Laneway access to the rear of terraced house

Robrac

I own a terraced house with access to front & rear via lane to rear.

Sometime ago we the residents erected a gate at either end of the lane to keep out unsavory and anti-social behavior at bay. Each of the residents had a key to gain access at all times, and it worked very well.

The end house where the gate was erected was sold and the new owner has removed the lock and replaced it with a new lock and only he has the key.

This means that none of the other residents have access to the laneway and cannot enter their property from the rear.

Most of the residents in the area getting on in years and are not to sure how to approach the problem,

I intend to approach the new owner (within the next few days) about the problem to see what can be done.

In my opinion he has no legal standing whatsoever.

Any advice would be very much appreciated.

PS sorry to be so longwinded

StillWaters

No, it's very doubtful he has a leg to stand on, the lane is likely commonly owned by all residents, and all would have a right of way.

Robrac

Stillwaters,
Thank you for your prompt reply,
My thoughts entirely, its just how to approach the individual without causing a long term dispute?

ted1

Just call over and explain its access for all owners if he disagrees stick your own lock on it to stop him from using it. Then consult land register, if he owns the land then examine if there is a right of way.

riclad

ASK him to provide 2 or 3 keys, then copy them.
Give copy,s to neighbours,
its unlikely he owns the whole laneway ,he has no right to block off neighbours acess,
I think the laneway is public ,ie neighbours have a right to acess their
own propertys.
HE DID Not pay for or buy the gate ,
he owns the house ,the back yard,and that,s all.
You can go to flac free legal advice centre if you need more advice.
Just be nice and polite ,ie dont get into an argument.
he DOES,NT own the gate ,he had no legal right to change the lock.

IN an urban area the laneway would be very likely owned by the local authority,
or county council.

RATM

Even if he did own the laneway (and by the sounds of it this is highly unlikely) you would still have a right of way which has been built up by your elderly neighbours using the laneway for decades before this chancer arrived.

The only claim he would have on the laneway is that he owns half its width, the other house on the other side of the laneway would own the other half. But regardless of this he can't just block access to a right of way that has been built up over many years.

Del2005

Just drop over and say that the lane way is to access all the properties not just his.

Why can't you use the other end of the lane? If there are 2 gates he's only blocked one access. While he might not have a right to the gate. It's on his property so he can remove it if he wants.

Be wary of trying the legal route as you may have acted illegally by erecting the gates in the first place.

riclad

I presume laneway ,is a cul de sac, with one entrance,and one gate.
The neighbours have a right of way , to acess their back gardens,
this bloke is just a idiot.
OR he ,s got some obsession with security.

Reminds me of a story ,in the papers, woman owned a house ,
the only way to acess her brothers house was to acess her land.
Her brothers house was foreclosed, sold by the bank,
there was no public right of way to her brothers house.
i think a member of her family bought it for 50k at an auction in 2012.
But that it is the country where , some houses , are acessed by crossing other peoples land.
And theres usually a friendly agreement to allow them to do,
so ,even if theres no formal right of way.

IF he gets non coperative, you could simply write a letter,
if this is not resolved in 4 weeks, the gate will be removed ,and you ,ll have less security.

Whats he,s doing is simply illegal.

Robrac

The laneway, is not a cul de sac, it has a gate at both ends but the other end is a long way away (About 20 houses away) a long walk!
I have no doubt that he is just chancing his arm.
He has a dog which i think he wants to leave outside when he is at work.
So the lock on the gate and a little timber fence to keep him in.

riclad

Well he has no legal right to put in a new lock,or to block acess to neighbours to the lane.
HE might think they are old, they may not care about it.
even if he wanted to its unlikely the council would sell him part of the laneway ,or grant him the right to block acess to other propertys.

murphaph

Without a little sketch from the OP to clearly outline the lay of the land, it's hard to give any concrete advice tbh. OP, maybe you can attach a sketch for us?

Robrac

A very rough sketch, hope you can understand!

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8390/8649238150_022f76b712_z.jpg

ps let me know if this works?

RATM

riclad wrote: »

Reminds me of a story ,in the papers, woman owned a house ,
the only way to acess her brothers house was to acess her land. Her brothers house was foreclosed, sold by the bank,
there was no public right of way to her brothers house.
i think a member of her family bought it for 50k at an auction in 2012.
But that it is the country where , some houses , are acessed by crossing other peoples land. And theres usually a friendly agreement to allow them to do, so ,even if theres no formal right of way.

I'll give you a better one than that. County Council gave planning permission for 4 houses side by side in a very rural area where my mother lived. The ONLY access to the houses was via a laneway which my mum owned (and owned the fields either side of it). She objected to the planning applications stating that she was not giving a right of way over her laneway. County Council went ahead and gave the permission anyway (brown envelopes involved). 6 months later the laneway was destroyed having endured the heavy tonnage of concrete trucks, cement mixers, etc. My mum had only just spent €15,000 two years earlier getting the surface relaid and tarmacked and now the construction traffic needed to build four Celtic Tiger mansions had left it in rubble with potholes you could step inside.

Then it got legally messy. The new neighbours should never have built without securing right of way with my Mum. They thought they were above the law (just in the same way they were in securing the permission) and went ahead and did it anyway. Now they have a serious problem on their hands as they can never sell the houses as there is no clear right of way granted.

Solicitors letters have been back and forth and the four pigheaded neighbours are now getting around to the idea that if they go to court they're going to lose and lose heavily. If they do take this to court then we'll be blocking up the laneway with concrete boulders which will give them a nice eye opener as to how valuable having legal access to your own house actually is.

Two of the neighbours are suing the council for giving them permission to begin with, council is counter-suing them, my mum is suiing the council and she is waiting to resolve this with all four neighbours. She's open to a deal but only one that involves spending around €20,000 between them on reconstructing the lane and insuring it as well as a healthy pay-off from them for presuming they could drive over someones elses land in the first place.

The whole thing would never have happened if the council had of not given permission (which they should never have done without the sites having legal access, which they didn't) and even after that if the neighbours had of sat down with my mum and politely asked for her permission then they might have got it. Instead they went in like a bull in a china shop and their actions are now going to cost them a minimum of €20,000 per household and even more if they want their day in court.

The whole thing is an unmitigated mess but it just goes to show what can happen when people think they can use land that isn't theirs.

Robrac

You'r right, what an unmitigated mess.
My Grandson is studing to be a solicitor, if the case is still going on when he qualifies please keep him in mind!!!!!!!!

murphaph

Robrac wrote: »

A very rough sketch, hope you can understand!

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8390/8649238150_022f76b712_z.jpg

ps let me know if this works?

Did the new guy put up that wooden fence as well as change the gate lock? If yo, it looks fairly cut and dry that he's in the wrong as an easement likely exists (even if it's his land legally).

RATM

Robrac wrote: »

You'r right, what an unmitigated mess.
My Grandson is studing to be a solicitor, if the case is still going on when he qualifies please keep him in mind!!!!!!!!

We have a solicitor and a barrister in the family so we're well legaled up ! The neighbours only found out this information recently and we think it has changed their stance a good bit- they thought they were dealing with an old aged widow but now they know she is backed up by a solicitor and a barrister in the family. Since they found out they have been looking for a deal- not only do they realise they are looking at a very expensive day in the Circuit Court but also that if they appeal we can go again for next to zero costs. My mum is 100% in the right here so I'm just astounded at the arrogance of these people who think they can ride roughshot over other peoples lands and expect them to take it lying down.

My sister is hoping it goes to court as it'll be a great payday for her to win costs. She has instructed another solicitor who is an expert in land law but she has basically done all the legal research and work herself. She's been marvelous and without her my mother wouldn't have had the stomach for this battle.

Best of luck to your grandson in entering Blackhall Place, the hardest part is getting the FE1 exams and a training contract from a solicitor. He should be focused on getting that training contract (even if he is years away) because they are extraordinarily difficult to come by and you really need a good network of people to help you secure one.

Robrac

Yes he did put up the wooden fence as well as change the gate lock.

Robrac

Thank you for your good wishes.

StillWaters

RATM that was shocking incompetence by the Planning section!

GRMA

Whats this guy seem like?

If he's not a complete scumbag just snip the lock if he refuses to give you a key

3DataModem

He's trying to annex that part of the lane. Smart move on his part. Go talk to him, get the fence and gate removed by him ASAP.

murphaph

I don't see why the gate should go. I would request (not ask, request) that he removes the fence immediately and removes his lock from the gate and replaces the one he removed.

If he's uncooperative I would use a bolt cutters on his new lock and remove the fence myself. I wouldn't waste 1 penny on solicitors with this guy tbh. He's completely out of line I reckon.

RATM

StillWaters wrote: »

RATM that was shocking incompetence by the Planning section!

Yeah I know, The planning was given back in the heady days of the boom around 2005. I remember my mother being quite upset about it as the council knew full well that the only way to access the four sites was over her land.

But still they went ahead and gave it, the fact one of the site owners was a big wig developer locally must have meant he had some sway with the planners. I say that because granting it was absolute insanity on the council's part. Our legal advice is that she has a slam dunk case here against the council. We have copies of the correspondence to the council informing them that right of way wasn't been given over this private road and of the objection to planning.

It was a really dumb move by the council but what annoyed her more was the attitude of the new neighbours who were quite hostile when they moved in.. As far as they were concerned the council had ruled that they could use her private property to access their houses. Now 8 years on all four of them are arguing with each other and they have a laneway that has gigantic potholes on it since 2005 when cement lorries wrecked the whole thing. To make matters worse three of the houses are staring at the fourth house which is a half built 300sqm house and has been lying as a construction site since 2007. Their arguments have ensured they live in a hell hole where access is at 2-3mph and the view is of a permanent construction site.

The new neighbours themselves shouldn't have been so presumptious and arrogant. My mum is a reasonable person and a deal could have been struck- if they had of repired and insured the road then most likely she would have granted a right of way. But these lads are all in the construction trade (mix of brickies and carpenters) and have a different way of doing business. All of them had made a fair few quid in the boom and wanted to move out of their 3 bed semi and to the country to build a Celtic Tiger mansion. At the time they thought that planning law and land law didn't apply to them. Their lesson is soon to be learnt

Ray Palmer

RATM wrote: »

Yeah I know, The planning was given back in the heady days of the boom around 2005. I remember my mother being quite upset about it as the council knew full well that the only way to access the four sites was over her land.

I don't get what the legal problem is. My understanding is if there was a right of way to a field your mother can't take it away. Right of way is simply that unless you are saying they didn't have a right of way.

If the only way to those fields was always that route then it remains.

Not saying you are wrong just there has to be other information for your mother to have a case. If a stately home is unable to get rid of a right of way I find it hard to believe your mother can just give out and be right. A Barrister and lawyer will tell you have a case and you are right even when they know you will lose.

Won a case for a parking space and then lost the parking space as the other side simply filed saying the case too long and lost the space in the end. Lawyer friend of mine told me that there was no way to get the space back and the original lawyer knew that but did all the work knowing that just to get paid. He got €50k for his effort between the tenants.

conorhal

3DataModem wrote: »

He's trying to annex that part of the lane. Smart move on his part. Go talk to him, get the fence and gate removed by him ASAP.

This is probably the motive, the guy is brass necking it. The OP needs to go down to the Co-Co and check the ownership of the laneway with the planning office, however, it could be the case that 'nobody owns it'. When it comes to older properties in particular, the ownership of this kind of 'common land' can be a grey area.
For example, there is a cul-de-sac lane at the back of my parents home, all the houses on the road back onto it and they access their garages via the lane.
The lane was in an awful state of disrepair, essentally it was a muddy track, and the residents of the street had to actively campaign for the Co-Co to take the lane under their management beause they wouldn't tarmac it or repair it, claiming that they didn't own it so it wasn't the Co-co's responsibility.

My folks live at the very end of the lane which ends in a wall, on the other side of which is a troublesome neighbour who's house is in an estate that backs onto the lane. He's a developer an decided that he wanted to build a house in his back garden and create an access to it through the lane.

Planning permission for is should never have been granted, the co-co's own planners show that you would have to replace the sewage and drainage infrastructure for the whole road to accomodate more houses (there are constant problems with sewage for houses on that road), but sombody's palm was greased by the builder. No sooner had he permission then he took down the wall at the end of the lane and started parking outside my folks garage blocking them in ,he also built an extension on his own house and the construction made bits of the lane they had tried so hard to get tarmac'd decades earlier.
The only plus to our economic collapse was the fact that when the boom turned to bust the builder suddenly lost interest in building the new house in his back garden.
He left the wall down though, because he wanted to be able to claim that it had become a right of way access, and only later when threatened with legal action did he throw a shoddy bit if wall back up.

If the OP's neighbour can claim after a certian period of time that he has the exclusive use of a peice of land that 'nobody owns', he will probably try claim ownership of it, so the OP will need to act fast to ensure he establishes his right of way or he might loose it.

Mrs OBumble

Lads, it may depend on the legal status of the laneway.

In Galway City, the council is currently extinguishing certiain public right-of-way in some estates, due to the ASB issues.

If you originally installed gates / locks but this wasn't actually legal either, then you may not have a leg to stand on.

Ray Palmer

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Lads, it may depend on the legal status of the laneway.

In Galway City, the council is currently extinguishing certiain public right-of-way in some estates, due to the ASB issues.

If you originally installed gates / locks but this wasn't actually legal either, then you may not have a leg to stand on.

Councils normally assist residents to do this including the legal transfer. You can extinguish public access but not right of way. It is very tricky to remove right of way because it is what it says it is.

People don't just put up gates on lane ways they contact the council to do this. It is very unlikely these people did it just randomly themselves.

riclad

The council would probably have no problem with gates being put up as long as the home owners , who are in front of the lane ,
have keys to whatever gate they want to use ,
ie there right of way is not blocked.
I think dublin city council has stopped right of way in many lanes ,
to prevent antisocial behavior .

Ray Palmer

riclad wrote: »

I think dublin city council has stopped right of way in many lanes ,
.

No they haven't. They have stopped public access but right of way is not removed. There is a whole process to closing lanes off which has to be agreed.

hfallada

Have you considered speaking to the guy who changed the gate to inform him what he did was illegal. Some peoples stupidity never surprises me because he might not be aware. Plus a heavy duty lock for one of those gates is like €300 plus €50 per key cut

riclad

ok, I Should have said the city council have blocked off some laneways , to the public .I,M not a solicitor , i,m not giving legal advice on this thread.
You can get advice from FLAC , if you think you may need it.
I saw a lane where the council ,put up a steel gate on a lane, gate is always locked,
the lane is open on the other end, homeowners park their cars there.
I think they did it for security reasons, its beside a council block of flats.