driving on private land

[smiley]

Hi all

Does anyone know anything about just drive your own car on your own land?

are there any restrictions? wht happens if you have a mishap?

or where would I go to find out?

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Smiley,

There isn't a simple answer to your question, but here are several points to consider.

You need the permission of the land owner to take a vehicle onto their land. without such permission, you could be trespassing as the vehicle will damage the land.

You must conform to what the land owner permits you to do.

Even some private land is subject to council by-laws covering the use of the land, or even some codicils put in place by previous owners can place restrictions on how land can be used.

Neighbours or other nearby properties may have courts restriction orders in force against the land owner preventing some types of activity.

Some private land adjoining highways can be subject to some highway regulations, such as the need for a car to be taxed, mot'd and insured, and the driver to be licenced and fit to drive.

If you intend to use your normal day to day road car, you MUST read the terms and conditions of your insurance policy, as most policies exclude liability if the car is used for racing or similar performance based sports activities. Be warned if you do use your car for such activities it may VOID your policy, which has far reaching implications when trying to renew or arranging new insurance of any type as you have to declare if you have been declined or had an insurance policy voided.

Again depending on the T&Cs of your policy you may be personally liable for any damage to your vehicle and damage to any third party persons vehicles or property.

 

[Surfer]

John, they did state "Does anyone know anything about just drive your own car on your own land?" There should be no restrcitions unless it caused a nuisance to neighbours. If you have a mishap like rolling the car, you may have issues as it may be regarded as doing off road stuff, however you can add on off road driving to some policies.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Surfer,

Yes point taken, BUT, even if you own the land, there can still be official bodies that can overide what you can do. It may suprise a lot of people but they are not free to do exactly what they want with any land they own.
For example many modern houses have clauses that prevent the storage of caravans, or commercial vehicles. You need to check your deeds.

 

[seth1]

The best thing you can do is google the subject,simple questions like this can lead to confussion on this forum.But if for any reason there is a claws on the land it will be in the deeds to the property/land.One of my other propertys has a public footpath going through the garden and house,this dates from before the property was built.But it can still be seen on the deeds and means there is a right of way.If your that bothered cover yourself completely with public liabilty.Personally i wouldnt bother,just go about your business as normal.

 

[JonnyG]

Hello Surfer,

Yes point taken, BUT, even if you own the land, there can still be official bodies that can overide what you can do. It may suprise a lot of people but they are not free to do exactly what they want with any land they own.
For example many modern houses have clauses that prevent the storage of caravans, or commercial vehicles. You need to check your deeds.

I always wonder about these type of issues, and wonder who enforces them? My Father in law moved onto an estate build in the 70s only last year and that seems to have certain clauses in place. one of the clauses is worded 'motor caravan' which i found strange.and assume as a caravan is not motorised it means motor homes?. as the entire estate is brimming with motorhomes and caravans.. i do wonder who actually enforces these clauses? as i have been lead to believe it was a stipulation put in by the builders
in this case Jelsons. no idea if any local by law applies but as my house was also built 'privately' at the same time and the housing estate is build behind it using land that was also own by the same land owner,although no restriction apply to my house, i do wonder who and how one can enforce these restrictions.especially the one which was up for discussion..cannot see what action could be taken with regards using a vehicle on your own private land bar causing a nusiance or entering it from a main highway across an undropped pavement.. In the case of a undropped pavement a 'proper access' you could in theory be prosicuted eventually for coutinously using it as an access,if and when the council ever got around to looking into it due to complaints if any were ever made....So unless you a pair of rare birds or animals with a protection notice on them, its not a serious issue...

 

[RogerL]

For example many modern houses have clauses that prevent the storage of caravans, or commercial vehicles. You need to check your deeds.

Generally unenforceable unless the council also has a district by-law - just see a good solicitor !!

 

[otherclive]

My son lives on a new estate which is still under development. The covenants said no caravans no motorbikes etc. Within a short time after houses were sold the offending items started to appear on the drives. 5 years on he's not aware of anyone being asked to remove the vehicle. I guess unless someone actually complains action is unlikely to be taken.

 

[smiley]

Well, my 14 year old grandaughter is out of hospital after 3 days, she was in the back of the rav4 no seatbelt that her friend (14) was allowed to drive (no supervision) when another friend turned up ( a boy) her friend was showing off a bit. Out come My GD bruises to legs base of spine face and arms. Glass in face and ear and hair. 1 1/2" gash on front of head, and obviously left side of face all grazed, whiplash and closed fracture to wrist. Her friend driving a bad cut to the knee. boy broken wrist, finger a few minor cuts...

My daughter is still trying to take it all in. could had been worse but, not thinking of that...

 

[Surfer]

Well, my 14 year old grandaughter is out of hospital after 3 days, she was in the back of the rav4 no seatbelt that her friend (14) was allowed to drive (no supervision) when another friend turned up ( a boy) her friend was showing off a bit. Out come My GD bruises to legs base of spine face and arms. Glass in face and ear and hair. 1 1/2" gash on front of head, and obviously left side of face all grazed, whiplash and closed fracture to wrist. Her friend driving a bad cut to the knee. boy broken wrist, finger a few minor cuts...

My daughter is still trying to take it all in. could had been worse but, not thinking of that...

From that perspective I think you need to lodge a claim against the insurance company. This is known as a third party claim and is valid even though the other part of the insurance i.e. damage to vehicle is invalid. The RK could be prosecuted for allowing an unsupervised drvier to control the vehicle. Either way the insurance except for third party claim would be invalid I would think.
Damages will be substantial and probably best to get advice from a solicitor. You may also get advice at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?287-Motoring-subforums and then you can make up your mind how to proceed.

 

[ChrisUK]

My son lives on a new estate which is still under development. The covenants said no caravans no motorbikes etc. Within a short time after houses were sold the offending items started to appear on the drives. 5 years on he's not aware of anyone being asked to remove the vehicle. I guess unless someone actually complains action is unlikely to be taken.

I think covenants are difficult to apply. As I understand it, it needs to be the estate developer to take a civil action and they are not likely to do this some years down the line. Our estate has convenants regarding caravans, commercials, fences on the open plan fronts, etc. We of course have all of these.

 

[Tractorbob3]

Sorry to hear about the injury to your granddaughter, Smiley and I'm pleased that she is recovering. Just to pick up on Surfer's comment, I think a slightly different approach would be more effective - unless I am much mistaken, you do not 'lodge a claim against the insurance company', you claim against the person or persons who caused the accident and that would include anyone who should have known better than to let an incompetent juvenile drive unsupervised.

 

[Surfer]

Sorry to hear about the injury to your granddaughter, Smiley and I'm pleased that she is recovering. Just to pick up on Surfer's comment, I think a slightly different approach would be more effective - unless I am much mistaken, you do not 'lodge a claim against the insurance company', you claim against the person or persons who caused the accident and that would include anyone who should have known better than to let an incompetent juvenile drive unsupervised.

Thanks as that is what I meant as you cannot claim directly on someone's elses insurance policy.

 

[Raywood]

Under a car policy the driver must have a licence to drive the vehicle and the driver was not old enough to have one so the insurance would not apply. However if the accident was on a road, and the definition of this is very wide, the RTA compulsary insurance requirements would kick in and the insurer would have to deal with any claim. If there was no insurer then the MIB would deal with any claim.
If there was insurance and the driver had the owners permission to drive then the insurers would look to the owner to recover any payments they had to make.
A court may find your granddaughter partly responsible for her injuries because she did not wear her seat belt, if this would have reduced the severity of the injury.
You can claim directly against the insurer in these circumstances.

 

[Tractorbob3]

Agreed, Ray - the way forward is to go for the driver and if he has a policy, he may be able to pass the claim to the insurance company to deal with (and they may well come back on him to recover its costs as youi've indicated in your second para.). In the absence of a policy, the claim can be referred to the MIB.
With regard to the reference to a 'road', think 'highway', which is a term more commonly used in policies and in law. 'Highway' has a much broader definition but in general (in relation to requirements for third party insurance cover) means any area to which the public has access.
As an example, I take tractors to shows and rallies and on the show/rally field itself, third party cover and a driving licence are a legal requirement. So-called 'off-roaders' or 'green laners' who take their 4x4s off the beaten track are also required to have this cover.

 

[Raywood]

Bob, You may find your tractor policy is different in that it does not require the driver to have a licence when used on private land. This is there to help farmers whose staff may not have licences to drive on the road but can drive them in the fields.

 

[emmitdb]

My son lives on a new estate which is still under development. The covenants said no caravans no motorbikes etc. Within a short time after houses were sold the offending items started to appear on the drives. 5 years on he's not aware of anyone being asked to remove the vehicle. I guess unless someone actually complains action is unlikely to be taken.

I would imagine that that clause was put in by the developer to create a better (in their eyes anyway???) environment whilst the estate was being created.
I assume they didn't want an open aspect of the estate being removed by the injudicious parking of caravans. I can't say why there should have been a ban on motorcycles however?

 

[RogerL]

My son lives on a new estate which is still under development. The covenants said no caravans no motorbikes etc. Within a short time after houses were sold the offending items started to appear on the drives. 5 years on he's not aware of anyone being asked to remove the vehicle. I guess unless someone actually complains action is unlikely to be taken.

I would imagine that that clause was put in by the developer to create a better (in their eyes anyway???) environment whilst the estate was being created.
I assume they didn't want an open aspect of the estate being removed by the injudicious parking of caravans. I can't say why there should have been a ban on motorcycles however?

Your son's deeds may also exclude commercial vans and also prevent anyone running a business or working from home - but as you say, they're there for the original developer's benefit - once they've sold all the properties they aren't interested.
If you subsequently buy the freehold it's quite possible that the restrictive covenants aren't carried forward.