against illegal trespasser

I have a piece of private land which has been used by some villagers in the village. Some of those villagers are driving vehicles over this land and is causing damage and nuisance to me so I want to stop them without affecting traffics of the nice villagers.

My lawyer said it is okay for me to implement blockage as long as I give them a apth way which is 3-feet wide.

However, if I do so, car traffic ofg the good guys will also be affecte.d All I want is to stop the bad guy's vehicle traffic. What should I do?

I sent them warning letter but they simply ignore. They do not even border to reply.

Update:

To clarify: we want to stop vehicle traffic only, not foot traffic. Foot traffic is still allowed. more than 3 feet wide of foot path will be maintained

Update 2:

Also, LandsD confirmed that the so called "road" was not paved with authorization from LandsD. In otehr words, not a legal road and there is no emergency vehicle requirement imposed on it

Update 3:

3, there is observable damage on the land caused by vehicle traffic. they refuse to take responsibiility in maintenance 4, nuisnance and property devaluation are the damages

Update 4:

it is about 30 secs foot traffic to the main road or 15 secs walk to the taxi drop off point,bus station is only 45 secs away. Does the "necessity" argument stand?

Update 5:

"get rid of their rights to have a car" - this does not mkae sense - when the house is built to not have driveway at the first place, why would they have a right to drive car there?

Update 6:

"Value of a house or land does not depends on how the land or house are looking" that also does not make sense - will you buy a house which has a big piece of mess rtight next to it? the mess deter people from buying for sure

Update 7:

" It is a matter for you or the land owner to prepare a road for them to pass through. " -- this does not sound reasable - we do not have any contractual relationship with these people, why should we take care of them at our expense?

Update 8:

also, there is no legal parking space around those people's house - landsD already setup signs there telling them not to occupy government land.

Update 9:

they are always welcome to pass through to the main road on foot. Foot traffic is 30 seconds to the main road. Now the whole point is vehicle traffic - there are safety and nuisance concern on road paved unapproved to become drive way. Thje questions is - is VEHICLE traffic a NECESSITY, in Hong Kong

Update 10:

so , make it simple to understand, I am saying I only disallow vehicle traffic. Not every traffic type. there is nothing to convince me allowing vehicles on an illegally paved road is safe.

Update 11:

and BTW, in my deed documents there is no mentioning of easement of any sort at all. There were in fact some other roads, just that those clever land owners blocked them first.

Update 12:

finally, it is not government cutting one piece of land into A / B. MY land and their land are geographically separated by government land and other misc private lands. And thsoe private land owners are also protesting.

Update 13:

"An easement by necessity can only be created when land held by a single owner is severed into two or more parcels." <- not even true to my case, where the lands involved were all from seprate sources and are not even physically adjoining.

Update 14:

"having a car is anybody rights" - it does not make sense - if one buys a house that has no car park and no legal driveway then it is that person's mistake.

Update 15:

his right of having a car should not interference into my right of peaceful enjoyment of my land. I don;t buy my land for supporting other people's enjoyment at my expense.

Update 16:

right of way is not even a concern - tey were there for less than 10 years, 20 years ago there were not even any houses in there

Update 17:

"bring car into their land" - they only have a house - all land surrounding the house belongs to the government, and the gvernment have signs there saying government land not for occupation.

Update 18:

most importantly, there is NO provision on the lease for their house and my land on right of way.

1 Answer

Rating
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I think your lawyer must have explained to you, the law of easement of necessity provided you should give way for people to access their home and exit. Since they have the right to use the path, who would care about the content of the warning letter(s) and stop using the drive (Given it might be their only path to enter and exit)? If the damage of the land done while passing the path were illegal made (i.e. breaking the law), you surely can make a letter to them complaining and claiming the damage doing on the land, if in this context they still ignore, you should consult your lawyer again for further possible actions.

    But for the blockage, in my opinion, if you do block their access, that won't do you any good, it is possible that you might be sued for blocking their way getting in and out, and that would make the law protect them and make it against you.

    A possible solution is that, you can make some arrangment on the land by trying to build a better path and build walls around the path to protect your land. This can prevent the possible damage to your land and make the path better looking, but however, the cost for building and maintaining the path won't be cheap.

    2009-02-15 03:04:13 補充:

    Firstly, what type of damage did they done? Secondly, unless there are other path they can choose to connect them to the main road other than from your land, in such case you will needed to provide some method for them to get access from their land in and out to the main road.

    2009-02-15 03:04:17 補充:

    Thridly, the width should be a width that is enough for cars to go in or out. Fourthly, you cannot make no provision for their cars to get through or emergency vechile such as police car or ambulance.

    2009-02-15 03:04:44 補充:

    It is not just about allowing emergency vechile to pass through, are you trying to suggest that they (those bad and good people) cannot have a car or cannot have friends wanted to come and visit them by car or they cannot call for an ambulance?

    2009-02-15 03:05:03 補充:

    Although getting in and out of their land must be through your land, this does not give you automatical rights to get rid of their rights to have a car or rights to call for police or ambulance to get into or out of their land.

    2009-02-15 03:05:58 補充:

    And it is reasonable for Land Department to tell you that your road built is not a "road" reconized by them, since that the "road" you provided are their only access to get in and out of their land,

    2009-02-15 03:06:02 補充:

    and the "road" was suppose to be prepared by you or the land owner. It is a matter for you or the land owner to prepare a road for them to pass through.

    2009-02-15 03:06:30 補充:

    Again, unless going through your land are not their only option to get to the main road (by car or on foot), you need not to provide "road" for them, but if that is not the case, I am afriad you will needed to make arrangement for them.

    2009-02-15 03:06:42 補充:

    Value of a house or land does not depends on how the land or house are looking but the current market value, I do not see that damage done on the "road" would really make your market price of your land devaluated.

    2009-02-18 13:28:20 補充:

    You have still not answer the point whether your land is it in between their lands, the law stated clearly that if a land government had cut into 2 piece (or more) and sell it to someone, say Land A & B,

    2009-02-18 13:28:35 補充:

    where A is next to the main road, B is cut off from the main road and had no other mean to exit but only crossing through Land A. When someone brought Land B and later Land A,

    2009-02-18 13:28:52 補充:

    the easement of necessity held that you needed to make provision for owner in Land B to enter or exit from their Land. You wanted to avoid some individual person to get throught will be impossible since that if Land B is brought before you had enter,

    2009-02-18 13:28:57 補充:

    if people on Land B had no other mean but must be through you land to reach the main road, you will needed to make ways for Land B to enter and exit.

    2009-02-19 11:07:36 補充:

    If you have evidence that reaching the main road could be done without crossing your land, it is even okay to ignore any traffic, but if not, to avoid stress or further damage to the land you should build a road for root to go in and out of a land.

    2009-02-19 11:07:57 補充:

    The fact you stop vehicle traffic is unreasonable, having a car is anybody rights, you cannot stop them bringing their cars in and out their lands.

    2009-02-19 11:08:11 補充:

    If the issue of right of ways do exsist, there will be a provision on the lease for the land, and if there are none, the court will have to be involved.

    2009-02-19 11:08:17 補充:

    Also, Custom Law also provide if someone uses a path for some time and no one complaint about it, the rights of using the path are not to be disrupt

    2009-02-20 12:33:31 補充:

    You are only right on certain point on right of ways, if the government land connect them, or provided, exit and enterance their land, yes, they are not suppose to use your land for crossing through, but you probably would also wanted to build walls to avoid them entering your land by cars.

    2009-02-20 12:36:44 補充:

    But a "NO" on the fact you said since they are surrounded by government land therefore they don't have a right to bring their car into their land or house. As long as they can afford to buy a car they can have their car parked in their land.

    2009-02-20 12:41:30 補充:

    Also, right of way could be created by custom Law, if you wanted to stop them getting through, you should do something (such as a notice, a sign on their usual route) as soon as possible to stop them to show that you do not like them using the route passing your land.

    Source(s): Personal Opinion Only, you should consult your lawyer and understand your legal rights, I do not presume any legal responsiblity to the above comment
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.