never seening any one walk it, which we haven't and find it strange no mention of a interruption was never flagged by the supporters especially as some claim to walk the route nearly every other day. This can also be backed up by other people down the lane the ordered route is earmarked for.

The lane and our land has been marked up wrongly with way markers before 1996, to which the council have no record of a way ever existing and don't know why it was signposted.

We maintain the path on our property was for the only access to the property, until a right of easement was passed a few year ago for vehicular access.

Our main argument is that if anyone walked the route it was 'by right' because they thought by law it was a right of way and that anyone walking it was 'by right';
Schedule 14 and 15 of the 1981 wildlife and country act was not followed before waymarkers were positioned at points A, C and D; making this order fundermentally flawed and incapable of confirmation.
The order route has already been signed posted pre 1996 and if people had walked the ordered route it would have been 'by right' and not 'as of right'; the sign posted public right of way meant that people were not challenged by the landowner because the landowners rights were encroached on by the authorities, therefore the public was “by right” rather than “as of right” and a right could therefore not been created “as of right”.

Apparently there was a similar circumstance where a park authority sign posted a right of way on to private land; and tried claiming a right of way; a definetive map office recalls it being non confirmed but can't recall the case name or place.

Were trying to use the lexis library to locate the case but struggling to find a helpful search word, any suggestions would be gratefully received.

Olivia

[Olivia]

dls I have taken your following question on board:

Olivia, what relevance does any harassment have to the issues which will be considered?

After realizing there is certain tests that the inspectorate work too, and that any thing else is irrelevant, I will no longer be considering harassment as a statement of case.

I am looking into the law which constitutes a creation of a public right of way and seeing how I can argue against this case fitting the framework.

Where a way over any land, other than a way of such a character that use of it by the public could not give rise at common law to any presumption of dedication, has been actually enjoyed by the public as of right and without interruption for a full period of 20 years, the way is to be deemed to have been dedicated as a highway unless there is sufficient evidence that there was no intention during that period to dedicate it.

One is by the public... use must be by the public at large but in our case a few locals does not count as the general public at large.

another ...as of right.. presumed dedication never arouse due to the fact anyone alleging to have walked it would have done so 'by right' due to rights of way markers being up at the time which covers the entirety of the 20 year dedication period; and therefore did not give rise to a public right of way by the law.

has been dedicated.. dedication has to be without force, without secrecy, without permission. How can we the land owner dedicate a public right of way when the local authority deceived the landowner into thinking the owner could no longer challenge the right of the way?

The illegal public right of way signs are documented in supporter evidence and will appear in our own statement of case to weight there existence.

Any feedback is appreciated.

Thanks,

Olivia

[blig]

You could see https://www.publications.parliament.uk/ ... dman-1.htm and subsequent pages then look at the cases that Hoffman is referring to.

However if this issue is important to you, it would be better to seek and pay for specialist advice. I'm not persuaded by the merits of this approach. There seems to be a strong line of argument against it which you either have not noticed or wisely have not written on a public forum!