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.

Nobody is right or wrong. If there isn’t agreement, then the status quo remains.

Shared drives/access are a bitch. They always cause trouble. We are on a private road that is basically a dirt track, full of potholes. We will never get all eight houses that are on it to agree to measures to sort it out, so potholes it is, forever.

This one nails it. They can't force you to spend money upgrading when you don't want to, and whatever money you have, lack or spend is entirely your own business.

Personally I despise gravel and I'd prefer asphalt; cheaper at £10/sqft and easier to maintain than block paving. Could that be a future compromise?

@SisterMichaelsHabit thats not what NIMBY means. It means preventing further development because it will spoil your view etc. Not refusing to pay for something, and be responsible for the ongoing maintenance, just because your neighbours want it. Even more so when it’s a shared resource and you don’t think the change is an improvement.

Or should the neighbours just get to decide how other people spend their money because they fancy some block paving?

The agreement states that not only do all residents have to agree on changes, but the costs have to be shared equally?

Even if the other three want to cover it, they still can't legally proceed.🤷‍♂️

I'm confused as to what you mean by the other people scrutinizing your expenditure? The properties were bought with their being gravel and everyone agreed that any changes would require the agreement of all four owners. So if one owner doesn't agree things just stay as they are. If house one agrees that the others can pay to have the work done then as long as there is a lawfully signed contract in which the others legally agree that house one doesn't have to pay anything there's no "scrutinizing" that can be done in legal terms. The only danger is if there's an informal agreement, the others could press on with the work and then rely on the original terms that costs were shared between all four houses.

I’m with house 1 in this scenario

The agreement says you've ALL got to agree , you don't so that's the case shut
No discussion needed

Quite apart from financial considerations I think their "new" reasons, as you call them, are perfectly valid and are the sort of things you would only realise when you had lived somewhere for a while.

Yes the blocked paving might seem ideal at first, but the OP's points about the state this gets in with weeds are very valid and they only have to look at other parts of their estate as proof. Are neighbours 2,3 and 4 willing to do all the maintenance to keep it looking nice. Or will they be proposing further expenditure to get someone in to maintain it?

Hear, hear!

@SisterMichaelsHabit Which number are you?

Stop giving them any explanation as to why you can't afford it/don't want to spend the money on doing it. It's none of their business and you'll get yourself in to a situation where they're waiting for you to have the money. I'm guilty of this as I think we all are when under pressure but don't over explain.
I can't believe someone said the gravel makes it look like a farmyard, I don't think I would have been able to keep a straight face! I'd just moo at them to be honest.
If they keep going on about it, stand your ground and either show them the blocked driveway nearby that's in disrepair and ask why that is preferable to them. Or passively aggressively tell them you don't think a house with a shared access driveway is for them.

If house 1 can't afford it then they can't afford it,end of the matter.
If the other 3 houses want it so badly then they need to pay the costs between them.

I’m with House 1. Gravel better for security, looks better, less weeds, slower driving, less flooding, etc, etc.

It’s shitty to pressure people into spending thousands and the reasons for change are not compelling.

I would stand my ground. I wouldn't be spending money on something I didn't want doing.

I would vehemently oppose a block drive that was shared. You would only have arguments over maintenance of it when it becomes full of weeds. Block drives look awful without regular depending and sweeping.

Our drive needs doing and I have been looking at what to do. I quite like resin but the cost is substantial as it is a large drive that can take about 6 cars. Gravel is an option but I don't like walking on it and it is messy. I have reluctantly decided that Tarmac is probably best. Not the prettiest but is practical - hard-wearing, tidy, and low maintenance.

If are open to changing it maybe suggest tarmac as a less maintenance, more cost effective option. If you like and want gravel then keep saying no and ignore them.

I’m with house 1 too.

We live in a little tiny private cul de sac which has been block paved

It looked great for the first few years, but now it looks awful. Loads of sunken blocks, some are missing, they’re faded and it needs weeding all the time.

Our driveway is still gravel and so is the house opposite - all laid at the same time - the gravel looks a million times better and a lot easier to maintain.

Originally we all had gravel driveways but some neighbours changed to block paving. Pretty much all of those who changed wish they hadn’t

Houses 2,3&4 cannot corporately decide anything that house1 doesn't agree to which will cost house1 money. If houses 2,3&4 really want this change and house1 consents if they don't have to pay up, then 2,3&4 should split the cost 3-ways between them with no detriment to house1.

If house1 doesn't consent to the change then it will come down to the exact wording of the agreement. If changes can only be made with unanimous consensus then they have every right to withold their consent. There may be another way to address their concern - if the main issue is that they appreciate the way that approaching vehicles make a noise, there could be a technical solution if a proximity sensor of some kind could be installed to make a chime noise when anyone uses the paved area?

As they have a right of way over the quarter of road you won they also have the right to make the surface better. They cannot force you to get involved but you cannot stop them improving it. You cannot be made to maintain it unless the deeds say you must.

Those who want the new surface should pay for it.

Just compromise on tarmac. Gravel is a pain in the neck.

When the fuck did “pro social” appear?
Why do we keep adding spurious fucking prefixes?
You can be social or antisocial

Could you arrange something like this:
Houses 2, 3 and 4 want the block paving in so cover the cost between the three of them. House 1 agrees to contribute towards but can't pay up front so arranges some sort of payment plan to cover however much your contribution might end up being as you're in House 1 @Whatthematter, say by transferring £100 per month or something to a bank account held in trust until the amount is reached and then the other three each take their third of the costs from that bank account?

Could that work for you do you think?

If l had that sort of money I’d spend it on a holiday. No way would l be spending it on paving when it’s not really needed.

l want to know where you live that people put in swimming pools!

Looks to me like you have a simple choice. Say yes and swallow up your savings for something you dont really want. Possibly just to keep the peace with people you dont really care about and even if you do say yes and pay up will not really improve relations.

Or say you want no part of it but you dont want to hold them back so if they want your agreement to go ahead, which i presume is the real sticking point because you mentioned it needs all 4 to be in agreement. I would insist that in such agreement you have it written that you are not expected to maintain the new paving either.

Whatever you decide, these people are not really gonna be your friends so let them get on with it and keep living your own life

I'm not sure this would work. Isn't there a saying neither a borrower nor lender be. I wouldnt want to be 'indebted' to them. Also what happens if we move, have financial difficulties in the future, have another child and have months with one income? We'd also then still paying for something we don't want. £100 a month is still quite a large sum of money that could be better spent elsewhere.

The problem is the agreement says we have to maintain that bit of land/shared driveway. So we'd be overriding that. Not sure where we stand with this or if they can then withdraw from it. I'd need some legal advice I think.

Is it

a) mostly the money
or
b) mostly the maintenance

that you are bothered by?

If it’s just a cash issue then if the other houses want to go ahead and house 1 doesn’t mind then fine. The other houses can’t force house number 1 to find the money.

If is a safety issue then that’s different. House 1 seems to be saying they think the crunch of the gravel warns their child of a car approach. If they don’t want to change it for that reason then the other three houses can’t force the issue.

Having said all of that (and I’m assuming house 1 is you). Don’t put it past your neighbours to just crack on and ignore you and do it anyway. It’s a civil matter and I would expect if they can make a claim that it was something that needed sorting due to disrepair, it was damaging their vehicle etc it would cost a fortune in legal fees to try and make a civil claim against them for not getting your permission to do work.

As an example my neighbour took it upon himself to replace a fence he had no claim to because it was rotten and couldn’t contain his dog. We weren’t sure who owned it, but he certainly couldn’t claim he did. He just decided to rip it up one day and we let him crack on in the end as he claimed it was dangerous etc etc.