Dispute over Maintenance / Repairs costs

[jurassic86]

Hello,

We have a private road which others have an easement to use at all times subject to paying towards its upkeep. The road had to recently be resurfaced and the neighbor disagrees that maintenance and repairs should mean resurfacing.

The road was last surfaced in 1989 and has not had any repairs until now.

Pot holes were up and down the road and the contractors said the best repair would be for a replacement of the surface wear layer.

In any case the neighbor has agreed to pay 10% of the total repair cost, which we do not agree with.

We've asked for solicitor details.and they refuse to appoint one, where do we go next?

Can we restrict access on basis that maintenance has not been paid ? I look at it that it will force them.to either appoint one or take it to court?

[atticus]

Let's start by filling in some gaps.

Who owns the road?

How many properties use it?

What agreements are there? {Probably, but not necessarily in deeds)

Have you appointed solicitors?

[des8]

First of all do not restrict the access, (unless you want an expensive court case) but try and resolve the matter without resorting to court.

What is the exact wording of the easement?

It is likely that the obligation to contribute to the maintenance of the road does not extend to its improvement (but all depends on that wording).
Any dispute is likely to revolve round whether or not the resurfacing was only maintenance or included improvement.

[jurassic86]

Hi Guys

We own the road and it serves 4 properties owned by one person.

The driveway has always been an ashpalt surface and was when the deed was signed in the 80s.

The replacement of the wear layer is certainly an improvement but by proxy. It's been put back into a condition that it was in when the deed was signed.

Regarding solicitors he will not appoint one and is ignoring all correspondence.

The wording on the easement says the access is subject to a proportionate part of maintenance and repairs being paid according to user.

[atticus]

that wording is a formula for disagreement. It gives no certainty at all.

[dslippy]

That wording will not support the resurfacing of the entire road without it being very clearly and obviously required.

As Atti says, trying to work out who should pay how much is incalculable. How do you calculate the 'user' by any party?

Get what you can and get on with it.

[jurassic86]

Well my understanding is according to user means anyone who has a legal right to use it or heritable land, not "use".

We had the road surveyed before it was resurfaced and it was agreed that in order to repair it the wear layer would need to be replaced, filling the pot holes would have cost more due to the labour and time involved in removing the subbase and base layers.

[atticus]

"it was agreed" - by whom?

[dslippy]

So you have done the work ('resurfaced'?) already? Didn't you try to get agreement before doing the work?

'User' just means 'the extent of use'.

The last thing you should want is for this to go anywhere near a court, but the same applies to him as well.

[jurassic86]

We couldn't get anything from them on agreements prior to the works.

It's owned by myself and prior to the works the road was in a bad state so needed to be done. If we had to wait for an agreement it would never have been done.

It was agreed by the contractors who carried out the work. They basically said it can either be patched up and surface dressed but the life expectancy would be 5/7 years tops, and the cost in doing the above would be 80% of doing a propper replacement of the wear layer and last 30/40.

[atticus]

I agree:

Get what you can and get on with it.