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

moneyistooshorttomention

I did read that parking example I recall, but I haven't come across any specific "to fence or not to fence = that is the question" examples and think there may not be case law specifically on fences, hence my going on the basic principles there seem to be for this sort of thing.

Do you know of any specific case law where an owner tried to put a fence up on their own land, complete with what the result of it was?

moneyistooshorttomention

Out of interest, I've just found this one:

www.justanswer.com/uk-law/1gen9-recently-erected-new-gate-fence-garden-land.html

from someone in a very similar position by the sound of it.

JimmyTheWig

Do we agree that if the OP is not allowed to put up a fence then their conveyencing solicitor should have told them during the buying process?
They didn't tell the OP this because they didn't believe this was the case. So if it turns out that this is the case then should the solicitor be liable?

So is it not up to the two solicitors to fight it out?
If the OP's solicitor is right then the other solicitor should pay the OP's solicitor.
If the OP's solicitor is wrong then the OP's solicitor should pay for being wrong during the conveyencing.


Though, obviously, there's always an advantage of keeping neighbours onside. If you put up a fence (even if you are legally allowed to) and it gets knocked down, will you have proof who knocked it down?

atrixblue.-MFR-.

If the OP has is obligated to maintain it and provide access, and share those costs at mention rate in the deeds, then why is she calling the landlord to remove their stuff, why not have a waste management CO come and remove it, after all the landlord is owner of those properties and as such he is going to have to pay the shared costs for removal rubbish on all those properties he owns that dump rubbish in that area.


Like wise if the landlord is removing the rubbish, he could argue that it is not his sole responsibility to have these removed as he is not responsible for maintenance just the mentioned shared cost, then he could claim back out of pocket expenses such as fuel and time off the OP and have this deducted out of his shared cost.


Heres What I would do:


I would notify all tenants and landlord that duping rubbish and hazardous material (fridge freezers etc) on the "communal access washing line garden?aka hanging right area" (if you could call it that) would incur a charge for removal regardless if it is not their waste due to the clause which states that they have to share the cost maintenance. if the landlord has not expressed in his tenancy agreements with his tenants they are to share these costs, then the burden of ALL these shared costs on these properties become his to pay as he is the owner of the properties.


He's happy to collect because he knows he can recharge the costs of his fuel and time to do this. He could say your harassing him by calling him 2-3 times a day over trivial items such as coke cans, when its your responsibility to maintain it.


I would turn everything upside down for him now, and charge for waste removal where needed, as the person responsible for the area and the owner of the area, if it falls into a condition that it needs "essential repairs" you issue him and other owners with prior notice to discuss it.


After all he wants to stick with rights, then enforce those rights and obligations as the owner/responsible person for the maintenance, you have a right to ENJOY that land (as do tenants have a right to access and hang clothing), so I would start enforcing the rights and obligations as per the deeds, not to be awkward and make it looks as if your retaliating but it swing both ways he wants to enforce his rights without obligations sorry but you cant swing it both ways just for the advantage of getting one over on the other.

After paying associated shared costs, he'll soon start to think he should be doing more to protect the land with you rather than obstruct you in erecting a privacy fence and doing maintenance, he'll soon find out why his tenancy agreements should include the clause "shared costs of communal area" because if he hasn't got that in his tenancies at the moment his tenants don't have to pay him the removal of the waste they dump and he become the sole liable person for shared costs at all his properties around your street with the access right clause in the original deeds?



CCTV will sort out any issues with tipping, put up a notice, no fly tipping and CCTV in operation sign. its you land, you can legally erect CCTV to overlook and protect your land.

davidmcn

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Do we agree that if the OP is not allowed to put up a fence then their conveyencing solicitor should have told them during the buying process?

If they had been asked the question, maybe. They apparently did explain the rights which the neighbours had over the land, I don't think solicitors can anticipate everything which their clients might want to do in the future.

I'm not sure what the layout is (it might help if the OP drew a plan), but if we're talking about a proposed fence cutting across the route of diagonal clothes lines I can see the neighbours' concern.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Do we agree that if the OP is not allowed to put up a fence then their conveyencing solicitor should have told them during the buying process?
They didn't tell the OP this because they didn't believe this was the case. So if it turns out that this is the case then should the solicitor be liable?

So is it not up to the two solicitors to fight it out?
If the OP's solicitor is right then the other solicitor should pay the OP's solicitor.
If the OP's solicitor is wrong then the OP's solicitor should pay for being wrong during the conveyencing.


Though, obviously, there's always an advantage of keeping neighbours onside. If you put up a fence (even if you are legally allowed to) and it gets knocked down, will you have proof who knocked it down?

If the OP was told then IMHO it should have been clarified as to what restrictions those access rights and hanging rights actually meant to the ENJOYMENT of the land

At the end of the day its interpretation of words that the solicitors are going to argue in a court.


If it says "unrestricted free open access" then a gate is a restriction/obstruction in its own right as it restricts free movement by having to stop and open it and is an obstruction to gain access even if its unlocked.


A fence is fixed obstruction and would restrict "free open access" whilst on the land they have "unrestricted free open rights of way" on.


if it merely states Access then it can be interpreted as you merely have to provide access, be that gates access, then a gate can be erected.


It seems to me that the clotheslines has to be in a certain direction from one house and the other, and Rights to hang merely means that the angles and direction of the cloths lines are not be restricted nor is access to them to be obstructed or restricted.


in this case it would be fair to Fence in another area that would not cause restriction or obstruction to the clotheslines.


either case I think the solicitors should have clarified this, plus I doubt this is the first time the LL has kicked off about it, I bet previous owner had the same issues, so I would delve into that side to see if there is record of a boundary dispute that wasn't disclosed.


My brother went through a boundary dispute with his neighbor who claimed she has bought half of my brothers garden decades ago, used some of it to erect a garage, and left the rest, but has entitlement to it. but there is no record of a purchase of land on the registry, and that only the garden boundary shows the garage encroaching on some of the garden that has not been disputed for or about for over 25 yrs. The lady had real issues about my brother erecting a fence got solicitors involed and surveyors etc, then her health declined and she is now in a care home, the siblings are selling/sold the house, my brother spoke with the estate agent and siblings when at the property to value, to mention there was a boundary dispute and the estate agent and siblings denied there was ever an issue with the boundary lines, he simply told them to contact the solicitor who the lady was using to verify, the house was then sold and the new owners were not told of the boundary dispute. so It can happen and still does even though there is supposed to be full disclosure and checks on these issues.

moneyistooshorttomention

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Do we agree that if the OP is not allowed to put up a fence then their conveyencing solicitor should have told them during the buying process?
They didn't tell the OP this because they didn't believe this was the case. So if it turns out that this is the case then should the solicitor be liable?

So is it not up to the two solicitors to fight it out?
If the OP's solicitor is right then the other solicitor should pay the OP's solicitor.
If the OP's solicitor is wrong then the OP's solicitor should pay for being wrong during the conveyencing.


Though, obviously, there's always an advantage of keeping neighbours onside. If you put up a fence (even if you are legally allowed to) and it gets knocked down, will you have proof who knocked it down?

I'll go along with that.

As for proof of who has caused criminal damage if it comes to it = security camera in place would soon prove that one and help to deter it in the first place.

EDIT: a gate is possible "restriction/obstruction" looks like it would only be a consideration if it were a gate across a road that cars have access to drive up (ie because the driver would have to stop the car and get out to open the gate and then get back in the car again) or if horses use the access as ROW (rider getting down off horse/opens gate/gets back on horse again) according to that legal question I put up (and the answer to it the solicitor gave) in post 73 on this thread.

That makes sense to me that this solicitor said that same consideration wouldn't apply to a gate a pedestrian wanted to open (ie that would be because its the work of a moment to just reach out your hand and use the catch on a gate, and no getting out of car/off a horse involved).

atrixblue.-MFR-.

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I'll go along with that.

As for proof of who has caused criminal damage if it comes to it = security camera in place would soon prove that one and help to deter it in the first place.

EDIT: a gate is possible "restriction/obstruction" looks like it would only be a consideration if it were a gate across a road that cars have access to drive up (ie because the driver would have to stop the car and get out to open the gate and then get back in the car again) or if horses use the access as ROW (rider getting down off horse/opens gate/gets back on horse again) according to that legal question I put up (and the answer to it the solicitor gave) in post 73 on this thread.

That makes sense to me that this solicitor said that same consideration wouldn't apply to a gate a pedestrian wanted to open (ie that would be because its the work of a moment to just reach out your hand and use the catch on a gate, and no getting out of car/off a horse involved).

Yes agree BUT: There's hanging rights so it would be expected that a person would potentially be carrying a basket full of heavy wet clothes for drying, a gate would be a "restriction/obstruction" as in that the person would have to put down the clothes basket in order to unlatch it to gain entry and then hold gate open as not to swing back and latch again, pick up clothes basket and then enter so it would be a valid argument for the LL that his tenants would be restricted if a gate is erected because they may have to stop to put the basket down, and then unlatch gate then hold gate open then pick up basket to continue breaching the covenant.


personally I would argue that provisions for hanging or drying (via tumble dryer) clothes have been provided or made at each individual house and individual free access by other means not crossing this area to properties are available (if theres evidence of this) and that common area has been disused for some time based on its current state, and seek to have this common area clause in the deeds nullified.

moneyistooshorttomention

A valid point, but, as you say, there aren't many people using clotheslines these days. Tumbledryers do tend to be the norm nowadays.

Add in that I am vaguely recalling push-along washing baskets from somewhere (certainly something like a traditional style pram or supermarket shopping trolley style thing could be used for wheeling wet washing along). Hmm....theres also shopping trolleys (eg those big push-along type ones) and it could be argued that, even if washing needed to be conveyed to a washing line, that "instant hands-free access" wasn't required.

Jon_Bake

Basically there is nothing written in the contract about ‘not putting up a fence’ I think you have the right to put up a fence as long as it doesn’t disrupt their hanging rights. But since the landlord is not seeming to make any kind of negotiations your next best option will be to meet a real estate lawyer. Many times when a lawyer comes and makes a negotiation there are higher chances of success.
My dispute with my neighbour on a car parking issue in front of my home in Toronto was solved by a lawyer from GCY Law. We had tried to come to an agreement many times before but it did not happen. Finally when the lawyer came as mediator things worked out.