Access to home via farm track

tepapa said:

But the farmer has every right to use the field for 12 months, maybe you've just been lucky till now.
We don't know who has maintenance of the track or to what standard yet so can't fully comment. But you can't stop the sheep shitting on it and unlikely to get a fence put up so you'll have to live with opening the gate and the sheep on the road.

Click to expand...

I think I wrote earlier in the thread, I remember asking my solicitor, if the owner of the track could put two gates up and expect me to open and close them as I drove along it, I was thinking if this did happen it would be an impediment of my right of way. He said, no a court would find that two gates was fine in his opinion.

PAAB said:

So, once again (this is sooooooo tiring).

1. The improvements are for ME- I've been very open and clear about that!
2. There will be NO restrictions
3. I do NOT want to claim the track as my own.I have no intention of leaving here
4. Suspicious of intention - again, I have been very clear of that and have NO hidden motive or motives
5. Insults - you got me on that one

Click to expand...

Thanks for that clarification and I know how you feel this is sooooooo tiring.

The improvements may only be in your favour so hopefully you can see why a farmer would be reluctant for these "improvements" to take place if it put them at a disadvantage. Remember it is their land but your "improvements" may restrict how they can use there own land for their own enjoyment or business use. You haven't provided any real details other than a picture of some sh!t, so it's hard for us to judge.
As for no future plans for claiming ownership etc I take those comments with a pinch of salt I'm afraid, nothing personal. @Goweresque makes a good point above. What would happen if you sold up and moved in 5 years time, fence is shabby and falls over after 7 years so farmer rips it out and puts land back to how it was?. New house owner not happy and demands replacement fence.

Ffermer Bach said:

I think I wrote earlier in the thread, I remember asking my solicitor, if the owner of the track could put two gates up and expect me to open and close them as I drove along it, I was thinking if this did happen it would be an impediment of my right of way. He said, no a court would find that two gates was fine in his opinion.

Click to expand...

Yes you have mentioned it further up the the thread. Good to hear factual legal opinion on the matter

Okay. It will be interesting as to whether the solicitor comes back with anything regarding responsibility for upkeep of the track. The problem is the sheep which as they were there beforehand I think you are going to have difficulty in keeping them off the track. The gate also will be difficult to remove for the above reason. The farmer could well be a awkward so and so but he could have a genuine reason for not putting a fence up which might not be apparent to you but could be to us but we haven't seen any photos.
I don't doubt that you are genuinely wanting to stay there a long time but he could have seen many other people come and go who were quite difficult to deal with. At some point you will move on and any agreement you make with the farmer the new owner want also even if it was only a verbal agreement and the new owner could well be unpleasant.
Personally I think you have a few options.
1. You could buy the track.
2. You make a legal agreement that he is not to allow sheep etc. onto the track and to remove the gate. He would then have find his own solution off keeping the sheep off the track. This would be a permanent solution.
3. A similar agreement to the above but paying him a certain amount of money each year. I think this will be like your electric fence idea. If it isn't going well either party could terminate it.
4. Pay to install a cattle grid at your expense. You wouldn't have to paddle about in sheep poo when you get out to open the gate.

All the above would cost money and involve you paying the conveyancing costs. It would improve the value of your property and give you less to worry about. You would also increase the value of your house. I just think that if the farmer was given professional advice he would not do it for nothing. Sadly a lot of farmers on here have done good deeds for non farming neighbours and they usually aren't reciprocated.

PAAB said:

The matter is now with my solicitor to look at options and the way forward

Click to expand...

So the matter being with your solicitor won’t result in a snotty letter to the farmer?


QUOTE="PAAB, post: 7606525, member: 159336"]
I thInk this just shows the mentality of some of the characters on this forum. Well done for your contribution, invaluable! Thankfully, the farmer neighbour is a decent person, unlike you by the sounds of it
[/QUOTE]

had neighbours drive through the middle of our farmyard for 60 years with no problem, not a single solicitor letter or cross word despite cows crossing, multiple major building projects blocking the drive for some times upto a hour, I doubt that would have been the case if you moved next door by the sounds of it, I’d get used to gate opening and washing a bit of sheep sh!t off your snazzy car if I was you.

Could you build a clear span bridge ? Then you wouldn't need to use the track

Fit a powered brush to the front of the car.

DrWazzock said:

Fit a powered brush to the front of the car.

Click to expand...

How about one of those hover poo pickers like the horsey folk use fitted to the front of the car, empty on the veg garden on the way past and the jobs a good un.

There see, come on TFF to get sensible solutions to your problems

Highland Mule said:

He asked for the landowner to fulfil his obligations and this was refused;

Click to expand...

Really? And what are those obligations? I didn't know the OP had published his title deeds here.

jd6420s said:

Okay. It will be interesting as to whether the solicitor comes back with anything regarding responsibility for upkeep of the track. The problem is the sheep which as they were there beforehand I think you are going to have difficulty in keeping them off the track. The gate also will be difficult to remove for the above reason. The farmer could well be a awkward so and so but he could have a genuine reason for not putting a fence up which might not be apparent to you but could be to us but we haven't seen any photos.
I don't doubt that you are genuinely wanting to stay there a long time but he could have seen many other people come and go who were quite difficult to deal with. At some point you will move on and any agreement you make with the farmer the new owner want also even if it was only a verbal agreement and the new owner could well be unpleasant.
Personally I think you have a few options.
1. You could buy the track.
2. You make a legal agreement that he is not to allow sheep etc. onto the track and to remove the gate. He would then have find his own solution off keeping the sheep off the track. This would be a permanent solution.
3. A similar agreement to the above but paying him a certain amount of money each year. I think this will be like your electric fence idea. If it isn't going well either party could terminate it.
4. Pay to install a cattle grid at your expense. You wouldn't have to paddle about in sheep poo when you get out to open the gate.

All the above would cost money and involve you paying the conveyancing costs. It would improve the value of your property and give you less to worry about. You would also increase the value of your house. I just think that if the farmer was given professional advice he would not do it for nothing. Sadly a lot of farmers on here have done good deeds for non farming neighbours and they usually aren't reciprocated.

Click to expand...

I remember being told, someone in my mum's village bought a patch of farm yard that bordered their house (as a garden extension only to make the garden bigger), lo and behold not that long after, planning permission in the extended garden and a bungalow went up, original house sold. We heard that that the seller was told that it was only wanted to make the garden bigger. I know, sellers fault, they should have put a uplift clause in the transfer, again, farmer trusting the intentions of the person they dealt with!

Dry Rot said:

Really? And what are those obligations? I didn't know the OP had published his title deeds here.

Click to expand...

Bullet point 1 in post 42.

Wow,

Reading threads like this does make you wonder why anyone would want to continue to support British Farmers going forwards!!

@betweenthelines - you really do need to wind your neck in and stop being so aggressive towards the OP (and others that you feel you can bully), as it is totally uncalled for, and unnecessary!

The OP has asked reasonable questions, and in a respectful manner imho, and also remained respectful even through the aggressiveness directed towards them - although, in hindsight; adding more detail would have been better for the OP at the get go, because obviously the OP was not aware of just how anti - 'Joe Public' many on here are, and you think you can simply act like you do regardless!
Furthermore, due to the nature of some of the aggressive comments on here (and a lot of previous comments of a similar vein), and especially your actions, I would be encouraging him / her to seek legal guidance on this too if respectful questions and obvious visible signs that the OP is paying for things, to ensure that the Farmer has to comply with his / her obligations here if they are not, as clearly - you all sure as hell do and would when / if the shoe is on the other foot!!

With regards to the apparent scare tactics alluded to in the thread for following the correct path of seeking to sort out his / her rights because of the alleged failings of a farmer / landowner, again - shows clearly just how insular and aggressive a lot within the industry have become, to the point that they will purposely make someones lives even more of a misery should they be found to be negating their own legal responsibilities and forced to uphold their side...

@PAAB - sadly, you have asked questions that have raised the heckles for some via this thread unknowingly, as had you read the forum for a while; you would have no doubt realised that these sort of questions will always tend to side with the farmers sticking together against the outsider (you in this case) unfortunately.
Also, you will also have gathered from your experience here, that many of the said aggressors - do not care to read the full posts, but will skim read, jump to their own conclusions, then chastise you and sometimes quite bluntly.

With regards to the sheep droppings on the drive - sadly it is part of the way in the country to be honest, so I would respectfully sugest that you do try and learn to live with that, as it does and will decompose, and the pulling the drive surface up is more than likely due to the fact that you have obviously chosen / been sold the wrong surface material, as you have not been sold plannings from that picture, but what appears to be 6f5 capping material.
Maybe a picture of the drive in full may have been a better approach to help understand the dilemma (before and after kind of thing), as it is often very difficult to express on a forum just what you are trying to explain without someone jumping in with both barrels and not even reading the posts.

I hope you can get it sorted amicably, but knowing how many on here react - you may be in for a bumpy ride if they have failed in their responsibilities and you call them out - even though you offered to pay.

Chin up!

Highland Mule said:

Which is exactly what he has done, if you read the thread.

He asked for the landowner to fulfil his obligations and this was refused;
He then asked for permission to do the repairs himself and this was granted and enacted.
He then asked the assembled body of TFF if there were any further ideas to protect said investment and was met with a few good ideas, some issues to be aware of, plus a somewhat predictable tide of abuse from those who jumped to conclusions without reading the whole thread.
He then decided to forego the abuse and indicated instead he would ask his solicitor for clarity of the legal obligations of the landowner and his rights as owner of a right of way.

Is that a fair summary @PAAB ?

Click to expand...

Ok, may have missed it, have been back and tried to read all of the OP's posts - but just for clarity, I can't see where the OP actually asked for permission to put down the plannings, all I can see is this

"took it upon myself to have 80-100 ton of tar planings placed and rolled at the cost of several thousand pounds"

It's a subtle but important distinction. The OP is free to correct me.

PAAB said:

So, once again (this is sooooooo tiring).

1. The improvements are for ME- I've been very open and clear about that!
2. There will be NO restrictions
3. I do NOT want to claim the track as my own.I have no intention of leaving here
4. Suspicious of intention - again, I have been very clear of that and have NO hidden motive or motives
5. Insults - you got me on that one

Click to expand...

Insults - what was this?

"So, one thing that it has shown me is that my farmer is quite a reasonable and nice guy after all, compared to many of you on here who clearly aren't. I suspect some of you have spent far too long away from the normal world and have lost all ability to communicate with people unless there is something in it for you. You know what? You can actually be nice to people and help your neighbours out if they come looking with a legitimate issue.
Anyway, to those of you that this applies too, keep enjoying those internet searches for your farmers wife and try to be a little understanding and dare I say, cooperative? Of course, I am reading BETWEENTHELINES here "

We obviously have different definitions of insults.

Alchad said:

Ok, may have missed it, have been back and tried to read all of the OP's posts - but just for clarity, I can't see where the OP actually asked for permission to put down the plannings, all I can see is this

"took it upon myself to have 80-100 ton of tar planings placed and rolled at the cost of several thousand pounds"

It's a subtle but important distinction. The OP is free to correct me.

Click to expand...

6th sentence of the opening post suggests he did, as does post 74. But I agree there's a difference between 'prior notification' and 'no objection'.

Alchad said:

Insults - what was this?

"So, one thing that it has shown me is that my farmer is quite a reasonable and nice guy after all, compared to many of you on here who clearly aren't. I suspect some of you have spent far too long away from the normal world and have lost all ability to communicate with people unless there is something in it for you. You know what? You can actually be nice to people and help your neighbours out if they come looking with a legitimate issue.
Anyway, to those of you that this applies too, keep enjoying those internet searches for your farmers wife and try to be a little understanding and dare I say, cooperative? Of course, I am reading BETWEENTHELINES here "

We obviously have different definitions of insults.

Click to expand...

You may not be familiar with the vernacular, but "you got me on that one" is an admission of insulting, not a denial.

How does pointing out the salient facts--OP bought house knowing about the access. Farmer is under no obligation to allow changes on his property-- amount to bullying?

If anything, I feel that the OP appears to be trying to bully the farmer into doing what he wants, going to farmer with various ways to "improve" the access track, despite the farmer clearly not wishing to play ball. Why come on a Farming forum with this issue, other than to find more ways to put pressure on the farmer? And when that doesn't work, OP gets in touch with his Solicitor.

We know nothing of this from the farmer's point of view and are relying on the OP being fully open and honest in what he says/claims. The truth may be very different from what we have been told.

The other thing to consider is that should the "track" issue ever be resolved, the OP would still be using the farmer's yard to access his property. Would the dispute then move from sheep poo in the field to cow muck, farm traffic etc in the farmer's yard?

I know the OP will come back with "Ooh no, I wouldn't complain about that, it's just the track I'm bothered about" but when he purchased his house he, was apparently, happy or at least accepted the state of the access track!

In any dispute, the fully story from both sides of the fence (see what I did there?) is needed to ensure a full understanding of the situation.

betweenthelines said:

How does pointing out the salient facts--OP bought house knowing about the access. Farmer is under no obligation to allow changes on his property-- amount to bullying?

Click to expand...

Is literacy really that poor in the 'southwest'? If you really don't know what long words like 'deteriorating' mean, maybe look them up in a dictionary rather than jumping to conclusions.

As for the second of your 'facts' regarding landowner obligations - unless you are said farmer then you have no idea if that is the case or not.

Also worth noting that the OP doesn't state he goes through the farm yard, but through the farm - there is a world of difference between the two, as you should know.

I think everyone is forgetting that the OP came here not to complain that the farmer hadn't maintained the track as he should have, but to complain that he wouldn't allow a fence to be erected to keep sheep (and their dastardly poo) off of it, oh, and just coincidentally allow the OP free access to their property without having to open and close a gate each time. In the first post the issue of the track maintenance had been sorted, the OP had done it, and the farmer was happy with the work done. That wasn't the issue. The sheep poo (apparently) was.

The issue of the maintenance is really irrelevant to this thread, it will be covered by the deeds, if the farmer has a clear obligation to maintain the track to a standard for domestic vehicles then he should be held to that. More likely I suspect the deeds will give the responsibility to maintain without making any comment as to what standard. And as such its then a case of 'Well if you want a domestic driveway, you pay for it, I'm more than happy with what is there.'

Goweresque said:

I think everyone is forgetting that the OP came here not to complain that the farmer hadn't maintained the track as he should have, but to complain that he wouldn't allow a fence to be erected to keep sheep (and their dastardly poo) off of it, oh, and just coincidentally allow the OP free access to their property without having to open and close a gate each time. In the first post the issue of the track maintenance had been sorted, the OP had done it, and the farmer was happy with the work done. That wasn't the issue. The sheep poo (apparently) was.

The issue of the maintenance is really irrelevant to this thread, it will be covered by the deeds, if the farmer has a clear obligation to maintain the track to a standard for domestic vehicles then he should be held to that. More likely I suspect the deeds will give the responsibility to maintain without making any comment as to what standard. And as such its then a case of 'Well if you want a domestic driveway, you pay for it, I'm more than happy with what is there.'

Click to expand...

I'm not forgetting anything, I read and understood everything that was available at the time - and the largest detractor from the points within the OP post is that of the mannerisms of which the usual 'Farmer is always right', the one buying the house from land sold by the farmer is wrong... even though you, I nor anyone else have any insight into the deeds of said arrangement.
How many times do we see this kind of social resentment, and the same old mantra comes out, yet here we are still trying to turn everything around against the OP as he is obviously not from a farming background so must be lying - and the farmer is obviously salt of the earth, top notch fellow who is always a saint, never does anything wrong etc - even though none of us know the full SP of the situation!!

It is a sad reflection upon the industry imho, but one I have come to accept is previllent and just take it on face value, because at the end of the day - the ones doing it do not impact my personal life.
Some people however, may not be able to brush these attacks off - and can lead to unpleasant situations cropping up (you know, the other thread on here that talks about a lot of issues with mental health etc) - yet here we are condoning this kind of aggression towards others when it is most definitely not called for.