How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask F E Smith Your Own Question
F E Smith
F E Smith, Advocate
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 10232
Experience:  I have been practising for 30 years.
Type Your Law Question Here...
F E Smith is online now

I would like to know how you think a judge would view the

This answer was rated:

I would like to know how you think a judge would view the following situation. It is terrace houses in an 'L' shape, around a common yard. There is a big wall enclosing the houses on the other side.
There is a small entrance, and the yard is made of gravel. The historic deeds state that the common yard is for the use of all the people in the houses surrounding it. (Victorian deeds, use of toilets, ash pits, deliveries can be made with waggon an horses, but it cannot be blocked. It is for everyone. At one side neighbours have built gardens, which means the other houses have much less room, because they do not want to park on their (illegal) gardens, they then park outside the other houses. It is all very unfair of course. But since the gardens have been there for longer than 30 years, I wonder if, if I sued them, the Judge would decide that they had the right to keep the gardens, even though the deeds state otherwise. I need to know what you think, because I do not want to embark on litigation unless I do not what the outcome might be. It is very expensive

Hello for clarification - are any other neighbours interested in suing?

how long have you lived there?

Customer: replied 27 days ago.
I bought the house in 2016. The house is tenanted out. It is a rather strange set of houses, because of the interpersonal relationships. The gardens have been allowed to be built because the owners were related to each other (I think - even though they might not have been talking to each other - something funny going on there) Another reason is because the houses have been tenanted. If had been different owners living there the story would have been different. So getting together to sue would prove difficult. Although there are some new neighbours who I will be going to the Uk to meet in May who might be interested. But I was thinking of going to the Pro Bar Unit or doing the Injunction myself, to save money. I would of course have to do a lot of studying first, and it could still prove expensive even if doing it myself, if they defend. That's why I want to know what the chances would be of the Judge saying they could keep the land, even it goes against the deeds. Keeping the land wouldn't be so bad, but it's the parking on the other land that is the biggest problem. Apart from they are depriving of our use of the common yard. Louise

Once something has been in place on land (which someone doesn’t own) for more than 20 years, and has done so without consent and without objection and not in secret, then the “trespasser” can claim an easement under the Prescription Act for whatever the trespass is (the garden) to remain in place.

If the trespasser has for example fenced off the garden to exclude others, then provided they have done that without consent and objection are not in secret for more than 10 years, and if the land is registered at the land registry, they can claim adverse possession of the land. The period is 12 years in the land is unregistered at the land registry.

The same situation applies to parking although it’s unlikely that anyone parking on this land would be able to claim adverse possession, they would only be able to claim an easement.

As you don’t own the land in question your claim would be to stop the trespass (the gardens or the parking) on the basis that it interferes your right to use this area although it would mean that neither you nor anyone else would be able to have a garden or park on it so you would end up with an empty yard. That may be what you are looking for.

Can I clarify anything else for you?.

I’m happy to answer any specific points arising from this.

Please take a moment to look at the top right hand corner of the page and rate my service by clicking one of the stars at the top of the screen. It’s important you use the rating service because that gives me credit. It doesn’t just give me a pat on the head! (Although there is an incentive scheme where the more five-star ratings I get, I do actually get a pat on the head! :-)) All you need to do is press Submit. Thank you.

If you still need any point clarifying, I will still reply because the thread does not close.

Best wishes.


F E Smith and other Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 27 days ago.
Thank you for your reply. I gave you 5 stars, but I don't like rating people or giving them tips until I am finished!
To go further, I more or less had an idea already of your reply, but there are some complicated points. You say the trespasser can claim an easement. But surely if everybody in the complex has right of way over the land surely they have an easement already? It is a common yard for the use of everyone. They have not tried to register the Land Registry, and if they did I would certainly object. But if they have not tried to register the land at the Land Registry and they already have right of way, where would that leave me in court.? Would a judge award them the land if they already have right of way and they have not tried to register it at the Land Registry. Also, should I be successful, and we end up with an empty yard, I would like to divide it up properly, so how would we do that, after I have just complained that I do not want their gardens and parking. Gardens and parking are ok if they are divided up properly. Any ideas?

As I said, the thread doesn’t close. I am happy to answer further.

They may have a legal easement if it’s in a deed or they may have an equitable easement if it’s created through long use either under the Prescription Act (20 years plus) or the doctrine of Lost Modern Grant (as long as anyone can remember)

If they have consent, they don’t have an easement unless it’s done by deed because they cannot acquire one by prescription or LMG.

Before you have the right to object you would have to prove that the interference to your use of this yard was substantial. That is a matter that hinges on the facts.

They can only register the land is theirs at the Land Registry if they have used it as their own to the exclusion of all others. That is the doctrine of adverse possession. That needs 10/12 years. If they haven’t used it to the exclusion of all others, they need 20 years use at least. That only gives them the right to use it, not the exclusive right to use it.

If you end up with an empty yard, you can only divide it up between you if you all agree and subject to the above.

Customer: replied 26 days ago.
Hello there Mr Smith (Real name??!)I think it would be best for me to have a telephone conversation with you. Maybe tomorrow - will you be available?
In the meantime I am enclosing an old conveyance map, showing the common yard in red and also the deeds for number 1080 of the houses, you can also see on the deeds the common yard. Gardens have been built on one side, the opposite to the entrance. Perhaps you can study these and it will help our conversation tomorrow? I am now adding the files. Let me know about tomorrow. Louise

I am not going to be available for a conversation I’m afraid. I can only deal with matters online at present. I apologise for the confusion over the telephone call. I have had a look at the documents and it doesn’t really assist me in respect of anything other than what I have already said.

Customer: replied 25 days ago.
I'm afraid it is still not clear. I do not have a legal mind I'm afraid. So everybody has right of way over the land, but the two perpetrators have built gardens, but they already had an easement already if they had right of way - am I correct? The illegal gardens have certainly been their for longer than 20 years.
Do you think a Judge would be likely to tell them to dismantle their illegal gardens in that case? I think a Judge would be definitely be able to tell them to stop parking there. That has not been going on for 20 years, 8 at the most. Am I correct?

They have a legal easement if it’s documented or an equitable easement if it is not documented.

They may have acquired the right either by deed or through the doctrine of Lost Modern Grant (use since time long since forgotten) or the Prescription Act (20 years or more).

The garden and any parking is an obstruction of everybody else’s right-of-way.

The difficult matter for a court to decide is whether it is reasonable to ask for the garden to be removed when no one has done anything about it for over 20 years and has just sat by and let the gardens propagate.

The parking issue is straightforward. If they have not been parking for 20 years, they have no easement to park. They have the right to use the land but not to obstruct anyone else in the use of that land

Customer: replied 25 days ago.
The reasons the gardens were left is because it was all owned by family members and tenanted out. Now it is different because outsiders have started moving in. Would that be classed as a good excuse for the Judge or not?
I am also wondering if, say, it all went ahead and the Judge agreed to stop the parking, but, say, not the gardens, would it then be possible to be able to make an agreement with the perpetrators and other concerned parties for a parking agreement that is equitable for everybody concerned, ie one car parked outside every house, not all the lot with gardens parking outside everybody else's house? How would one go about doing that?

That would be a reasonable excuse for having let things lie as they were for some period of time.

Any agreements in respect of the perpetrators has to be agreed by all the owners and all the parties otherwise it doesn’t happen. Based upon the facts here, I think it’s unlikely you would get everyone to agree but that would be the first thing to do before worrying about the legalities. Whoever owns the garden is unlikely to agree to parking restrictions if you have already taken issue with the over the garden.

Without ownership of the land on which the parking takes place, it is only possible to get an easement through long use and is unlikely that it could be formalised in the short term

Customer: replied 25 days ago.
But surely if the Judge had judged for no gardens and no parking, then surely then everybody would then feel compelled to come to some agreement. They do not want to do anything, you cannot talk to them about it. They think they own the Yard.
I have already threatened to sue them.

You are trying to 2nd guess what all property owners are going to do and you are applying logic. It doesn’t apply because he’d only need one dissenting party and that’s the end of it.

If everyone else is quite happy as things are, then you would be on your own in bringing the litigation and if they “ganged up on you” and pool resources,collectively they have less to lose

Customer: replied 24 days ago.
Hello there Mr Smith,
I have been looking at some of the deeds again and I begin to think that the owner of 1076 doesn't really have any right to the common yard at all in my view, because hers is a different Conveyance. Although she does have a right of way. I wonder if you would be able to read some of the deeds for me to make it clear? I could for instance reward you with an extra tip, if you would be willing to look at them. Louise

I am happy to look at the document if you can attach it using the paperclip.

If you can actually attach the two different documents, highlighting the differences, that would be really helpful. Thank you

Customer: replied 23 days ago.
Dear Mr Smith
I am enclosing an old conveyance for 1092. I am also enclosing the deeds for 1076 and 1080.
As you can see 1092 and 1076 are part of the same conveyance but 1076 has rights to use the common yard 1096 not.
I am also enclosing the deeds for 1084. I notice myself there is a difference between the deeds for 1076 and 1080 in that 1084 seems to have the right to place dustbins in the common yard, and also general and unrestricted rights of way at all times, which 1076 does not seem to have.
If you study the old conveyance map, it seems clear that 1096 and 1076 have their own land. It seems very unfair to me that
the lady at 1076 (the worst perpetrator of the parking/garden issue) has her own land, yet has also made a garden on the common yard, which I find as far as land rights are concerned should really belong to the terraces 1070 to 1084 etc. But there again 1076 has got permission to walk over it to use the 'Privy'. Have you any idea what a Judge would make of this?
Also, I should mention that most of the titles for the row of terraces 1070 to 1086 are possessory (therefore the titles have been lost, but the title for 1080 is the only one surviving. (that's the terrace on the other side of mine, it is facing the road, and mine is facing the common yard). However I have just heard that it may be possible to find the historic deeds for my house at a place called the Deeds Registry in Wakefield, where all the deeds used to be kept before the Land Registry opened. Do you think the Jude would accept the deeds for 1080 as being appropriate to mine also. I cannot imagine that they would have been any different, especially since mine is actually facing the common yard.
I might have a few little questions after your reply, and then I will leave you a tip. Thanks a lot. Louise
the file that says 1072 below should be for 1076. Regards.
Customer: replied 23 days ago.
Please note I am reading through what I have written. In the third line I have written 1084 instead of 1080. And in the second line I say 1096 instead of 1092. Sorry about that!

1076, land registry title WYK818969 (you call it 1072 in your description of the attachment) has the right over the common yard hatched green for all purposes and also along the land coloured blue on the plan for access to the ash pit which is not a modern land registry plan which is the old deeds plan which is attached to title WYK96112 which is a different is likely but not guaranteed that this plan is similar to the plan used for any other properties in this little enclave. Any use is subject to paying 1/9 of the cost of repair which implies that there are 9 properties involved.

There is also the right to pass along the access road between C and B on the plan and to use various services.

It also refers to a privy marked P on the plan.

1092, land Registry title WYK133329 also has the right to go between C and B on the plan and to use the various services. There is an easement in respect of the eaves along the passage to the rear of 1086. There is no reference to 1092 being able to use the common yard although 1092 is not marked on the plan so I don’t know which property is 1092.

I cannot see that 1086 (I don’t have those deeds) has any right to make a garden or that anyone at all has the right to park,

Customer: replied 21 days ago.
I cannot see anywhere to leave a tip. When I am finished perhaps?
Thank you for your reply. Property no 1092 has an enormous garden of it's own. 1076 is a part of 1092. So I was hoping that
it would say that 1076 had different rights. As I do find this very greedy indeed when you have a big garden of your own to try and take the use of somebody else's right of way. I do notice small differences, such as 1076 does not have permission to place a dustbin in the yard, and it has a different entrance. But I suppose this does not make any difference to the Judge?
I have a few other small questions, but they will follow, I do not want to make a chaos. Thank you.
Customer: replied 21 days ago.
I am enclosing the deeds for 1080, it seems you did not receive them last time. I don't think my last message went through.
But I said that I was rather hoping that because 1092 and 1076 belong together and 1092 has an enormous garden, that it would be clear in the deeds that 1076 had no business in the common yard, but I think this must not be true if it says about the 1/9 thing.

There is a facility somewhere to leave a bonus/tip and I think you may get a reminder automatically about that but I have no control over that.

I agree with you that the small difference such as the dustbin would only make a difference insofar as one can place a dustbin and the other one can’t.

It is interesting to see that the deeds are all worded differently even though it appears the properties may all have been built at around the same time.

1080, Land Registry title number WYK182623, gives the right to use the water closet in the block of five. Interesting also that the other properties have to contribute 1/9 to the cost but five privies would indicate five properties.

They still have the right over the yard which is actually explained as being on the northerly side of 1070-1086. Plus the right to use services.

Customer: replied 21 days ago.
On the subject of the law you mentioned of being able to claim land after 20 years. The gardens have been there for longer than that and as you are aware have been built over a common yard which is a common right of way for all the houses round the common yard,
I would presume the Judge would not be in favour of the perpetrators claiming the gardens? A common yard cannot be dominated by 2 people when it is meant to be used by 6 people? Your input would be welcome. Also the gardens have been looked after by different tenants, so does that also influence the case? They have not tried to claim the land at the Land Registry. And of course I can claim that it was all owned by one family and tenanted out until now. Do you think I have a good case?

The land is registered at the Land Registry. They can acquire adverse possession if they have had exclusive use of the land and treated as their own to the exclusion of others, and have done so for more than 10 yearswithout consent or objection. They are going to have to have proof of that 10 years of occupation. The proof is essential otherwise the land registry would rejects any application for Adverse Possession.

In respect of the parking, the parkers can acquire an easement if they have parked for more than 20 years without consent or objection.

In both cases however they cannot obstruct the right-of-way so the right-of-way would exist through the garden and all over it even if they had adverse possession. An interesting point.

It wouldn’t matter how many people had owned the property which “claims” the garden, it is the total use by all the owners which is relevant.

Your claim would be that your right-of-way (I am assuming it’s documented in your deeds) over whatever area is specified in the deeds is obstructed. I cannot see how that can be construed in any other way or how if the garden is built on that right-of-way, or people park on the right-of-way, that they would have a defence.

I can’t guarantee what a judge would say because you can never guarantee with what paperwork or what defence to your action the other side would bring forth in court.

Customer: replied 21 days ago.
I managed to send a bonus, I think. The deeds I sent you 1080 claim that the common yard should not be obstructed - enclosed again for your perusal. Please confirm
Two more questions:
1. My tenant is parking there in the common yard at the moment. I know that if I have a court case I must have 'clean hands' so do you think I should ask her already not to park there, or can it wait till a little closer the case, or does it matter, because she is not the owner, and I do not have an agreement about parking in the rental agreement?
2. Should I win the case and I get the injunction, and the neighbours have to dismantle the gardens and stop parking how will the injunction be held to correctly, because I do not live there and cannot control what the people are doing? They could just start parking there again, and I suppose that they would

Thank you very much for that. I should get an email from head office telling me of it at some stage.

I just checked my emails. Yes, I did, at

1 I think that would be a good idea because as soon as you start making noises,someone is going to be out taking dated photographs. Although it’s not you parking, if you are the landlord and it’s your tenant doing it, you are allowing it to happen it’s better not to have the grey area

2 If you get the injunction to prevent them obstructing your right-of-way (which is what this is all about), then if they start again it is a police matter for breach of court order

Customer: replied 20 days ago.
The most of the houses in the enclave are possessory, as most of the deeds have been lost. There are only two deeds in existence as far as I can see, 1076 and 1080. But both of these are the same Victorian deeds, no parking, no gardens, etc.
I do not have my own deeds, my house is 1072. So do you think that the Judge would accept these deeds as evidence, especially since they mention 1/9ths etc. and especially since 1080 is facing the road, and my house which is the back terrace of 1080 is facing the common yard?
It might be still possible to trace my deeds, but still maybe they cannot be found in the end. So what do you think? 1076 is one of the perpetrators and their deeds state no parking or gardens, too.

If this was in court, then on the balance of probabilities I think it’s unlikely that a judge would think that the other deeds were any different and that the houses with possessory title had the right to park.

The 1/9 would certainly assist in swinging a decision on the balance of probabilities towards all the rights and reservations in all the properties being the same.

Customer: replied 16 days ago.
Hello there, I can it seems ask any questions up to the end of my membership, so here goes:
What would I do now? I will get in touch with a barrister to go further. But as I want to cut out the middle man and keep down the costs I will not be using a solicitor, so that means I will be doing the paperwork and writing the letters myself.
I think the next stage is to serve an injunction against the neighbours. My goal is to eventually get parking for one car for every house. So I think it would be wise to first get in touch with the others to get their take on this, because we will all need to want the same thing, so I will have to get the general idea of what the others want. I presume that before serving an injunction you need to first write a letter to the neighbours telling of my intention of serving an injunction?
Would it be wise to first go to talk to them again and explain the situation and give them the opportunity to change the situation themselves? I presume that when they receive the injunction they can decide to counter-sue?
I would appreciate it if you could give me an idea of what to expect. Thanks a lot. Louise

I think it unlikely that you would get parking for one car for every house. The court will not simply grant an easement because there is already a statutory mechanism for doing that, the Prescription Act and the Common law remedy, the doctrine of Lost Modern Grant. Therefore, if you succeed, you will succeed in stopping parking for everyone in one part of your action and removing the garden in another part but they would be two separate actions subjected to two separate decisions.

If that’s what you want, then you would first write a letter to everyone who parks/neighbours telling them of your proposal. Remember that if you lose, faced thousands of pounds of legal costs and this legal bill could easily be £10,000 or even £20,000.

It is always wise to speak anyone first.

They receive the injunction application, they don’t countersue but defend.

Your action is that your right-of-way over this land is substantially obstructed.

If you are not going to use a solicitor to save costs which is quite understandable, I would certainly get a barrister to give you an opinion on the likely chance of success and to settle proceedings.

Can I clarify anything else for you?

I’m happy to answer any specific points arising from this.

Please take a moment to look at the top right hand corner of the page and rate my service by clicking one of the stars at the top of the screen. It’s important you use the rating service because that gives me credit. It doesn’t just give me a pat on the head! (Although there is an incentive scheme where the more five-star ratings I get, I do actually get a pat on the head! :-)) All you need to do is press Submit. Thank you.

If you still need any point clarifying, I will still reply because the thread does not close.

Best wishes.


Customer: replied 15 days ago.
I don't intend on getting the two matters confused with each other. I thought first the one to get them to stop parking and to remove the gardens. Later I could look into the parking issue. It must be legally possible to do this.
But I don't see what they have to defend. The deeds make it clear. Or do you know something that I don't?

What you are trying to do is get everyone to stop parking in a way that suits them and get everyone to part in a way that suits you. I’m not convinced the court are going to be particularly sympathetic about that.

They could defend on the basis that they have been doing this for 20 years and they have an easement to park and that is not a substantial interference to your right-of-way because you can use most of the area and they would ask you what you wanted to do with the area and what use you wanted which was being interfered with. I’m not saying that any defence would work, I’m just saying that they could put one forward

Customer: replied 15 days ago.
Thank you very much for giving me an idea of what they would say. I would say that the situation in the common yard is unsustainable the way it is, nobody can hang their washing out because a car would pull the washing down. I would say the houses have been owned by the same family for more than 30 years and because of that this situation has arisen. I would say that a common yard is supposed to be used by 1/9 per household, and it is now being used by 2 households to the disadvantage of the other households, I would say they have not been parking their for longer than 8 years, they cannot prove it because it has been tenanted by different people, and what would they say then?

There is an argument here they have as much right to park the car or to drive round the yard in the car or even to walk round it and the washing interferes with that. Can you see how things can go completely differently in court, to the way you expected?

It does not matter that the houses of been occupied by different people. All the periods of use are added together consecutively.

Customer: replied 15 days ago.
But don't the Deeds that do not allow for parking or gardens count for nothing at all? Would the neighbours get an easement just without asking for one, or would they have to apply to the court for one?
Also the perpetrator has to drive past all the other houses to get to her own house doesn't that count for anything. Plus if everyone is allowed to park and have gardens it could be an utter chaos? But thank you for all the ideas, it is very helpful.

You are trying to 2nd guess what a judge would say. That’s what all lawyers do.

No one gets an easement without asking for it but they can just do what they like until such time as it’s challenged and then they are either stopped or allowed.

The location of the houses is irrelevant because people go past those houses in the exercise of the normal right, even on foot.

Customer: replied 14 days ago.
Well actually there is a pathway at the side of the houses especially for walking. But as the common yard is made of gravel and not for walking it is not suitable for cars. That is also a point. So would you rate my chance of winning a s poor medium or good bearing in mind the deeds.

It depends how you define “winning”.

Excluding all the vehicles and removing the garden, slightly better than 50pc

Getting organised parking, slim

Customer: replied 14 days ago.
These houses were left by a man to his daughters. Unfortunately he gave the ones he loved the most more property and the ones he loved less less property
So they do not like each other very much but do not want to get caught in a legal wrangle with each other either I think. Would this help my case. I rather think that in any legal case it would depend on how you present it and the research you do. Am I correct in thinking this. Another idea would be just to have a case to stop them parking . The gardens do not bother me apart from the fact that they park their cars on the rest of the space because they do not want to park on their illegal gardens

I can’t see that any family wrangle assists you unless the one without the garden and perhaps who doesn’t park wants to have an altercation with their sibling.

You say they don’t want to get caught in a legal wrangle that’s probably the end of it.

If the garden went it would give even more parking space of course.

Customer: replied 14 days ago.
The story about the family wrangle was just to explain to the judge why nobody has complained about the gardens up to now.
I really don't know if I am still allowed to ask questions, please let me know if I need to pay more ?
It doesn't sound as if I have a cut and dried case with the garden issue. I think it is necessary to find a simpler solution. One that has more likelihood of winning.
There are two main perpetrators, one is the lady who lives at 1076 and the other lady who lives at 1086. I am enclosing a map to help you remember. It is not the gardens that bother me, it is the fact that people want to park outside our houses because they do not want to park outside their own house because of the gardens. Would it be possible to say to the Judge: look these people have taken up more than their fair share of the common yard with their gardens (the deeds say 1/9 per person and they have already taken up this share) We are willing to tolerate the gardens, but we do not want the parking outside out houses. It interferes with our living pleasure, our light etc.
The owner of 1076 owns the property 1092 which as you can see has loads of room to park around her own house, and the person who parks in the yard who lives at 1086 already has a parking space outside her own home and her house does not even look out onto the common yard.

Exactly the same thing could be said to applied anyone who may not even have queried this or anyone who is simply not bothered. The fact that it is into family is not in my opinion a factor.

I believe that there is the facility to pay a bonus payment although the pages which I see are not the same as yours so I don’t know where that is. It is always well-received when people show their appreciation for what we do.

You don’t need to bring an action about parking and garden although as they are both on the same facts, it will only be one action which you may win in whole or part (or not is the case may be).

We can talk about it for a long time but there is probably little more that could be added to this.

Customer: replied 13 days ago.
I think I am getting the idea, although you do not like to say, as most solicitors do not like to do, that I would have more chance with the parking than the garden, am I correct? The parking has only been for a few years.

Not necessarily. It depends on the view a judge takes. He may decide that it’s inequitable to make someone go to all the trouble of removing a garden when everyone has for many years, simply sat by and watched the garden grow.

The old Doctrine of Laches, or the legal maxim “Equity will not suffer Delay”

Customer: replied 13 days ago.
thank you. I can well understand that a Judge may decide that it's inequitable to make someone go to all the trouble of removing a garden, but he could well decide in favour of asking them to stop the parking, I think .........? The question was about the parking. Thanks, Louise

If they were totally separate matters in different pieces of land different locations, I think the parking claim would have a better chance than the garden claim

Customer: replied 13 days ago.
do you think I should forget the whole thing then, I thought the parking claim would be a good one.

I wouldn’t necessarily forget it.

It just isn’t an easy claim or straightforward.

It is potentially a cost risky exercise.

Customer: replied 13 days ago.
Well I'd better only do it with Pro Bono Help then. Do you think pro bono is any good
Customer: replied 12 days ago.
Hello there,
I have re-thought the situation, and I was wondering about another solution. I would be grateful if you think this is a stronger idea for litigation.
The grounds would be the 'nuisance' caused by the two parked cars.
The neighbour from 1076 has already 'claimed' her own land outside her own house, but parks her car outside the other houses, plus the owner of 1076 has her own large piece of land surrounding her own property.
The other person who parks there, the same story, she is the tenant of the lady who owns three houses in the enclave and parks outside other people's houses, not her own, plus that lady has her own designated parking spot at the front, plus I suspect her deeds do not give her any permission at all in the common yard.
I would be grateful if you would let me know if you think this is a stronger case. Thank you.
Customer: replied 12 days ago.
PS In connection with my previous mail, both cars have not parked there for longer than 10 years. Thank you.

If you can get a Pro Bono lawyer to help you, then so much the better. To be honest, I have no experience of any although I have often asked myself the question as to why anyone would be doing such work for free when they can get paid. Would be different if they were doing it, for example, for a Scout group or charity or some other benevolent organisation but not for a property owning individual. As I said, I don’t know how it works.

It seems that everyone has come to an arrangement between themselves as to who parks where but has done so without any reference or consideration for anyone else. If the cars have not parked there longer than 10 years (including any period of parking by previous occupiers, they cannot claim an easement.

Customer: replied 11 days ago.
Hello there again, I would think a pro bono lawyer would be a student looking for experience myself. But my question was do you think it is a better idea to forget about all the deeds etc. and to sue for
'nuisance', i.e. parking in front of other people's property when they each have their own houses to park in front of. As I explained, they do not need to park there, they can park outside their own houses. They do not do so because they have the illegal gardens in front of their own houses.
The owner of house no 1092 who owns 1076 has her own big drive and garden - so her tenant - her sister can park in the drive/garden of her sister, plus 1076 could park outside her own front door instead of parking in front of other people's houses.
And the other lady does not even live in the enclave and has her own designated parking spot on the other side.
Do you think this would be good grounds for suing for 'nuisance' - and would it be more straightforward and less expensive.
I would be saying in fact that I was not complaining about the garden and I am not complaining about the parking, but I am objecting to people's lack of consideration and it is a nuisance.