Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Lyndylou
    • By Lyndylou 6th Jul 17, 10:54 PM
    • 251Posts
    • 1,071Thanks
    Lyndylou
    Neighbours extension being built across boundary in my garden
    • #1
    • 6th Jul 17, 10:54 PM
    Neighbours extension being built across boundary in my garden 6th Jul 17 at 10:54 PM
    Hi Guys I'm in need of some advice.

    I'm a secure council tenant of over 30 years, have lived in this property 28 + years and pay full rent with no arrears.
    Last year the council built an extension to the back of my property as the kitchen was deemed too small. This year my neighbour also a council tenant is having hers done.
    On 23rd June I happened to notice that the builders working on the neighbours extension had taken down part of my wall and cut into my patio slab to lay bricks for the outer wall of the extension on what was part of my garden. It is clear for anyone to see that they have encroached the boundary line.
    I contacted the council and spoke to someone in charge of the building works, they sent the site manager of the builders they employed and he agrees that it has breached the boundary and called his boss, who said to take the wall down and build in the correct place and make good the damage that has happened to my wall and patio slab.
    Next day I can hear them knocking the wall down so go off to work, I come home and the builders have left but they have rebuilt the wall in the same place, next morning I ask why? to be told the council have told them to carry on, they agree it's wrong but are being paid to do a job. I call up the council again and I'm told they own both properties so can build where they like, there is nothing I can do as I don't own the house.
    I have had someone from planning round and although he agrees it's not right, the extension has complied with planning regarding size so there is nothing they can do as it's a boundary/party wall issue.

    Sorry for such a long post but does anyone have any idea what i can do next. We were thinking of putting in for the right to buy at some stage but I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be able to sell.

    Thank you for reading.

    Pictures here, first 2 are of my extension showing the boundary and my patio wall before neighbours extension was started https://postimg.org/gallery/llyqq97i/
Page 2
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 7th Jul 17, 12:00 PM
    • 14,710 Posts
    • 13,077 Thanks
    AdrianC
    Oh, and if anybody thinks the OP is being treated harshly, but hasn't gone through the photos, these are the relevant ones...

    Before:


    After:
    • lwhiteman88
    • By lwhiteman88 7th Jul 17, 12:19 PM
    • 60 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    lwhiteman88
    PWA won't apply as the council owns both of the houses and can do what they like. It doesn't allow tenants to start disputes.
    Originally posted by martindow
    That's not how it works. An obvious example is a freeholder of a block of flats needs to serve notice to leasholders etc. Under PWA adjoining owners are not defined by land ownership. Its defined as someone with interest longer than 12-months. I believe this includes tenants (I am not an expert in this, and neither are PW surveyors half the time).

    As I have already mentioned the PWA would not have likely prevented/stopped what has been built but may have checked the boundary line etc.
    • leespot
    • By leespot 7th Jul 17, 12:26 PM
    • 547 Posts
    • 433 Thanks
    leespot
    Wait until it's built, put a nice bit of trellis over the gap and put something nice to look at in a planter beneath it. No gap, no problem.
    • davidmcn
    • By davidmcn 7th Jul 17, 12:31 PM
    • 5,412 Posts
    • 5,109 Thanks
    davidmcn
    That's not how it works. An obvious example is a freeholder of a block of flats needs to serve notice to leasholders etc. Under PWA adjoining owners are not defined by land ownership. Its defined as someone with interest longer than 12-months. I believe this includes tenants (I am not an expert in this, and neither are PW surveyors half the time).

    As I have already mentioned the PWA would not have likely prevented/stopped what has been built but may have checked the boundary line etc.
    Originally posted by lwhiteman88
    From the Act:


    “owner” includes—
    (a)
    a person in receipt of, or entitled to receive, the whole or part of the rents or profits of land;

    (b)
    a person in possession of land, otherwise than as a mortgagee or as a tenant from year to year or for a lesser term or as a tenant at will;

    (c)
    a purchaser of an interest in land under a contract for purchase or under an agreement for a lease, otherwise than under an agreement for a tenancy from year to year or for a lesser term;
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 7th Jul 17, 1:21 PM
    • 2,730 Posts
    • 2,758 Thanks
    DoaM
    Translation please? I can't tell if that supports or contradicts the point being made.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • davidmcn
    • By davidmcn 7th Jul 17, 1:51 PM
    • 5,412 Posts
    • 5,109 Thanks
    davidmcn
    Translation please? I can't tell if that supports or contradicts the point being made.
    Originally posted by DoaM
    I'll add some punctuation:

    a person in possession of land, otherwise than as:
    • a mortgagee or
    • as a tenant from year to year or for a lesser term or
    • as a tenant at will;
    So a secure tenant is an owner for the purposes of the Act.
    • moneyistooshorttomention
    • By moneyistooshorttomention 7th Jul 17, 3:02 PM
    • 12,819 Posts
    • 35,184 Thanks
    moneyistooshorttomention
    Last year the council built an extension to the back of my property as the kitchen was deemed too small.

    ...............We were thinking of putting in for the right to buy at some stage
    Originally posted by Lyndylou
    I think it's the juxtaposition of these two sentences in the same post that is causing the harsh responses.....
    ploughing my own furrow...the rain begins with a single drop...

    #I'mWithNoel
    • Lyndylou
    • By Lyndylou 9th Jul 17, 10:56 AM
    • 251 Posts
    • 1,071 Thanks
    Lyndylou
    If you were ever to market the house you haven't yet bought, the potential purchasers would only see what's there; not how things were originally.

    They'd probably realise there is a kink in the boundary line, but that's quite common with older property. Provided the title documents accurately reflect that, there would be no problem.
    Originally posted by Davesnave
    It's a row of 4 terrace houses and what I think the pictures are not showing is the extension is clearly out of line with the property party wall by roughly a foot, it's this that I think would cause problems If we were to ever buy and later re sell.

    It looks to me, based on the position of the corbel above, like they're building a true party wall, straddling the boundary, which is why you appear to lose some patio slab.

    If you think about it, the walls inside your house are built across the boundary. The true boundary is halfway through the wall and both properties make use of it.

    It's actually how yours should have been built, with the neighbour's extension then sharing the wall.

    That tiny gap between the two is ridiculous. It would have been cheaper and better to build off your wall, even though yours is really the one in the inconvenient place.
    Originally posted by Doozergirl
    The line down from the corbel is the party wall, however the extension wall is a foot over to the right, something I think that's not clearly showing in the photos.

    The man from the planning dept said ideally my extension should have been built up to the party wall boundary, then there would have been just one wall like the rest of the house.
    • Lyndylou
    • By Lyndylou 9th Jul 17, 11:18 AM
    • 251 Posts
    • 1,071 Thanks
    Lyndylou
    Thank you for all your helpful replies.
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 9th Jul 17, 11:22 AM
    • 1,702 Posts
    • 2,473 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    Are you still under the impression that anyone has to, or ought to, give a damn about the implications of this on you if you should ever buy the house?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,193Posts Today

8,369Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin