Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Neighbour Dispute

149 replies

QualCheckBot · 14/08/2019 19:03

Not really a dispute, its all relatively civilised...

We are 3 households sharing a driveway. The driveway urgently needs repairs in order to keep it usable. The title deeds have it as being 50% responsible for upkeep for Household A and 25% each for households B (mine) and C.

However, A proposes that we pay a third each and DH and I are agreeable to that. C however lives alone and wants to pay only 1/5 of the total because there is only one of her and each other household has 2 people. She also says that as she doesn't have a car, she isn't contributing to the wear and tear. The driveway is the only way in and out of all the properties.

I am against this because I think it sets a dangerous precedent of her paying less than her share for future maintenance.

Furthermore, to avoid drip feed, C quite often has her parents staying with her so there are often 3 people there, and her parents have a car.

Neighbour A is wishy-washy and seems likely to let her away with it unless we put a stop to it. In fact, A's wife seemed to side with C because she doesn't like me for reasons unspecified but probably to do with the fact that I work and she doesn't, so I don't tend to fall for nonsense.

Is neighbour C being unreasonable?

OP posts:
Jamiefraserskilt · 14/08/2019 22:56

Give them a week to agree to the three way split or it defaults to the deeds.
A will not want to lose the deal so will put pressure on C to agree. Either way, step back and let them get on with it.
The number of vehicles per house is irrelevant as at some point, a carless house will have visitors and tradespeople in.

Original poster
QualCheckBot · 14/08/2019 23:20

Redcherries I haven't even phrased my vote well! I got too carried away by pressing the vote button that I didn't frame it well at all!

Interesting that almost no-one thinks we should pay more than the title deeds state. I really don't object to paying 1/3. A also allow me to use another access which is theirs entirely for a leisure pursuit, which they don't have to. However I will have a think again about whether it should be done per the title deeds.

I was actually really taken aback by C's proposal to pay only a fifth based on her being a single person. She knows perfectly well that her parents both stay with her a lot of the time, and she of course has delivery vans and gardeners coming and going. Her parents will almost certainly pay for it anyway.

I think both A and C are fairly cheeky but C takes the biscuit. I believe that legally she cannot be compelled to pay but if she does not contribute towards upkeep (not improvement) then her right of vehicular access can be blocked and she cannot complain about it.

C has also benefitted from us redoing our drive surface and not asking her for any contribution. I'm sure it would have been a massive fuss had we done so. And if she tries any more CFuckery, I will invoice her for her share.

Its not a new drive, its essential repairs to an existing drive which has become damaged by flooding in one area so that it is almost impassable by a vehicle, and it is deteriorating quite quickly. Certain works need to be done to shore up its foundations to stop it collapsing completely.

No-one is renting; A and C are both wealthy and do not need to work. I believe both A's own separate houses and only one A owns the house with the shared drive.

Thanks all. You have driven home what CFs A are being. They do seem to work together with C to blame everything on us for some unknown reason, or at least I think they would like to. I quite expect to be told I have heavier cars or use the drive more often or something and I should have to pay for it all.

OP posts:
Original poster
QualCheckBot · 14/08/2019 23:25

Stoneofdestiny Fairness doesnt come into it to be honest. If the single lady had an issue then she should not have bought a house which specified those particular commitments.

Well, yes. It will have been explained to her clearly what her obligations were.

Justaboy What a lot of fuss! I have a private road driveway with 5 neighbours when it needs a gravel top up I just orfer a up a load of drive gravel another orders a hire in digger to swish it around the other brings a crate of beer we have a good time and look and admire our own handiwork whilst getting half cut

Unfortunately, it needs more than just a gravel top up. It needs structural work to stop it collapsing.

OP posts:
SabineSchmetterling · 14/08/2019 23:36

I don’t understand why you think A is more cheeky for suggesting that she pays £300 less than her share is more cheeky than A suggesting that he pays £1000 less than his share?
Why have you decided that her cheekiness takes the biscuit when you and A were suggesting she stump up an extra £500 to subsidise A?
If you want to subsidise A in return for them letting you use their other access then crack on but you’d be totally unreasonable to try and pressure A into doing the same.

SabineSchmetterling · 14/08/2019 23:37

No idea how my post got so garbled. Hopefully you get the gist.

StoneofDestiny · 14/08/2019 23:41

QualCheckBot
You've accredited me with comments I didn't make - but no worries

MamaOomMowWow · 14/08/2019 23:43

I believe that legally she cannot be compelled to pay but if she does not contribute towards upkeep (not improvement) then her right of vehicular access can be blocked and she cannot complain about it.

As a lawyer, I don't think that your belief is likely to be correct. You should not threaten to block her access without taking legal advice.

Original poster
QualCheckBot · 14/08/2019 23:49

StoneofDestiny I'm clearly on a roll tonight! Its been a long day...

OP posts:
RandomMess · 15/08/2019 06:52

With your revelation that A lets you use another access to I will suggest again that you pay according to the deeds and then make a separate goodwill payment for use of separate access as a "thank you".

BarrenFieldofFucks · 15/08/2019 07:51

I asked about renting purely because of your assertion that 'A's wife' doesn't own the house. Pretty sure she does if they are married and are owners.

tomatostottie · 15/08/2019 07:53

I don't understand why you think C is the cheekiest. I think A is far worse. Wasn't the initial suggestion one third each - this massively benefits A (and it was A's idea). Then C came up with her idea of 1/5 - probably as a counter to the ridiculous thirds idea.
It needs to be done according to the deeds. It is irrelevant how many people live in the house.
I live in a block of flats where communal work has to be paid for by the owners and it states in our deeds what percentage of that work is paid by which flat, depending on the surface are of the flat. So I'm single and we have families of 5 living here too. I have the smallest flat, therefore the smallest contribution. Another single woman lives in a massive flat, bigger than everyone else and therefore she has to pay the most.
If you buy a property where communal work has to be paid for then you need to be aware of that and not start trying to wriggle out of your share.

StoneofDestiny · 15/08/2019 08:41

"Dear neighbours, I have tried to accommodate your different demands and as we have been unsuccessful in reaching a compromise that suits all, I have decided the only secure way to proceed is according to the terms of the Deeds"

Josephinebettany · 15/08/2019 09:29

It's not C at fault. Why should she have to pay a third? She should pay a quarter as per deeds. It's completely A who is at fault as they are getting away with a lot less doing it as you propose. You pay your quarter and then offer A a bit more as a thanks for letting them use their property for your hobby.

BrienneofTarthILoveYou · 15/08/2019 09:37

Agree with everyone else - @StoneofDestiny's wording is great & like @Josephinebettany's idea of the additional financial gesture for the access granted for your hobby.

TulipsTwoLips · 15/08/2019 09:38

C can’t pay less because she is currently single. Would she offer a refund if a partner with a car moved in?!?

MamaOomMowWow · 15/08/2019 09:56

The more I think about this, the more I think you are being a bit of a CF OP.

If you want to pay more than the deeds require because A lets you have additional rights of access then go ahead, but what you're doing is putting pressure on C to pay more too. If you're offering to go against what's in the deeds because of the benefit you get from the additional access for your leisure pursuit, then you should make an extra payment to A because of that instead of offering to go thirds which is effectively asking C to subsidise your keeping A onside.

Bluntness100 · 15/08/2019 10:05

Gosh what a hoo ha over nothing.

If you're willing to pay a third, pay. It. If A sides with c, then that's fine, C pays 20 percent. This means A still pays less that her fifty percent she should, as she pays the remaining 47 percent.
Win win.

Bluntness100 · 15/08/2019 10:07

Also, we have a shared drive, we all pay annually into s fund, the money is saved and used as required so we don't have big bills. It's all common sense.

heronontoast · 15/08/2019 10:13

'C has also benefitted from us redoing our drive surface and not asking her for any contribution. I'm sure it would have been a massive fuss had we done so. And if she tries any more CFuckery, I will invoice her for her share.'

You are the CF here op! Why on earth should she pay for any work that you have commissioned?

Simkin · 15/08/2019 10:18

In your situation I'd be saying things like 'I can see why poor C can't pay more than the deeds say she should, as you're asking, A. Maybe we should just stick to what the deeds say' and 'I think the problem comes from C and us agreeing that we would subsidise your larger share, as you asked, A'. Divide and conquer and imply they're skint if they seem to be the type to be bothered by that, as you suggest.

FlashingLights101 · 15/08/2019 10:37

I also think A is cheekier by trying to get out of paying less than their share and happily asking their neighbours to subsidise the rest.

Bluntness makes a very good point though, if you are happy to pay 33% instead of 25%, then you pay 33%, C pays 20% (a fifth, as requested) and A just has to cover the rest (47%).

C's happy, A has to pay less than they're obliged to and you are apparently happy to pay a third...

IamtheDevilsAvocado · 15/08/2019 11:32

If (and only if) a fair division is 33.3 each... Why dont all of you get this legally drawn up? With A getting a downgrade in their contribution.

Cs argument re singleton is rubbish... Yes I think I should pay less tax as I don't have kids etc etc...
That's the legally agreed amount...

I would pay my 25 percent and no more

Blueoasis · 15/08/2019 11:37

Go by the deeds. C could pay a small amount and buy a car the next day. She agreed to the deeds when she bought the house. Its her problem.

Fowles94 · 15/08/2019 11:44

YABU as that would would work out more than she's entitled to pay, she should however pay her 25% though and not 20%.

Original poster
QualCheckBot · 15/08/2019 11:51

MamaOom The more I think about this, the more I think you are being a bit of a CF OP. If you want to pay more than the deeds require because A lets you have additional rights of access then go ahead, but what you're doing is putting pressure on C to pay more too. If you're offering to go against what's in the deeds because of the benefit you get from the additional access for your leisure pursuit, then you should make an extra payment to A because of that instead of offering to go thirds which is effectively asking C to subsidise your keeping A onside.

The more I think about the way it was presented to me, the more I think it was a fait accompli to get me to pay more. A discussion was arranged at A's house, C was already there and I mentioned that the title deeds allocated 25% to me and C and I was guessing that A were 50%. Could A clarify? No response but then C stated that she thought she should pay only 20% because she was only one person and the rest of us two person households. I repeated again, quite reasonably, that the title deeds gave us 25% liability but we were happy enough to pay 1/3 if all parties paid 1/3. C objected, pointing out that she used the drive much less as she didn't drive or have a car. I pointed out that that was irrelevant and her property would be worthless without a vehicular right of access. Mrs. A then said I was being rude. Mrs. A also made some comments about me thinking I was at work with my complicated language. DH repeated our position, Mrs. A was suddenly all over him, total change of tune. Mr. A was perfectly reasonable and seemed a bit embarrassed and we tried to have polite chit chat before leaving but I was really put out at being called rude and had to use my best neighbourly skills in order to avoid calling her out on it.

I think the 1/5 nonsense is possibly something concocted between Mrs. A and C.

As we have already verbally agreed to pay 1/3 this time, I will put something in writing to A and C that we are doing so out of goodwill as a one-off only and that we do not agree to any future deviations from the title deeds.

At no point am I forcing C to pay more than her fair share. My position has always been that we go by the title deeds OR we pay 1/3 each, but not differing amounts based on number per household. It has always been a concession to A and I honestly don't know why or how we have got into this position of paying more than our fair share. I think I was just too taken aback initially and of course, you always want to avoid potential fall outs with neighbours.

The more I think about it, the more hacked off I'm getting now. The hobby access isn't even that important to me, as I can easily make an access through from my own land.

OP posts: