Using NDNs dropped curb

[Cleo2628]

Our NDN have a dropped curb but we do not. We’ve enquire but it will be near £1000 which we can’t afford. We moved here last June, and in some notes about the house the previous owner said that she used to neighbors dropped curb to get onto our drive, so we have done the same. Our neighbour had started doing very passive aggresics things eg. blocking my car in with his wheelie bin, parking very far back so we can barely get onto our drive, standing in his porch and watching us reverse off the drive etc. We don’t go onto his drive at all whilst using the dropped curb. I don’t want to annoy anyone but we just use the dropped curb, over the pavement and straight onto our drive. AIBU?

Oh come on, does it really matter if OP is using the dropped kurb?? NDN is being a dick because he paid for it so wants sole use but really isn't any skin off his nose if OP uses it for access.

Erm of course it matters. She has no right to use the dropped kerb and drive over the pavement. Which part of not driving on the pavement are you having difficulty with?

As if that is why the NDN is behaving like this. 😂 What skin is it off their nose if the OP does this?

Hellena because he may have to pay for repairs if the kerb/path is damaged due to misuse?

because he may have to pay for repairs if the kerb/path is damaged due to misuse?

That's the most ludicrously unlikely thing I've ever heard

After all, it does save wear and tear of parking on public roads!

Roads are designed to be driven over, footpaths are not. That's one reason (there are others) why the council has to check all applications for a dropped kerb.

Literally happened round here. Not to me so I don't know the ins and outs shrug

It is legal to drive onto a pavement to gain access to a property (rule 145). So OP has absolutely no reason to use her neighbours dropped kerb. If she doesn't like bumping up and down the pavement in her car, then she needs to pay for the kerb to be dropped. If she goes 1cm onto her neighbours drive, she is trespassing.

That's a misquotation.

Rule 145 says
"You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency."

Any council will tell you that it is only lawful if they have approved it by allowing a dropped kerb.

Yes looks like it has been quoted incorrectly by the first two websites that came up in a search. Have sent message so hopefully website will amend. Apologies. If I was OP and had bought the property, I would be taking this up with the solicitor who handled the conveyance and asking why access to the driveway wasn't flagged up as a concern. Never mind what the previous owner said about access to the driveway, if you cannot legally drive onto It , it needs to be resolved It almost sounds as if the driveway has been added by a previous owner, who has perhaps used part of a garden.

Why is the neighbour being PA if he's putting his bin at end of his own drive or parking his car right at end of his drive. If these things mean you struggle or can't get on your drive then you do need to encroach on his land to do so surely?

I feel this thread should go into MN Classics. It’s comedy gold. A lone voice actually defending the OP on the basis that the dropped kerb belongs to the council, therefore she can drive on it. Even though the dropped kerb only accesses the NDN driveway which she doesn’t have permission to drive on. Or the pavement which she doesn’t have permission to drive on. You couldn’t make it up

My message was also based o. Things mentioned on the original thread (where I had initially said it’s not right) loads of others on the first thread pointed out the right of access to a dropped kerb and I started to investigate the legalities and ownership. My posts here are not so much defending but telling the OP she should check out if any previous applications/rejections as well as go back to her lawyer as the house was sold to her stating she could use the kerb to access her drive. If the vendor was lying at the sale then she could have overpaid for her house based on lies and thus entitled to peruse legal action against previous seller.

Momo27

A lone voice? Gasp - better stick it in Classics!

The OP says the previous owner only told her that she’d used the neighbours kerb. That’s not the same as telling the OP she had a right to use it, as part and parcel of buying the property.

I could tell a potential buyer that my NDN feeds my pets and invites me round for coffee. It doesn’t mean the buyer has a right to expect it

Nicely put, Momo