I would welcome any advice that could help my father.  He lives in a
cottage that is accessed by a private single track driveway.  Alongside
the driveway are three fields, two of which are rented to people who use
them for grazing horses. The field leases allow use of the driveway for
access to the fields. These fields have recently been sub-divided so
more horses are being grazed there and more people are requiring
access.   Tenants of the fields insist on parking their cars - and
sometimes trucks - in the driveway, blocking it.  When asked to move
their vehicles, they claim ignorance that their equipment is causing an
obstruction, or say, they won't be there for long.  They refuse to park
in the fields because they are muddy.  This causes delays to our family
and risks damaging our vehicles in attempting to get around these
unauthorised vehicles.  Have I any legal basis for clamping or removing
these obstructions?




-- 
davidw

davidw;560709 Wrote: 
> I would welcome any advice that could help my father.  He lives in a
> cottage that is accessed by a private single track driveway.  Alongside
> the driveway are three fields, two of which are rented to people who use
> them for grazing horses. The field leases allow use of the driveway for
> access to the fields. These fields have recently been sub-divided so
> more horses are being grazed there and more people are requiring
> access.   Tenants of the fields insist on parking their cars - and
> sometimes trucks - in the driveway, blocking it.  When asked to move
> their vehicles, they claim ignorance that their equipment is causing an
> obstruction, or say, they won't be there for long.  They refuse to park
> in the fields because they are muddy.  This causes delays to our family
> and risks damaging our vehicles in attempting to get around these
> unauthorised vehicles.  Have I any legal basis for clamping or removing
> these obstructions?

I am sure your father could be difficult by leaving his own car in the
way etc. but in the end surely it is best to tackle things in the right
order. It seems your father does not own the private lane and is able to
use it to reach his house/garden and enter in - presumably parking in
his garden. This is what access means, it cannot mean occupation
i.e.parking on the access route. So he should approach the owner of the
drive to get this sorted either directly or by using the solicitor who
acted for him in the conveyance of his house to him. The lessees/sub
lesses may well be contravening the terms on which they can use the
fields anyway but the answer is that they shoud spend some money on
consolidating some corner within their plot so they can enter in and
park.




-- 
puzzledtoo

On Sat,  6 Sep 2008 23:10:05 +0100, davidw 
wrote:

-
-I would welcome any advice that could help my father.  He lives in a
-cottage that is accessed by a private single track driveway.  Alongside
-the driveway are three fields, two of which are rented to people who use
-them for grazing horses. The field leases allow use of the driveway for
-access to the fields. These fields have recently been sub-divided so
-more horses are being grazed there and more people are requiring
-access.   Tenants of the fields insist on parking their cars - and
-sometimes trucks - in the driveway, blocking it.  When asked to move
-their vehicles, they claim ignorance that their equipment is causing an

You should deal with this claim of ignorance first. With permission of the land
owner, put up a nice clear sign saying "24 hour access needed, please do not
park on or obstruct this pathway" or words to thet effect. Put them all the way
along the path at 20 yard intervals. Or 20m if you have converted to metric.

Then if and when it's ignored you can "escalate" proportionately. What does the
lease say about the path?

-Rob
robatwork at mail dot com

davidw;561184 Wrote: 
> About 20 years ago, the two fields that run alongside the driveway were
> sold.  The sale contract contains covenants stating that a) the owners
> of these fields may use the driveway to access their property subject
> to them contributing to the cost of maintaining the driveway.  [Of
> course this has never happened, despite several requests.] b) that at
> no time must the owners of these fields cause any blockage to, or
> obstruction of the driveway.
> The tenants have rented fields under the mistaken impression that they
> have car parking facilities - which they do not.  I am informed that
> the owner of one of the fields claims to have changed the boundary and
> now owns a portion of my father's land.  He has instructed his tenants
> that they can park on this land.  I have the deeds and the Land
> Registry documents showing this claim to be completely false, but the
> tenants insist they have parking rights and accuse me of being
> difficult when I order them off my families land.

Oh dear, this is going to get aggravating and expensive for you. You
say you have been "informed" but not by whom. Is it the owner of the
field or is it hearsay from someone else. Sounds like some bullying
going on. It seems that there is open access to this land that you say
is your fathers. Why has it not been fenced to be clearly part of your
father's property? Has your father ever been allowing use by others for
lengthy periods as can happen with odd pieces of land that there is no
immediate use for on the part of the owner. My advice re solicitor and
Rob S re escalation now seems in point. Draw up a year by year
chronology if possible detailing any events that seem to impact on the
situation. There now seem to be two angles, the access and now the
possible trespass - shades of other threads on cars parked on private
land.




-- 
puzzledtoo

About 20 years ago, the two fields that run alongside the driveway were
sold.  The sale contract contains covenants stating that a) the owners
of these fields may use the driveway to access their property subject
to them contributing to the cost of maintaining the driveway.  [Of
course this has never happened, despite several requests.] b) that at
no time must the owners of these fields cause any blockage to, or
obstruction of the driveway.
The tenants have rented fields under the mistaken impression that they
have car parking facilities - which they do not.  I am informed that
the owner of one of the fields claims to have changed the boundary and
now owns a portion of my father's land.  He has instructed his tenants
that they can park on this land.  I have the deeds and the Land
Registry documents showing this claim to be completely false, but the
tenants insist they have parking rights and accuse me of being
difficult when I order them off my families land.

Rob S;561183 Wrote: 
> On Sat,  6 Sep 2008 23:10:05 +0100, davidw
> davidw.308b417@legalbanter.co.uk
> wrote:
> 
> -
> -I would welcome any advice that could help my father.  He lives in a
> -cottage that is accessed by a private single track driveway. 
> Alongside
> -the driveway are three fields, two of which are rented to people who
> use
> -them for grazing horses. The field leases allow use of the driveway
> for
> -access to the fields. These fields have recently been sub-divided so
> -more horses are being grazed there and more people are requiring
> -access.   Tenants of the fields insist on parking their cars - and
> -sometimes trucks - in the driveway, blocking it.  When asked to move
> -their vehicles, they claim ignorance that their equipment is causing
> an
> 
> You should deal with this claim of ignorance first. With permission of
> the land
> owner, put up a nice clear sign saying "24 hour access needed, please
> do not
> park on or obstruct this pathway" or words to thet effect. Put them all
> the way
> along the path at 20 yard intervals. Or 20m if you have converted to
> metric.
> 
> Then if and when it's ignored you can "escalate" proportionately. What
> does the
> lease say about the path?
> 
> -Rob
> robatwork at mail dot com




-- 
davidw

In message , at 23:10:05 on Mon, 8 
Sep 2008, puzzledtoo  remarked:
>> The tenants have rented fields under the mistaken impression that they
>> have car parking facilities - which they do not.  I am informed that
>> the owner of one of the fields claims to have changed the boundary and
>> now owns a portion of my father's land.  He has instructed his tenants
>> that they can park on this land.  I have the deeds and the Land
>> Registry documents showing this claim to be completely false, but the
>> tenants insist they have parking rights and accuse me of being
>> difficult when I order them off my families land.
>
>Oh dear, this is going to get aggravating and expensive for you. You
>say you have been "informed" but not by whom. Is it the owner of the
>field or is it hearsay from someone else. Sounds like some bullying
>going on. It seems that there is open access to this land that you say
>is your fathers. Why has it not been fenced to be clearly part of your
>father's property?

I'm going to guess that this is a verge alongside the driveway, and that 
the owner of the field has told his tenants that parking there is part 
of the deal. Obstructing the verge (maybe with blocks of stone or 
something) so that parking there completely blocks the driveway might 
act as a deterrent, but could escalate things. Near where I live there 
are issues with parents parking/driving on private grass verges opposite 
the school when doing the school run - and a similar solution was 
suggested, but that's an audience that has less invested in the ability 
to park there.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Mon,  8 Sep 2008 23:10:07 +0100, davidw 
wrote:

-
-About 20 years ago, the two fields that run alongside the driveway were
-sold.  The sale contract contains covenants stating that a) the owners
-of these fields may use the driveway to access their property subject
-to them contributing to the cost of maintaining the driveway.  [Of
-course this has never happened, despite several requests.] b) that at
-no time must the owners of these fields cause any blockage to, or
-obstruction of the driveway.

Seems both of these covenants have been broken then.. and you are into the
realms of solicitor's letters (or one from yourselves first).

I sympathise...
-Rob
robatwork at mail dot com