It's a neighbours and driveway dispute one. Who IBU

[Whatthematter]

Name changed as the the diagram required is very outing. No idea if my neighbours post on mumsnet, but if they do, hello!

4 houses all bought at the same time. The dotted yellow area was agreeed on purchase to be shared between the 4 houses. This is marked on land registry and the land is split between the 4. There's the right agreements in place for access to the yellow bit only. Fairly common in these kind of sets ups. It was explained when purchased any changes to this land would have to be agreed by all parties and costs etc. Shared equally. It was also explained that access must be maintained.

The yellow bit is gravel. The gravel wasn't well installed by the builders and as gravel does, it spreads a bit. Its also larger gravel not pea shingle type gravel. So a little more annoying generally.

When they moved in all the houses discussed potentially swapping the gravel to block paving. Nothing was formally agreed, but there was a consensus it may look better. But no one wanted to do anything until the rest of the development was complete. There was also some concerns about cost and finances as several parties explained they didn't have the money to hand.

So now to the Who IBU question.

Houses 2, 3 and 4 are now wanting to get the blocked paving done. They've been getting quotes. However house 1 are saying they no longer want to do the driveway with blocked paving.

The reasons cited are

1. They had to replace a bathroom in their 3 year old house recently due to a water leak and resulting damaging. Costing they say £8k. The builders would not cover this or any of the resulting damage and the LABC cover would also not cover despite it being due to i stallation error. Houses 2, 3 and 4 have thankfully not had these issues. Although they apparently have some savings using them would mean they were left with very little as a contingency. Which with cost of living and job insecurity they're worried about.

2. They have now decided they prefer gravel. Their driveway is 'blind' coming out so prefer the gravel as they can hear. They also have a young child so gravel is a good warning of car. Other parts of the development with blocked paving encourage high speeds from residents and delivery drivers, which they're concerned about. They also prefer gravel as it improves security.

3. The driveway doesn't impact them hugely visually. They have tarmac to the front of their house. They struggle to see the benefit in spending potentially £6-7k on something that offers minimal benefit. They cite if they had that money spare they'd rather spend this on things they've not done in their home that would benefit them more.

4. They have concerns about maintaince. The parking driveways for houses at the moment is block paved and has constant weeds. No one really maintains their own that well. They have concerns about long term maintaince of it.

They agree the current gravel isn't ideal. As an alterntive to blocked paving they have suggested getting quotes for laying pea shingle and a proper base. Which would cost less. They have also offered to put some gravel of the current kind and rake it out which they believe would improve the look. Houses 2, 3 and 4 are against this as gravel is too dusty and noisy.

So Who is being unreasonable?

YANBU = Houses 2, 3 and 4 are right. It needs block paving and house 1 should suck it up and find the cash.

YABU = House 1 is right. Their reasons are valid and houses 2, 3 and 4 should be more open to the alternatives.

Or other. Let me know.

If house 1 can't afford it then they can't afford it, bottom line.

If house 2-4 are willing to share the cost between the 3 of them you might find house 1's no financial reasons don't matter as much to them.

If house 1 don't want to do it, can't afford it and prefer gravel that's the end of it from their end surely?

2, 3 and 4 can't just overrule someone with 1/4 of responsibility for the area I'd imagine?

All of the concerns from house 1 sound pretty valid to me too, especially the maintenance and speed of drivers on it - I've noticed the same on block paving.

The houses that want it done should pay for it imo.

House 1 doesn't want to do it and can't afford it, so there is no consensus ans everyone else is BU.

Maybe agree to tidy up the existing gravel and revisit the idea in a year. Houses 2, 3 and 4 must not just go ahead and do it because that will lead to potential disputes.

This should say *house no1's NON financial reasons

I think house 1 is being ridiculous and just scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for reasons to avoid spending money on this driveway that would benefit all of them. House 1 is not very prosocial. Some examples:

They have now decided they prefer gravel. Their driveway is 'blind' coming out so prefer the gravel as they can hear. They also have a young child so gravel is a good warning of car. Other parts of the development with blocked paving encourage high speeds from residents and delivery drivers, which they're concerned about. They also prefer gravel as it improves security.

Total rubbish. When house 1's DC can't ride their ride-on toys on the gravel, can't cycle on it when older so go and play out of sight of their house, or when they're running on it and faceplant and house 1's adults have to clean cuts on the DC's hands, knees, elbows and face, and deal with a very upset child, they'll realise what a ridiculous stretch this argument is.

They could also put a speed bump in to slow people down.

According to the diagram, if they think their driveway is "blind" they're too blind to be driving vehicles. They should at the very least start reverse parking but really they need to stop driving until they get an eye test.

The driveway doesn't impact them hugely visually. They have tarmac to the front of their house. They struggle to see the benefit in spending potentially £6-7k on something that offers minimal benefit. They cite if they had that money spare they'd rather spend this on things they've not done in their home that would benefit them more.

Very NIMBY of them. It would directly benefit them by making a place near their house where their DC can play and explore more easily. It would directly benefit them in 12-18 months time when the road is pitted with massive holes from where the gravel has subsided due to the way cars, bin lorries, delivery vans etc drive over it. Giant gravel is notorious for this. This damages cars.

I feel sorry for the other houses that house 1 are being so obstructive tbh. I mean fair enough if they just couldn't afford it at all ever, but it sounds like they've overspent on doing their house up (why wasn't it insured?) and instead of responding with "let's block pave it in 6 months or a year or two when we've saved up" their response is all these nonsense made up non-reasons why they don't want to do it.

I’ll assume you’re House 1.

Those are valid reasons, but what would you say it houses 2,3,&4 decided to get the block paving done anyway and paid for it themselves in a 3-way split?

Absolutely this

Nobody is being unreasonable, everyone is entitled to their own opinion

If 1 house doesn't agree then you can't force them to agree

If houses 2-4 still want to go ahead, then they will have to cover the extra cost

I mean, it's not a right or wrong situation?

You need to look into your rights as you share ownership for access only, you may not be able to change anything without the sign off of house 1.

If you can then the other 3 houses should pay for it.

But you all have to live as neighbours, house 1 seems to have tried to come up with a compromise, if it were me I wouldn't do anything without everyone agreeing. I would continue to look for a solution that works for all.

If there is no solution that everyone agrees on then I'd leave as is.

You're defo house 1 😅

It would be nice if everyone wanted to do it but if its not a financial priority like a leak or something, then the one neighbour is quite reasonable to decline without feeling harangued. I think it's nice of them to offer an alternative.
We have shingle but it's smaller size and is stuck to a sort of a tarmac type layer so not so 'spitty'. Might that be an option?

I agree with ALL house 1s reasons and would massively prefer gravel. They’ve missed gravel is infinitely better in icy weather and stops people playing football all over the central yellow bit.

@SisterMichaelsHabit

are house 1 supposed to conjure money out of thin air? Please explain your thinking on this.

@Whatthematter no one is right or wrong, if 1 can’t afford it no amount of reasoning from the others is suddenly going to make this happen

The thing is that house 1 can now not afford it. If they haven’t got the money, there’s not much you can do.

Does the agreement you have in place provide for what to do in the event it cannot be agreed between the houses, what happens with the maintenance of the yellow bit?

House 1 doesn't want houses 2, 3 and 4 to split the cost as it leaves them fearful for their every expenditure being scrutinised going forward. It also doesn't outweigh their other concerns.

If the contract agreement is maintain that is "keep the same"
Block etc is bettermet so house 1 has a right not to pay for the change of materials.

If house 1 has not got the money they are not going to agree to pay for any change.

So the question is can they veto the other 3 paying for the change and are the 3 houses willing to take on the extra cost.

Depends what the decision-making rules are. I'm based in Germany and under local laws decisions on jointly owned property are taken by majority decision and binding on all owners. (If the 3 majority owners had decided to install Carrara marble all over the shared access I imagine house 1 might have legal recourse. Then again, the city of Böblingen, home of Daimler Benz, installed zebra crossings in said marble and claimed it was because they were being frugal - the stuff lasts longer doncha see...)

I'm assuming you are house 1 then?

If it isn't really about finances then you need to look at what your contracts say about non agreement and whether the majority can proceed if they cover the cost. If not, then only you know whether houses 2-4 will seek legal action to force it through anyway.

It was explained when purchased any changes to this land would have to be agreed by all parties and costs etc. Shared equally. It was also explained that access must be maintained.

That seems pretty clear. I do think if houses 2-4 are willing to pay for block paving though that house 1 should thank their lucky stars.

Think i've found that my neighbours do post on mumsnet haha.

The parking is blind. The fence from.the rear back garden juts out quote far. They can't reverse park as they have a hybrid car they charge from the garage and the charger doesn't go far enough...they've tried.

As for cycling etc. Houses 2,3 and 4 bought the houses knowing the situation and the gravel. There is plenty of other space to cycle, scooter or whatever.

House 1 has done far less to their house than the other houses. They havent really decorated, or done much really. They had a baby just after moving in. Changed jobs through no fault of their own. Other neighbours have landscaped their gardens, installed swimming pools etc. House 1 has no done this type of work. The bathroom wasn't covered by insurance. Despite appeals. Legal advice co firmed the builders were liable but advice was even if they won getting the money would have been near on impossible.

I think House 1 is being quite reasonable. Also, you will have to think about who pays for the cost of maintaining the block paving going forward. It can be a nightmare for attracting weeds and moss etc, and gets discoloured so will likely need pressure-washed every so often. Plus, gravel is rain-permeable so better for the environment/less likely to contribute to flooding problems.

I dont believe it does. We were advised this was the downside to this arrangement. It was hashed together pretty quickly so I doubt this was thiught of. But a good point that i'll check.

Just say you're house 1