Neighbour disputes are rarely just about land. More often, they are about access, everyday use, and a growing sense that something once straightforward is no longer working.

Disagreements about rights of way and other easements sit firmly in that space. A gate appears where none existed before. A car is parked in a way that feels obstructive. A long‑used route suddenly becomes awkward or impractical.

Suzie Fisher, Managing Director of Thomson Hayton Winkley, explains when changes like these cross the line into unlawful interference, and how understanding that distinction can help reduce uncertainty and prevent disputes from escalating.

What is a right of way or easement, and why do disputes arise?

A right of way is one type of easement.

An easement is a legal right that allows one piece of land to be used in a particular way for the benefit of another. Common examples include:

• Rights of access across neighbouring land.
• Rights to park vehicles.
• Rights to run services such as drains, pipes, or cables through adjoining property.

Disputes tend to arise when the practical use of that right changes. Issues commonly arise where there are:

• Development or building works affecting access.
• New gates, fences, or security measures.
• Increased or altered patterns of use.
• Uncertainty about the scope or limits of the right.

The law does not prevent change altogether. Instead, it draws a distinction between inconvenience and interference that is serious enough to be legally actionable.

When does interference with an easement become legally actionable?

Interference with an easement is treated by the courts as a form of private nuisance.

Not every disruption gives rise to a claim. The interference must be substantial, meaning it genuinely affects the ability to use the right as intended.

Courts look at whether the easement can still be exercised practically and substantially as conveniently as before. Minor inconvenience, short‑term disruption, or changes that have little real impact on use will usually fall short.

Each case turns on its facts, and judges rely on earlier decisions to guide their assessment.

Crucially, the person relying on the easement must first show that the right exists, understand exactly what it allows, and then demonstrate how the interference has materially affected its use.

Can a neighbour block or restrict a private right of way?

Private rights of way attract a different legal test from public highways.

With a private right, the focus is not on whether there is any obstruction at all, but whether the interference is substantial.

Courts have been clear that a person entitled to a right of way is generally entitled to use the full extent of that right, not just what a neighbour considers reasonable. Even rights that may appear generous or luxurious in hindsight are protected if they were lawfully granted.

Physical obstructions such as walls, fencing, or narrowing of an access route are often a source of dispute. If those changes materially restrict how the right was historically exercised, the interference may well be actionable, even if access has not been completely cut off.

Are gates or locks an unlawful interference with a right of way?

Gates themselves are not automatically unlawful.

Much depends on number, placement, and practical effect.

A single gate across a long access route may be tolerated, particularly where it serves a reasonable purpose and does not significantly slow or complicate access.

By contrast, multiple gates over a short distance can quickly become burdensome and have been found to amount to substantial interference.

Locks are judged in a similar way.

A locked gate that all entitled users can easily open may be acceptable. Problems arise where locking arrangements cause delay, restrict certain types of access, or interfere with everyday activities such as deliveries.

The law looks beyond the presence of the gate or lock and focuses on how it affects real‑world use.

Does parking on a right of way count as legal interference?

Parking disputes are a frequent source of tension.

A parked vehicle does not automatically interfere with a right of way. The key question is whether it actually obstructs the exercise of the right.

Interference may arise where parking:

• Prevents access entirely.
• Forces awkward or unsafe manoeuvring.
• Changes how the route is used in practice.

If parking causes no real obstruction, it may fall outside the scope of legal action, even if it is frustrating.

Courts will generally consider:

• The width of the route.
• How it has been used historically.
• The extent to which access has been impeded in practice.

Can a neighbour avoid interference by offering an alternative access route?

In some cases, interference can be neutralised by providing a genuinely comparable alternative.

Courts may accept an alternative where it is:

• Easy to use
• Safe
• Comparable in convenience

However, alternative routes are not a universal defence. Interference may still be established if:

• The original right was clearly defined
• The alternative materially alters how the right can be used

Remedies in these situations vary and may involve:

• Compensation
• Formal clarification of rights
• Adjustments rather than an outright prohibition

Do landowners have a legal duty to prevent interference with an easement?

In some circumstances, the owner of the land over which the easement runs must take active steps to avoid interference.

This most commonly arises where works or alterations create knock‑on effects, such as flooding or erosion, that affect neighbouring rights.

Once a landowner becomes aware that their actions are causing interference, there may be a duty to address the problem rather than allow it to continue.

What legal remedies are available for interference with a right of way?

Where interference is established, courts have several options available, including:

• Declarations clarifying the existence and extent of an easement
• Injunctions to prevent or reverse interference
• Damages to compensate for loss of use or related expense

Timing matters. Delays in seeking an injunction can weaken a case.

In some situations, damages may be awarded instead of an injunction.

Limited self‑help remedies, known as abatement, may allow removal of an obstruction, but:

• These are tightly controlled
• Heavy‑handed action can escalate disputes rather than resolve them

How Can Thomson Hayton Winkley Help?

If a neighbour begins works that affect access, introduces new gates or restrictions, or repeatedly obstructs a right of way, early advice can help bring clarity before positions harden. The same applies where a proposed development may interfere with existing rights.

Taking advice early often prevents disputes escalating and can lead to practical solutions that preserve neighbourly relationships as well as legal rights.

At Thomson Hayton Winkley, our property and dispute resolution teams regularly help clients navigate these sensitive situations. We focus on explaining the law clearly, exploring proportionate options, and finding solutions that work in the real world, not just on paper. If you are concerned about a right of way or another easement affecting your property, please contact us to find out how we can help.

Tags: access disputes, boundary disputes, development and access, dispute resolution, easement interference, easements, gates and access, injunctions, interference with easements, land ownership, land use rights, neighbour conflict, neighbour disputes, nuisance law, parking disputes, private right of way, property disputes, property law, property litigation, rights of way