Neighbours greenhouse base interfering with my building

ukmicky

Hyphae wrote: »

The discussion was about the garage wall, which needs replacing...it is a party wall by definition. However, since presumably the Garage is on land owned by the garage owner (hopefully) the good news is only the part of the wall of the garage with the Greenhouse attached is covered by the Party Wall Act.


There has also been no trespass, unless the greenhouse is built on land owned by the garage owner.

The only type of party wall this wall can be is a type B as the wall is wholly on the OP's land from what i read.

For it to be a type B the greenhouse has to be attached by right.

It must either have gained a right or been granted the right through some form of permission,permision however can come in many guises which is one reason why we have equity courts.

Just because something fits in with the definition of a party wall does not mean it has a legal right to be deemed one.

A trespass has been committed as the greenhouse is causing a trespass to the wall and under the law everyday its attached a new cause for legal action occurs. On top of that damage has also be caused to the wall in order to fix it to the wall which makes it even more actionable

Unless the greenhouse was erected with permission or has gained a right through prescription the OP can take the greenhouse owner to court and have it removed and at the same time claim damages and costs.

The greenhouse owner needs to prove a right through prescription or permission to prevent anything or have any rights.

I would send a letter ordering him to remove it or face legal action and see what response it provokes

Hyphae

Given that the garage was purchased (and not by his house- so presumably on a different title?) it could well be that there was always a glasshouse attached, or that his father gave permission to put one there. Just because it looks new doesn't mean that a glasshouse has been put there recently. Afterall, the glasshouse owner may have repaired/improved or updated an old one that was there.

I am not suggesting going down the path to Party Wall act dispute, and certainly not suggesting that a surveyor gets involved! I am merely highlighting the possible consequences of not following the correct procedure. Failure to comply with the Act (ie, give notice)results in no legal right to carry out the work.

The first step is to talk to the Glasshouse owner, and secondly to notify of the work and get written permission (which a cordial discussion would no doubt obtain so the written would be a formality).

Of course, this assumes that the garage is built wholly on land owned by his father. The need to have a surveyor in to establish true boundaries is also expensive, but the boundaries would need to be established to serve trespass or the like.

ukmicky

Hyphae wrote: »

Of course, this assumes that the garage is built wholly on land owned by his father. The need to have a surveyor in to establish true boundaries is also expensive, but the boundaries would need to be established to serve trespass or the like.

Why the need to establish where the boundary is.

From the sounds of it the garage has been up long enough for the limitations act to be used as a basis for ownership by the OP's relative and the boundary wall would now even if it had originally been encroaching be deemed too be the true boundary and in full ownership of the OP.

I also disagree that any party wall notice should be sent without proof of a right for it to be their attached to the wall .

It as a green house was most likely not original to the house so any rights can only happen through prescription or permission .

And in the absence of any evidence to the contrary before any rights over the wall are handed to the greenhouse owner through a party wall notice the neighbour needs to prove he has party wall rights over the wall.

To not do so would give the greenhouse owner power to demolish and rebuild amongst other things and these are not rights you give someone without evidence that they are legally entitled to them

Hyphae

From the sounds of it the garage has been up long enough for the limitations act to be used as a basis for ownership by the OP's relative and the boundary wall would now even if it had originally been encroaching be deemed too be the true boundary and in full ownership of the OP.


This, of course, also aplies in the case of the Party Wall...ie, its been a Party wall since the greenhouse was attached, and this probably also falls in the 'long enough' category.

Of course, this is all supposition given we don't know all the facts. Serving a trespass notice is not the first thing sane people who want to avoid ongoing costs do!

ukmicky

This, of course, also applies in the case of the Party Wall...ie, its been a Party wall since the greenhouse was attached.

Only if it was attached to the wall with permission and the circumstances surrounding that permission has allowed it to gain a legal right to remain attached I'm afraid..

If its was trespassing then I'm afraid common law comes first, if the wall was damaged when it was attached criminal law comes first.

Simply attaching a structure to a neighbours wall will not make that wall a party wall.

Mojisola

ukmicky wrote: »

Simply attaching a structure to a neighbours wall will not make that wall a party wall.

I am relieved to hear that opinion. It seemed outrageous that someone could benefit from the Party Wall Act just by attaching a greenhouse to a neighbour's wall!

I thought the law was clear that you don't have the right to attach anything to your neighbour's fences and walls. It would be crazy if you could gain PWA rights by breaking the law.

keystone

Mojisola wrote: »

I thought the law was clear that you don't have the right to attach anything to your neighbour's fences and walls.

That is correct and they may not do that without gaining express permission from the owner first. If it is a fence, for example, they are not even allowed to paint it without your permission.

It would be crazy if you could gain PWA rights by breaking the law.

Quite.

Cheers

Hyphae

What I meant was, we don't know when the greenhouse was attached- and since the chap bought the garage, its possible that the greenhouse was already attached, hence the wall was a party wall once the garage was sold- follow?

I'm not going to start playing semantic games, as clearly its pointless since one of us seems to make a lot of posts doing it...

keystone

Oh give over - OP said its "quite new" right at the top of the thread. Would you like a larger shovel?

As for your second para pot, kettle, black.

Cheers