In reply to a post by dect:

In reply to a post by michaelh:

It is not his own "dropped Kerb" - unless it is a private road - Footways are the property of the local Highways Authority

I believe this to be true in most cases but I do believe there are some excepts.

Picture a road/avenue/lane where the pavements/footways are very wide and also include a lawned area in front of each property and each properties driveway extends to the kerb (normally using identical unbroken material from the property to the kerb) I have always been advised (as a rule of thumb) that these are the property of the owner of the house all the way to the highway including the footway that crosses the driveway.

So have you also been advised (as a rule of thumb) that the householder is liable for maintaining the footway - and is liable for any accident which a pedestrian might suffer as a result of failing to maintain said footway properly?

In reply to a post by michaelh:

So have you also been advised (as a rule of thumb) that the householder is liable for maintaining the footway - and is liable for any accident which a pedestrian might suffer as a result of failing to maintain said footway properly?

That would be my assumption as well (don't need a rule of thumb for that).

In safety critical areas it is often said that "assume" makes an ass of u and me.

This is not so safety critical but still shows that assumption does not necessarily give a totally correct answer. Taking a random answer from the multitude of local authority sites offering advice and guidance about dropped kerbs Merthyr Tydfil Borough Council's dropped kerb page (https://www.merthyr.gov.uk/media/2672/faqs-for-dropp...) includes:

Quote

Who owns the crossing on completion?
The construction of a vehicle crossing by MTCBC does not give the occupier of the premises any legal right of ownership to the land or license to police that crossing or any restriction to its existing state. The crossing remains part of the public highway and therefore available for public use. The responsibility for its maintenance rests with MTCBC.

However, your new crossing does provide full acceptable rights to drive across the footway/highway land to gain access to your (your landlords) property or use of land developed and deemed suitable for off road parking.'''

End Quote

Other local authorities give similar advice although not all cover the maintenance point and some claim that it is illegal to park a car between the dropped kerb and the boundary to the property as this may cause obstruction to the footway.

Edited by GonePostal (Fri 24-May-19 07:31:18)

Sounds to me that your evidence is referring to a typical street where a typical narrow pavement is located in front of the bound of the properties. I never disagreed that your case the pavement would remain the ownership of the local authority regardless of who paid for the dropped kerb to be installed and agree the owner of the said property does not have additional rights other that to be able to cross the pavement with a vehicle onto their property.

That was not the scenario I was trying to paint, maybe the location where you reside doesn't contain properties/pavements like the one I described but they do exist and the local authority do not own those pavements.

Being the internet we can go around this loop forever...

The answer is to consult the legal paperwork for an individual property, since this should continue details on things like extent of property and rights of access.

In reply to a post by dect:

That would be my assumption as well (don't need a rule of thumb for that).

Assumption is the mother of all f$%k ups.

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

In reply to a post by dect:

That would be my assumption as well (don't need a rule of thumb for that).

Assumption is the mother of all f$%k ups.

Assumptions i've made in life (and i'm well retired) haven't done me any harm, maybe I am just lucky

Edited by deleted (Fri 24-May-19 10:20:32)

In reply to a post by dect:

Sounds to me that your evidence is referring to a typical street where a typical narrow pavement is located in front of the bound of the properties. I never disagreed that your case the pavement would remain the ownership of the local authority regardless of who paid for the dropped kerb to be installed and agree the owner of the said property does not have additional rights other that to be able to cross the pavement with a vehicle onto their property.

That was not the scenario I was trying to paint, maybe the location where you reside doesn't contain properties/pavements like the one I described but they do exist and the local authority do not own those pavements.

Well there's another assumption or two that could get you into trouble.

In reply to a post by GonePostal:

that could get you into trouble.

Seems like you are not immune to making assumptions yourself with this comment.

In reply to a post by dect:

In reply to a post by GonePostal:

that could get you into trouble.

Seems like you are not immune to making assumptions yourself with this comment.

Please explain.