what is the legal poition if 3rd party does not reply?

[sealeysb21]

A family member (the third party) was sent a solicitors letter telling them they have no right to come onto part of our property and damage it.
They were advised the courts have been clear on the issue regarding Access Rights and they were given 10 days to acknowledge the letter and a further 20 days to state their case.
The letter was signed for and we know it has been read. Family member (third party) has said something to another family member.

Neither I or the solicitor has received a reply.
I suspect the family member has sought legal advice but cant be 100% certain
As we have not received a reply I'm assuming that if legal advice was sought they were advised they have no case and we are in the right. Bearing in mind there has been no reply, what does this do to the family members case if they indeed have a case?

thank you in advance

sealeysb21

[2222]

Nothing?

[sealeysb21]

2222 you have a question mark at the end of your comment. Should that be an exclamation mark?

If it does nothing ( does not weaken his case), why would the solicitor have given the 10 and 20 days?

sealeysb21

[2222]

Indeed?

Look, you pay for a stiff solicitor's letter, and stiff it is. Full of deadlines and dire warnings. If the other family member has a right to use the land, he has that right, and he doesn't have to engage in correspondence about it. Essentially, if you want to bar him, the ball is in your court.

He'd better be doing a heck of a lot of damage, because the legal costs are going to mount up.

[sealeysb21]

I would only want to send a solicitors letter if I have a legal case, not a scare tactic that is not worth the paper it is written on, all he would have to do is call my bluff.
That would be a waste of money and surly the solicitor should be advising me that I have no case not taking my money.
Am I wrong to think I must have a case as the solicitor has advised he has no right to damage my land ?

Your reply 2222 if correct is very disappointing. Either I have the legal right to not have my land damaged or I don't.
I would prefer the solicitor to be up front and honest even if they are telling me I have no case and the family member has the right to cause damage.

Am aware costs could mount and could double if I were to take this to court and lose. How could I bar him is he has a legal right?


The thing is, there is no need to damage the land, there is no need to access it.
Although I would feel hard done by and that the law is an ass and a legal document was badly written, if he has a legal right to damage my land, I would have to accept it and the dispute could end there. While the dispute goes on, probably could not sell and move away.

may I ask, why have you added a question mark at the end of indeed and nothing?

sealeysb21

[Amethyst]

I don't think you can read too much into the non-response. He may just be testing to see if you carry out the action specified in your letter ( ie call your bluff as you've said ) What was the action / consequence of non response given in the letter ?
Presumably your Solicitor has advised you as to the next steps ?

[Amethyst]

Okay - is this from this issue ( grass verge / turning space etc ? https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...-access-rights ?

[2222]

Hi Sealey, I can see from the other thread that you have some problems with a neighbour.

Was the solicitor's letter a letter before action?

It would help if you post the letter, suitably redacted.

[sealeysb21]

I don't think you can read too much into the non-response. He may just be testing to see if you carry out the action specified in your letter ( ie call your bluff as you've said ) What was the action / consequence of non response given in the letter ?
Presumably your Solicitor has advised you as to the next steps ?

yes, these are connected.
from my recollection, the solicitor has said that since the conveyance was written the law has changed and as there is a clearly defined road of adequate width (about twice the width of his car plus a couple of feet) it is unreasonable to deviate from it and the courts have been clear on this.
Trespass was mentioned in solicitors letter
Reports to police about anti social behaviour and criminal damage have been made against him since he received letter. Police have visited to see the anti social behaviour and we are now asking they don't visit as they have more important things to do but we want to log everything. He has been spoken to about criminal damage and in due course I suspect he will be spoken to about anti social behaviour.

The conveyance is badly written and for decent people (those with morals) probably poses no problem but we have a problem.

Alas the law seems weak on anti social behaviour and although some anti social behaviour can be proved, even with evidence, proving all of it would I think be hard. When the habit of a life time is changed, how do you prove it is a genuine change and not a change for sinister reasons?

sealeysb21
.

[sealeysb21]

Hi Sealey, I can see from the other thread that you have some problems with a neighbour.

Was the solicitor's letter a letter before action?

It would help if you post the letter, suitably redacted.

I think it was before action, why am I not sure, not too sure what before action is.
Since letter we have taken steps to protect our land and what action we will take if he continues to damage it.
We did what we said we were going to do in the letter

Hoping to hear from solicitor next week about anti social behaviour and what we can do.


sealeysb21

[Amethyst]

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2017/2231.html possibly. Also https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/267.html … there is actually quite a lot of case law on the matter but it will come down to the deeds, wording and intention.

eg.

If, as I think, the right is only over the cart track it means that the Claimants are not entitled to go over the grass verge when exercising it. It equally means that the tractor and machio machine 4.15 meters wide are not entitled to exercise the right of way as the width is greater than the width of the cart track.

9.2 The Kerbstones
It is clear from the photographs the video clips and the evidence of Ms Symons (which I accept) that the kerbstones were all placed on the grass verge and thus not on the right of way. In the light of the observations of Millett LJ cited above the Claimants would not normally be entitled to move the kerbstones and would be committing an act of trespass if they did.

But that's not the issue, you already know you are in the right.

As regards your original Q on this thread, a non-reply to the LBA (not complying with pre action protocols) can affect any later costs orders.

See PD https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...action_conduct

16. The court will consider the effect of any non-compliance when deciding whether to impose any sanctions which may include—

(a) an order that the party at fault pays the costs of the proceedings, or part of the costs of the other party or parties;

(b) an order that the party at fault pay those costs on an indemnity basis;

(c) if the party at fault is a claimant who has been awarded a sum of money, an order depriving that party of interest on that sum for a specified period, and/or awarding interest at a lower rate than would otherwise have been awarded;

(d) if the party at fault is a defendant, and the claimant has been awarded a sum of money, an order awarding interest on that sum for a specified period at a higher rate, (not exceeding 10% above base rate), than the rate which would otherwise have been awarded.

[sealeysb21]

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2017/2231.html possibly. Also https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/267.html … there is actually quite a lot of case law on the matter but it will come down to the deeds, wording and intention.

eg.




But that's not the issue, you already know you are in the right.

As regards your original Q on this thread, a non-reply to the LBA (not complying with pre action protocols) can affect any later costs orders.

See PD https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...action_conduct

agh yes, this was also referred to in the letter. We feel we have complied and tried mediation which failed due to the other party not wanting to attend a face to face meeting and refusing to give an undertaking not to damage our land/property. The third party has broken the terms of the conveyance and has allowed and so has his mother allowed their visitors to break the terms of the conveyance, namely parking on land where parking is not allowed.
We have no objection to delivery vehicles and similar as they are there for just a few minutes and I think it unreasonable not to allow them. He however has had a go at a delivery driver to us. An offer has been made to the mother the home owner to allow parking on this area but unbelievably she has refused.
Our friends don't park on this area anyway so it makes little difference to us but her visitors did and so this is more inconvenient to them. We were willing to accept the occasional inconvenience of not being able to turn around, but she refused. Heavens knows why?

As for being right, to be honest I don't know I'm legally right even if I am morally right. I am going by what the solicitor has said. It is they that have said
I'm right.

Two trains of thought, no reply has not affected his case if he has one but may affect court costs if it goes to court.

Only time will tell

thank you for the replies

sealeysb21

[CLL1]

Why don't you ask your solicitor to apply for a declaration?

[sealeysb21]

CLL1 what would a declaration give me?

sealeysb21