dls I have taken your following question on board:
dls wrote: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.