Car parking and right to pass and repass

[Spike]

Can someone park a car on land that has a right to pass and repass over it ?

The land is owned on a joint freehold by the leaseholders of flats in an
adjacent building.

The car is owned by one of the leaseholders/freeholders.

The right to pass and repass is granted in each lease but no mention is
made of vehicles.

The land in question leads to the rear garden and the car does not
completely block access on foot.

[steve robinson]

Spike wrote:

> Can someone park a car on land that has a right to pass and repass
> over it ?

Yes they can

>
> The land is owned on a joint freehold by the leaseholders of flats in
> an adjacent building.
>
> The car is owned by one of the leaseholders/freeholders.
>
> The right to pass and repass is granted in each lease but no mention
> is made of vehicles.
>
> The land in question leads to the rear garden and the car does not
> completely block access on foot.

As long as your able to get past unhindered then its not infringing
your access.


--

[The Todal]

Unlike m'learned friend Mr Robinson, I'd say that the car can only be
parked for long enough to allow it to be loaded or unloaded and should
not be left there.

[tim......]

"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:bkdd7t...@mid.individual.net...

I would say that the "owner" of the land has a right to park there, but
someone with just the right to pass, does not.

So I agree with Todal here, another leaseholder has no rights to park there

tim

[Paul Rudin]

That's not quite the question though is it? There are lots of things
that are trespass to land despite not infringing anyone's access.

[Percy Picacity]

In article <bkdd7t...@mid.individual.net>,

True, but presumably only the owner or controller of the common land can
enforce this, not one of the other tenants (unless they do own the
common land through a service company or jointly).

--

Percy Picacity

[Yellow]

In article <IycEu.3$iu...@fx31.am4>, sp...@mailinator.com says...

I don't know if this helps as it is anecdotal, but where I lived there
was a block behind ours and they has the right to pass and repass over
over our roads - the only way in or out.

Car parking was at a premium on our site and sometimes cars visiting the
back block parked on our roads. We asked a lawyer "casually" about this,
while visiting them on other business and were told they needed to "keep
moving".

So we wrote to the rear block, telling them we had received advice
(which was probably stretching it a bit, but there you are) and it did
reduce the problem but it is the sort of letter you have to keep on
sending every couple of years and if they do not stop? What can you
really do?

Good luck!

[Fredxxx]

Does that not depend on the terms of the lease, and presumption of the
enjoyment of the land?

[Spike]

In this case, all the leaseholders are also joint owners but they all
have the right to pass. There is no question of anyone being blocked in
- just a question of whether a parked car violates a legal right to pass.

[Spike]

This is slightly different as there is nowhere to get access to - just a
gate into the garden and there is room to walk past the car. However the
right to pass must have been put in the lease for a reason and I was
wondering whether it was done so that parking requires the consent of
all the leaseholders in order to prevent the communal grounds from
becoming swamped with cars.

[Spike]

The leaseholders are all joint owners of the land.

[steve robinson]

Its the question the op asked though. if the op had said some random
person parked the car on the rear access which is privatly owned then
the answer would have been somewhat different

--

[steve robinson]

The op stated that the driver was a freeholder / leaseholder

--

[steve robinson]

We had a similar issue on our rear access Todal because the paperwork
was silent on vehicles as long as we could walk past as requards to
the right to pass and repass then we couldnt do anything.

If it was causing an obstruction it would be a different ball game but
the op never stated that.



--

[Roland Perry]

In message <P4kEu.6122$pH2....@fx19.am4>, at 06:36:08 on Fri, 24 Jan
2014, Spike <sp...@mailinator.com> remarked:

>there is nowhere to get access to - just a gate into the garden and
>there is room to walk past the car. However the right to pass must have
>been put in the lease for a reason

Is the garden land-locked other than via this route? A right to pass is
often there to allow people to get wheelbarrows, dustbins, lawnmowers
etc in and out of such a garden.
--
Roland Perry

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Spike" wrote in message news:AWjEu.4$F0...@fx02.am4...

> On 24/01/14 01:12, Percy Picacity wrote:
> > In article <bkdd7t...@mid.individual.net>,
> > The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 23/01/2014 19:59, Spike wrote:
> >>> Can someone park a car on land that has a right to pass and repass
> >>> over
> >>> it ?
> >>>
> >>> The land is owned on a joint freehold by the leaseholders of flats in
> >>> an
> >>> adjacent building.
> >>>
> >>> The car is owned by one of the leaseholders/freeholders.
> >>>

> The leaseholders are all joint owners of the land.

Although that's what the OP said, it's very unlikely to be the case. You
can't have more than four legal owners of the freehold, and no-one would
structure the freehold ownership by just vesting in in the names of the
tenants jointly - it would cause major problems whenever a flat changed
hands.
--
Chris R

========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======

[Roland Perry]

In message <TMudnXojTfqtvH_P...@brightview.co.uk>, at
08:23:12 on Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:

>> The leaseholders are all joint owners of the land.
>
>Although that's what the OP said, it's very unlikely to be the case. You
>can't have more than four legal owners of the freehold, and no-one would
>structure the freehold ownership by just vesting in in the names of the
>tenants jointly - it would cause major problems whenever a flat changed
>hands.

Perhaps a jointly-owned management company is involved?
--
Roland Perry

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Spike" <sp...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:IycEu.3$iu...@fx31.am4...

You do not included the exact term, but if it is like our private road then
the owners, their servants (tradesmen etc.) have the right to pass and
repass, without or without carts / carriages.

They do definitely NOT have the right to park and indeed the lease also
prohibits "obstructing" the road.

[steve robinson]

No, its put in the lease to allow you to access the land

--

[Ian Jackson]

In article <P4kEu.6122$pH2....@fx19.am4>, Spike <sp...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>This is slightly different as there is nowhere to get access to - just a
>gate into the garden and there is room to walk past the car.

Is there space to get a lawnmower (or other bigger garden machinery)
past ? What about a pushbike, or a cargo trike ? A sofa ?

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

[tim......]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:DLUJAoCe...@perry.co.uk...

in which case, the single legal entity that is the management company, is
the owner

tim

[tim......]

"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xn0ixfcf...@reader80.eternal-september.org...

"part" freeholder.

This doesn't give him the right to park "his" car to the exclusion of all
other freeholders. he can only acquire that right either if it is in his
lease or if the freeholders *jointly* agree to give him that right

tim

>
> --
>

[Percy Picacity]

In article <bkfbkm...@mid.individual.net>,

And can presumably stop people parking if it (that is the majority of
its shareholders) wants to, using such legal means as it thinks
appropriate. Including going to court for an order enforceable by the
court.

--

Percy Picacity

[Roland Perry]

In message <bkfbkm...@mid.individual.net>, at 14:28:44 on Fri, 24
Jan 2014, tim...... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:

>>>> The leaseholders are all joint owners of the land.
>>>
>>>Although that's what the OP said, it's very unlikely to be the case. You
>>>can't have more than four legal owners of the freehold, and no-one would
>>>structure the freehold ownership by just vesting in in the names of the
>>>tenants jointly - it would cause major problems whenever a flat changed
>>>hands.
>>
>> Perhaps a jointly-owned management company is involved?
>
>in which case, the single legal entity that is the management company,
>is the owner

But as that's in practice the joint owners of the management company...
--
Roland Perry

[Percy Picacity]

In article <2BCki1AG...@perry.co.uk>,

But as a joint owner the car parker has to follow the will of the
company expressed through a majority. They can't use their individual
ownership to write their own rules.

--

Percy Picacity

[Chris R]

>
>
> "tim......" wrote in message news:bkfbtp...@mid.individual.net...

>
> "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:xn0ixfcf...@reader80.eternal-september.org...
> > tim...... wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
> >> news:bkdd7t...@mid.individual.net...
> >> > On 23/01/2014 19:59, Spike wrote:
> >> > > Can someone park a car on land that has a right to pass and
> >> > > repass over it ?
> >> > >
> >> > > The land is owned on a joint freehold by the leaseholders of
> >> > > flats in an adjacent building.
> >> > >
> >> > > The car is owned by one of the leaseholders/freeholders.
> >>

> >> I would say that the "owner" of the land has a right to park there,
> >> but someone with just the right to pass, does not.
> >>
> >> So I agree with Todal here, another leaseholder has no rights to park
> >> there
> >

> > The op stated that the driver was a freeholder / leaseholder
>
> "part" freeholder.
>
> This doesn't give him the right to park "his" car to the exclusion of all
> other freeholders. he can only acquire that right either if it is in his
> lease or if the freeholders *jointly* agree to give him that right
>

If he is literally a joint owner of the freehold, and not as a trustee for
others, that might not be right. All joint owners normally have equal rights
to occupation and enjoyment of the property, and cannot exclude each other,
unless there is an agreement to the contrary. That does not apply if the
freehold is held by a management company, which is more likely.

[steve robinson]

> is in his lease or if the freeholders jointly agree to give him that
> right
>
> tim
>
> >
> > --

He isnt excluding any of the other freeholders tim they can still pass.



--

[Percy Picacity]

In article <xn0ixfqy...@reader80.eternal-september.org>,

Well that is a reasonable live and let live principle. But perhaps they
as a group do not want one person to do it if others are likely to
follow. Acting through the management company they could stop him
parking, the right of access in the lease does not give him a right to
do so.

--

Percy Picacity

[steve robinson]

It doesnt say he can't either wether they are a group or not if the
lease doesnt make clear that parking of vehicles is forbidden then it
may flop either way before the courts.

Not a hole they want to dig.

A sensible option may be to gate it , the gate being large enough to
allow pedestrian access but preventing vehicles from driving up.

A lot cheaper option and if managed sensibly easily to implement

[Roland Perry]

In message <key-CAEEED.1...@news.altopia.com>, at 15:30:23 on
Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> remarked:

>> >> Perhaps a jointly-owned management company is involved?
>> >
>> >in which case, the single legal entity that is the management company,
>> >is the owner
>>
>> But as that's in practice the joint owners of the management company...
>
>But as a joint owner the car parker has to follow the will of the
>company expressed through a majority. They can't use their individual
>ownership to write their own rules.

Agreed, but that would also be the case in the unlikely even of it being
shared ownership without a management company.
--
Roland Perry

[Percy Picacity]

In article <ieLR1DGi...@perry.co.uk>,

One of our resident lawyers has pointed out that it would *not* be the
case as each joint owner has full rights of use of the property and his
peers cannot set rules. But we are also told there cannot be more than
4 joint owners and this would seem to avoid this scenario.

--

Percy Picacity

[Spike]

No, the leaseholders are joint freeholders as individuals. There is no
management company involved anywhere.

Buying and selling the flats just requires signatures to transfer the
freehold whereas the leaseholds can be transferred normally.

[Spike]

There are 3 joint owners in this case - no management co.

[Spike]

I assume it could also be used to prevent cars from blocking each other in.

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Roland Perry" wrote in message news:ieLR1DGi...@perry.co.uk...

Why? there is no principle of democracy in joint ownership.

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Spike" wrote in message news:g7MEu.17$sx...@fx08.am4...

That's a very inadvisable management structure. Just wait until one of the
co-owners dies, or loses mental capacity, or is just bloody-minded (say they
fall out in a dispute over parked cars), and the sale or remortgaging of the
other flats (with their share of the freehold) becomes difficult or
impossible.

[steve robinson]

A lease may be written in such a way however from what the op says the
lease doesnt cover this situation

Many of these documents were written before car parking was an issue,
ours like the ops gives the right to pass and repass , the original
documentation never covered vehicular access or parking. The advice was
along the lines of as long as you can pass and later re-pass then no
infringement had taken place. Eventually we had the Documentation
rewritten to allow vehicle access to the rear of the properties and
had to pay a fee of £50.00 .



--

[steve robinson]

Very Messy could cause you grief in the future, such arrangements need
to be on a strong formal footing

--

[Yellow]

In article <xn0ixfcf...@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk says...

>
> tim...... wrote:
>
> >
> > "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
> > news:bkdd7t...@mid.individual.net...
> > > On 23/01/2014 19:59, Spike wrote:

> > > > Can someone park a car on land that has a right to pass and
> > > > repass over it ?
> > > >
> > > > The land is owned on a joint freehold by the leaseholders of
> > > > flats in an adjacent building.
> > > >
> > > > The car is owned by one of the leaseholders/freeholders.
> > > >
> > > > The right to pass and repass is granted in each lease but no
> > > > mention is made of vehicles.
> > > >
> > > > The land in question leads to the rear garden and the car does not
> > > > completely block access on foot.
> > >

> > > Unlike m'learned friend Mr Robinson, I'd say that the car can only
> > > be parked for long enough to allow it to be loaded or unloaded and
> > > should not be left there.
> >
> > I would say that the "owner" of the land has a right to park there,
> > but someone with just the right to pass, does not.
> >
> > So I agree with Todal here, another leaseholder has no rights to park
> > there
> >
> > tim
>
> The op stated that the driver was a freeholder / leaseholder

Assuming the joint freehold is owned in the usual way, does a
shareholder in the company that owns the freehold actually own the
freehold? If you see what I mean.

[Martin Bonner]

On Sunday, January 26, 2014 4:07:08 PM UTC, Yellow wrote:
> does a
> shareholder in the company that owns the freehold actually own the
> freehold?

In a strict sense, no. Obviously, people will often talk about
"being one of the owners", but strictly speaking the freehold belongs
to the company, and the company belongs to the shareholders.