UK Family Law
UK Family Law Questions Answered by Verified Experts
Hello Claire ...I am picking up our conversation from the last which was halted by a demand for payment. This was then not accepted due to an 'access denied' note...very odd. But I am on the sub scheme so I wonder if you would give me the benefit of my last question and your answer to it please . As its not visible to me - but just for you to know what happened and why I appear to have abandonned the thread (in addition to not liking the answer...with which i still take issue by the way!!).
Are you the same Claire (just a new pic?). Is that it? Or a new person taking over?
BY MISREPRESENTATION and ten years is not yet up so thanks for reminding me I'll put it an application for a determination to stop time running against my interest.
Do not opt out! I wish you to apply your brilliant mind further and I'm enjoying the mental exercise....
enjoy your siesta (no not your fiesta!!)
Here's my application
well how is it presented? Is it coherent?
thank you so much but unfortunately the links don't work (may have been deleted?). Are you possibly able to send The live links...underlined in blue? (like your name to see if you're in!!?)
I did check in brief but was none the wiser.
What was the name of the OU article ?
Should i be completeing a part 8 application too?
i got there by typing in but message saying page not availablle. thank you for c and p suggestion...but same result.
If this matter is heard and i don't suceed on say one out of the 3 issues are costs awarded proportionately? how much might they be?
Should I also have completed a Part 8 Form ? If so can I assume the Judge will advise me but will respect the date of receipt for the purposes of stopping time running against my interest?
i don't think its been served.
maybe its just stuck in the system. anyway thank you so much for the suggestion of checking the fr1...which I've now done...the small plot may have been conveyed to my neighbours BUT the most incredible thing is that by way of acknowledging our concern back in 2003 - the freeholder of the remainder of the communal parts has arranged in the plan which is not obvious from the Land reg plan perhaps due o a mistake - that the neighbour should access their garage via the back of their garden instead of cutting across behind us which was driving us mad. I am so grateful.
Although the route behind us was used for maybe 20 years only for 10 years has it been used by the neighbour in their new status as a freeholder so I understand we can still ask for this to be enforced and am wondering about the best way to go about this as their garage was closed off by their predecessor.
yes ok ...quiet and simple!
I will do that.
Perhaps I should rate you now but may I still continue to confer with you?
ok...well thank you very much for your help! The very best thing was the FR1 idea ...its solved everything!! Can't believe we only just found out.
have you heard of simmonds v dobson!...I can't find full details of the case but it applies.
oh no....I was relying on it...but cannot now find the earlier reference I had to it.
Can you direct me please?
Was it not a case where 20 years user was disregarded until the parties became Freeholders?
....as the would-have-been servient proprietor argued he could not have known that permission from their joint Freeholder was not being given for a shortcut to be taken...and he won.
in my case 20 years may have operated prior to the neighbours purchase of their freehold....but only ten years since they obtained their freehold reversion. i have only now found out (thanks to your suggestion of obtaining the FR1.........you brilliant brilliant person) 10 years later.
Can you help for a further tip?
Thank you for that. I had found it previously, but, adding the word 'easement' made all the difference. Thank you again.
Just to summarise the established principle (is this what Simmons confirms? I am still not able to find the 'story'. Do you know the story out of interest...within the store of that brilliant mind of yours!!?) being that my leasehold neighbour although possibly together with his predecessor had 20 years user cutting onto a communal path behind me (but now excluded from this action by his Deed Plan) could not suceed with a prescriptive claim on the basis of lost modern grant because....the period of time which counts did not begin until he obtained his Freehold reversion. He thus became a fee simple owner entitled to claim against his fee simple predecessor in title (given the prior unity of title that existed) only after 20 years of uncontested user?
So there is absolutely no way she could suceed in a claim if I block the route if they are difficult about it ten years now down the line...but I will try to be nice(!!) .
In the first instance should I for example offer to help with the cost of them re-opening the back of their garage..or is it for them to claim against their predecessor? What about the rule that changes after so many years are deemed to be unenforceable by a Freeholder? Does this enter into the picture?
By contrast as there is no other way I can get to the back of my garage would my way of going be deemed to be essential? (Actually tell you want I'll ask for you about this in a new question).
It shows the area behind my property not being subject to colouration where they are permitted to pass.
The garage forecourt area is coloured in for their benefit...but what had previously been marked as a communal path going up as far as the boundary of their property but not necessarily across it - is left uncoloured and so no longer benefits my neighbours by design. It is a great relief.
This path leads up to my rear garden entrance.
It was intended to serve my property exclusively (except on occasion for other residents for minor maintenance works, presumeably, going in the opposite direction (there is a sort of cross roads behind my back entrance-way at present....not yet able to accomodate a gate due to the interference of my neighbour.
The path they have hi-jacked (well their predecessor cut steps leading down to join the accessway) does not extend all the way along the back of the garages - perhaps as we are not expected to stray beyond our own garage backs).
Could send pics? And plans?
my question is about the rights of a term cohabiting