Clarkson in trouble again

[d000hg]

To turn the argument around: What rights have the walkers got to be there? What do they think entitles them to walk on something he has legally bought? If I let you drive my car for 21 years and then sold it to another bloke, should he let you drive it also??

You're confusing the English legal system with logic. There are weird laws about squatting and so on that are crazy and rely on "they've been doing it for ages without you complaining, so they are allowed to continue". I'm sure some one can give more info.

[Spacecadet]

Now that does sound a little unjust, but I can believe it.

It is a little, but the footpath will (Or should) only have its status changed after a lengthy period of frequent public use.

As was mentioned before, Clarkson should have known about the footpath before he purchased the property.
However, given that it's not a public right of way would the footpath show up on any OS searches?

[HeliCraig]

You're confusing the English legal system with logic. There are weird laws about squatting and so on that are crazy and rely on "they've been doing it for ages without you complaining, so they are allowed to continue". I'm sure some one can give more info.

Yes yes, I know... silly me! That said though, it remains his land atm.

It is a little, but the footpath will (Or should) only have its status changed after a lengthy period of frequent public use.

As was mentioned before, Clarkson should have known about the footpath before he purchased the property.
However, given that it's not a public right of way would the footpath show up on any OS searches?

Well quite. Mind you, there would have been a duty on the seller to tell him would there not? When I sold my last house I had to fill in a questionnaire from the solicitor with lots of similar questions on.