Boundary Dispute - Neighbour wont let me put a fence on MY land

jjlandlord

Bambi0895 wrote: »

I've had proper legal advice. My solicitor has told me in her opinion it is fine to erect a fence.

What are you looking for, then?

In any case, I would do as suggested:

princeofpounds wrote: »

Have you shown her the argument of the other side? Have you asked her to explain the basis of her opinion in written legal advice?

And also perhaps seek advice on your potential next steps.
I suspect that if you are confident that you are entitled to erect a fence, and if that is what you want to do, your next step is to do it.
They might or might not go to court to have you remove it afterwards, and they might remove it though it would then leave them open to you suing them for damage to property.

moneyistooshorttomention

jjlandlord wrote: »

Stop wasting time by replying to the solicitor, and potentially writing something you will regret.



Have you had actual legal advice on this clause?

It seems that they are right in that this is not your yard, but that it is owned in common by the 5 owners of the properties mentioned.
Hanging clothes there is a disturbance to the other owners and thus it was explicitly stated that this was allowed subject to the limitation listed.

If so, you indeed cannot erect a fence through the yard.

Get proper legal advice. Discussing with us or sending emails to their solicitors is a waste of time.

It is her yard though. She states the red line denoting ownership goes all round it.

I certainly agree with not saying anything in writing to this solicitor:eek:

I still favour phoning the solicitor concerned and just saying "Access is only granted for the lines. Access will still be possible for the lines. I will send you photos to prove that fact or come and have a look for yourself".

I would regard advice from this solicitor that he would only deal with another solicitor as trying to get me to fall into the trap of paying out money to my solicitor and think that this solicitor and/or his client are hoping to push OP into spending more and more money she cant afford in the hope she will give up due to lack of finance. Its a trap I wouldn't fall into personally.

In the two instances to date where I've had a solicitor "set onto me" by someone I've just taken the attitude of "You deal with me personally Mr Solicitor and I'm sure a Court would agree with me if it came to it that its not reasonable for you to tell me to spend my money employing my own solicitor". Both situations worked out okay.

In fact, in one "set on of solicitor" it took precisely 5 minutes of me having phoned up the solicitor concerned and explaining what had really happened and he was absolutely fine about it/quite understood/instant end of matter.

jjlandlord

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

It is her yard though. She states the red line denoting ownership goes all round it.

She quoted part of the property's title deeds. It is not obvious that the yard is only hers.

Hence proper legal advice, with opinion in writing. Then she decides next step.

moneyistooshorttomention

I get your point but that means her spending more money on a solicitor and imo falling into that trap of "Lets get her to spend money...then some more money....etc etc".

Reiterating a point from another poster, I think it would be worth OP having a good read of that Garden Law Forum.

I realised there were two particularly knowledgeable posters on there (one now gone and one still present) and have made absolutely copious notes of information imparted by the "now gone" one (ie Conveyancer).

Conveyancer really knows their stuff but, as stated, now seems to have left the forum. But I picked their brains right, left and centre by reading about every flippin' post they ever made about anything and making my notes. Mygawd it took me days....but I do feel rather better informed as a result.

EDIT; That red line on the Title Plan denotes all the ownership of that yard is hers. What we are talking about here is the "usage" of her yard, as in these other people maintaining their "hanging rights".

moneyistooshorttomention

A follow-up thought here is that I have the idea (possibly one of the things I gleaned from Conveyancer???) that if anyone claims some sort of usage right over someone else's land that the general principle is that they cant use those "usage rights" to an extent that will compromise the land-owners right to get the use they need themselves from their own land (ie getting the privacy they need in this case).

It came over to me as people having "usage rights" come sort of secondary position to the actual owner of the land and, as long as their usage rights are still possible, then that's where obligation of land-owner ends.

I'm trying to recall some of the examples I read of this...will post them if I do remember.

EDIT: could also have come from www.boundaryproblems.co.uk

moneyistooshorttomention

Been racking brains further. Think the place I read that general concept of those who have "access rights" on someone else's land not being able to interfere with the land-owner having what use they need from their own land (subject to those access rights still being usable) might well be a very useful book I've come across recently:

"Land Law - Directions" by Sandra Clarke and Sarah Greer

It's available from Amazon and costs somewhere around £25 from memory.

Written in pretty clear language from the laypersons pov.

Well £25 is dear for a book, but a darn sight cheaper than an hour with a solicitor...

jjlandlord

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Well £25 is dear for a book, but a darn sight cheaper than an hour with a solicitor...

Asking my wife to remove my appendix is also darn sight cheaper than asking a qualified surgeon to do it... However that saving may prove insignificant in comparison to the consequences.

Saving money also means knowing when and where it is worth spending it.

(£25 is cheap for a book)

moneyistooshorttomention

Swop finances with you can I? :rotfl:£25 is an amount of money I would very rarely spend on a book personally and I doubt many would find it cheap.

But, earlier in thread, OP is saying she cant spend £500 on legal costs. She'd rack that amount up in about 2 hours of solicitor time.

So, if OP can understand a legal book written in pretty clear language herself or knows someone else who can and will explain it to her, then it would be worth her getting that book. I would say its written in intelligent 6th former level of language (errrm...that would be 6th former from my era that is, ie the 1960s/70s). Not an "academic" convoluted language type book imo.

Worth ordering from the local library if she cant even afford to buy a copy.

As some solicitors do try it on and/or aren't very informed themselves and I've certainly encountered one that got "sent packing" for lack of knowledge, then the mere fact of going to a solicitor doesn't necessarily mean they know better than an intelligent informed layperson.

moneyistooshorttomention

Just hauled the book out (latest edition) and there are several pages on this sort of issue around page 303 onwards. Now OP is the "servient tenement" in this case (ie the one that owns the land, but has to grant access rights to the others involved). Those others are the "dominant tenements".

One phrase there, for instance, catching my eye being re easements "should not amount to possession of the servient tenement - the servient owner must still be able to use his or her own land".

I would say not being able to put up a fence to maintain the level of privacy expected in a garden would amount to having less than full usage of her own land.

Generally, I think its worth OPs while to borrow a copy of that book and have a read of that whole section, but the general gist I got from reading that section (ie before OP's thread came onto the scene) was certainly to effect of those with easements cant significantly dictate what a land-owner does with their own land (as long as they still have their access rights).

Anyway, wise to read it for herself and see if she draws the same conclusions I did.

davidmcn

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

One phrase there, for instance, catching my eye being re easements "should not amount to possession of the servient tenement - the servient owner must still be able to use his or her own land".

I would say not being able to put up a fence to maintain the level of privacy expected in a garden would amount to having less than full usage of her own land.

No, she still has full use of her land, there's nothing inconsistent with being prevented from putting up a fence. It's talking more about things like a neighbour having an exclusive right to park on your land (which obviously would mean that you couldn't really use it for anything else).

Have a look at relevant case law if you want some further guidance.