Need advice about nasty neighbours

Debt_Free_Chick

You don't need to worry about Court action until the neighbours do something. They will have to initiate the Court action in an attempt to prove they have the right of access - you don't have to go to Court to prove that they don't. If they do go to Court then at this point your legal insurance might pay up - worth calling again to confirm this.

Agree with the suggestion that you get on with the fence and carry on with "owning" the path. Then wait and see if they make the next move.

oldMcDonald

With regards to the CCTV - if you do set it up, you must be sure that you are only filming your property and not going beyond thae boundry and filming the neighbours garden.

Good place for advice is on these forums Neighbours From Hell Forum Link

pickledtink

Loads of good advice here. From my personal experience I'd strongly say don't waste money on Solicitors. Keep any evidence at all of threats.
Maybe consider a wall instead of fence? Sturdier and harder for them to undermine on their side.
Make sure whatever you erect is on 'your' side of the actual boundary and not right on it. There could be later difficulties maintaining the other side without access being easy to get from them.You are legally liable to maintain anything you put up.
Write reasonable polite letters to them about your ownership of the path, your intention to put up fence/wall and reasons. Grit your teeth and make them as pleasant as possible. Later do the same requesting access for maintenance. If they refuse they cannot later claim damages against you if a panel falls down on their best flowers or something.
Keep copies.
If it brews legally you have evidence of your approach as being non aggressive and reasonable at all times etc.
Good luck.
Let us know how you get on.

Strapped

I'd agree with the poster who suggested removing the path altogether. Put up fence, plant over path and reposition path well within your boundary.

If they were reasonable neighbours I might have felt like offering to lay a path on their side of the fence while I was at it to keep the peace (since you'll probably end up disturbing some of "their" garden while digging posts for the fence anyway). That way both sides end up with a better solution.

Incisor

Strapped wrote: »

... I might have felt like offering to lay a path on their side of the fence while I was at it to keep the peace (since you'll probably end up disturbing some of "their" garden while digging posts for the fence anyway). That way both sides end up with a better solution.

Don't scatter pearls before swine. I don't know what the answer is but I would say that people of this ilk would not appreciate it in any sense other than as an indicator that their bullying behaviour is being rewarded.

Premier_2

FenceGirl wrote: »

.... I have read abit about legal expenses insurance that you can appply for after the event has started, but don't want to get caught out by another scam. ....

Insurance policies are based on indemnifying you against a risk something will happen. It's that risk, or rather the chance it won't happen, that allows the premium to be less than the cost that might occur in the event it does happen.

Could you post a link to the "insurance" you have read about indemnifying you against the cost of a certainty? It certainly sounds like a scam.

Troubled_Joe

Premier wrote: »

Insurance policies are based on indemnifying you against a risk something will happen. It's that risk, or rather the chance it won't happen, that allows the premium to be less than the cost that might occur in the event it does happen.

Could you post a link to the "insurance" you have read about indemnifying you against the cost of a certainty? It certainly sounds like a scam.

It's an after the event policy and is becoming very common in litigation and can be extremely useful.

In effect the premium is self-insured. If you lose you pay nothing if you win then the defendant pays as part of any costs awarded against them.

You will most likely need your solicitor to work on a no win - no fee basis to get the cover though. The insurers want confirmation that the risk is a good one.

Premier_2

Troubled_Joe wrote: »

It's an after the event policy and is becoming very common in litigation and can be extremely useful.

In effect the premium is self-insured. If you lose you pay nothing if you win then the defendant pays as part of any costs awarded against them.

You will most likely need your solicitor to work on a no win - no fee basis to get the cover though. The insurers want confirmation that the risk is a good one.

Surely that's the problem - they only cover cases they are likely to win, so they can get the fees off the other party

If you think you'll win, why involve these parasites? (who may not charge a fee as such, but may charge you a proposal premium) The chances are costs will be awarded to the winner anyway.

Troubled_Joe

It's true that they make an assessment about what they cover but that's not greatly different to any form of insurance.

I can't understand the basis for you calling them parasites when you don't seem to know anything about them but each to their own.

Even if you think you are going to win a case there is never ever ever a guarantee. On that basis what is wrong with covering the eventuality of losing?

Another advantage is that these policies cover your disbursements such as court fees, experts fees and counsel's fees which you would otherwise be paying as you go along.

(by the way I'm in no way associated to any insurer or the insurance industry)

Premier_2

Troubled_Joe wrote: »

...I can't understand the basis for you calling them parasites when you don't seem to know anything about them but each to their own...

Because, as I said, they usually charge an insurance premium - then take their charges from the other side as well. Employ your own solicitor and they will only charge one set of fees - and those are often paid by the losing side.

If there is any doubt by the claimant that they will lose, perhaps they should reconsider the wisdom of making such a claim. I doubt any so called 'insurer' will take on a case where the claimant themselves is not confident of winning - although they will reject many who themselves think they can win but the company think may not.

All these companies usually do is employ a solicitor to act on behalf of the claimant anyway - and pocket the premium paid in advance. They are not charities - they need to make money somehow and the premium is the way they do that.