 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) >> (1) Keith Williams (2) Janet Williams v (1) Stephen John Merrells (2) Margaret Eleanor Merrells (Easements and profits a prendre : Easements and profits a prendre) [2018] UKFTT 725 (PC) (22 October 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/PC/2018/725.html Cite as: [2018] UKFTT 725 (PC) |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
| Case reference | REF/2017/0912 |
|---|---|
| Date of decision | 22/10/2018 |
| Adjudicator | Mr Ewan Paton |
| Applicant | (1) Keith Williams (2) Janet Williams |
| Respondent | (1) Stephen John Merrells (2) Margaret Eleanor Merrells |
| Main Category & Sub Category | |
| Category | Easements and profits a prendre |
| Sub Category | Prescription, requirements and acquisition |
| Secondary Category & Sub Category | |
| Category | Easements and profits a prendre |
| Sub Category | Prescription, requirements and acquisition |
| Decision notes | [2018] UKFTT 725 (PC). Applicants claimed a prescriptive right of way, with and without vehicles, to pass to and from the rear of their property over a driveway owned by the Respondents. It was agreed that they had an existing right of way on foot. On the evidence, the area of the Applicants’ property to which they now claimed the vehicular right of way (a hard standing leading to a garage) had only been completed in that form in about 2004, and that in most of the period before that, it had been garden land physically separated from the driveway by a hedge and wall. The Applicants’ evidence of vehicular use in that earlier period was not of vehicular access onto their own land, but rather temporary stopping on the driveway itself, to then pass and repass to their land (and load and unload items) on foot. The Applicants could not therefore establish 20 years’ use of the vehicular right now actually claimed. Further, although not pleaded as an alternative, the Applicants could not have established, through an earlier period of 20 years’ use, a lesser right temporarily to stop, park and unload on the driveway. For at least 2 years of this period such use had been contentious and had led to a “falling out” with the then neighbouring owner, and in the following 5 years it had not been a sufficiently frequent or regular use. The application was therefore dismissed and directed to be cancelled. |
| Download decision(s) | [2018] UKFTT 725 (PC) |