Neighbour pulling a fast one?

Tiglet

My ground floor neighbour is in the middle of some building works, including making some major changes to the garden. There are three flats in the block, each with its own garden and there is a shared area connecting the three sections. According to the lease, the area nearest the house is communal and the only use allowed is for access to the other areas of the garden.

My neighbour has removed part of the path from this communal area and put decking over the area nearest the house. He has put a fence around his part of the garden, but provided separate access, outside of the fenced-off part, to the other two gardens. This means that my other neighbour will need to cross the middle of my garden to get to his.

As a result of these changes, neither of the two other has any need to enter the fenced-off part of the garden, so he seems to be claiming exclusive use of the communal area.

The freeholder has seen the decking and told him it needs to be taken out. However, the neighbour spoke to me about it today and tells me that the freeholder said they were happy for the work to go ahead so long as everyone agrees. (Nobody consulted me about it).

The neighbour seems unbelievably keen to compromise on any part of this except for the two main points, namely that the decking has to stay and that we don't have access through his part of the garden. He says he is prepared to put a path around the edge of his land, on his land, so we can access our gardens. He is prepared to pay to have the lease changed to reflect the new arrangement. He is even prepared to give up part of his garden to store the bins (currently supposed to go next to the house). And he says he is happy for the decking area to remain communal, even though he is paying for it.

They say that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. I suspect he stands to gain considerably from this. First, by getting exclusive access to the communal area he will add to the value of his flat. I also suspect that his purpose could be to get permission to build an extension, adding even more value. Does that sound likely, or is it more likely (as he says) actually perfectly reasonable and just a failure to explain what he was doing in advance?

libf

If you don't like it, don't agree to it and tell the freeholder you don't agree.

eddddy

I guess your 3 main options are:

1. Agree
2. Don't agree - and insist that the garden is reinstated as it is in the lease
3. Say that you'll agree in exchange for a payment from the ground floor leaseholder

Davesnave

It's hard to understand without a plan, but the principle of no change in the status quo without proper consultation applies. As there hasn't been any before this person took action, it's reasonable to conclude they're acting in their own best interests only.

What worries me in particular is:
"This means that my other neighbour will need to cross the middle of my garden to get to his."

Regardless of other changes/considerations, this affects the privacy of your garden space and devalues your property.

Contact the freeholder to express your opposition to what's been done so far and have a word with the other tenant who would 'need' a right of way across your garden. I'm sure they'll be as happy about that as you are!

Tiglet

I don't like it, don't want it but they are putting all kinds of pressure on me to accept it.


Although they have never lived there, they say they want to live there now, with their kids, and they say they want the privacy to protect the kids. Not my problem, I know.

They are telling me that everyone else agrees with them, and that it's only me stopping them. If I agree, then the freeholder will agree too. I haven't been able to speak to the freeholder because they are still discussing it, and the Housing Officer will be away until next week. Apparently, my neighbour will be charged more for any delays. Again, not my problem, but still puts unfair pressure on me.

Tiglet

Davesnave wrote: »

It's hard to understand without a plan, but the principle of no change in the status quo without proper consultation applies. As there hasn't been any before this person took action, it's reasonable to conclude they're acting in their own best interests only.

What worries me in particular is:
"This means that my other neighbour will need to cross the middle of my garden to get to his."

Regardless of other changes/considerations, this affects the privacy of your garden space and devalues your property.

Contact the freeholder to express your opposition to what's been done so far and have a word with the other tenant who would 'need' a right of way across your garden. I'm sure they'll be as happy about that as you are!

This is one of the "too good to be true" bits. I told him I don't want a new path through my garden, or even around the edge of it, and he offered to move the fence so that the path would be on his land.

I suspect that the important thing for him is that we are excluded from the part he has fenced off, giving him sole use of the supposedly communal area.

(Also, the other tenant isn't a leaseholder and so doesn't have the same stake in this as I do, so I do feel a little isolated, although I now he doesn't like what's going on).

Mossfarr

You are clearly not happy with the proposed changes so just say NO - in writing - so there can be no misunderstanding.
You do not have to agree just because others are putting you under pressure. The argument that they are protecting their children is complete rubbish, If that were the case they would not be moving in!
You and the other affected neighbour need to get together and make it clear that you will not agree to the changes, you are being played off each other at the moment. If you stand together your opposition will be much stronger.
mossfarr

TBagpuss

Put your response in writing, to your neighbour and to the freeholder.

State that you do not wish to lose access to or use of the communal areas, that the proposed changes are not acceptable because they would result in your neighbour having to cross your garden to reach theirs. Ask that any response be in writing also for clarity.

I am not quite clear on the lay-out but if they are proposing a solution which would provide for access for your other neighbour without going through your garden, and continued use of the communal areas, then if your concerns at that point is that this may be step one in a plan to build an extension then at that point you could consider saying you will agree provided that the changes to the lease include a specifc provision preventing any extension being built without the conset of all leaseholders.

If you are concerned that any changes will devalue your property then you can tell them that you will only consider agreeing if they pay you the difference in value to be determined by an independent surveyor at their expense.

kelpie35

You have been given the choice whither to agree or not.

As far as I can see the choice is yours, so where is the problem?

moneyistooshorttomention

libf wrote: »

If you don't like it, don't agree to it and tell the freeholder you don't agree.

Seconded.

Make it in writing - and keep a copy.

Ignore the fact that you are being made to feel pressurised by them - its only feelings and feelings aren't "concrete" and measurable. Whereas - you losing the privacy of your garden IS "concrete" and measurable.

They may well be telling the "neighbour who would have to walk across your garden" a few "terminological inexactitudes" (aka lies) about you not being bothered about that. Make sure this neighbour knows the truth of the matter.

EDIT; I just bet you are a woman on your own?? I do think neighbours probably "try it on" more on a solo female household imo and they don't stop as you get older either (ie with more "life experience" under your belt - eg having to stand up for yourself more than a man or married woman would have to). I naively thought things would get easier as people could see I'd been single for quite some years by now (ie lots of having to stand up for myself under my belt).....got that one wrong then. They don't - they still try it on.

Time to get in some more practice at "standing up for yourself" then.

Tiglet

@Art Contrary: They have fenced off almost the whole of their part of the garden, including a communal area next to the house and a communal path through the middle leading to the other two parts of the garden. They have also removed the communal path, creating a single larger garden instead of two smaller parts.

Instead of the original path, we now have a separate path along the side of their garden, fenced off from it. (I hope that makes sense)

I suggested that, if I were to accept the decking, it should be explicitly retained as a communal area. But in retrospect, that wouldn't work. The decking is right in front of their patio doors, so nobody would be able to use the decking without staring into their living room. Also, the decking is within an area that has no other exits. So even if it was communal in theory, nobody would be able to use it in practice, making it theirs in reality.

@TBagpuss: I think all your points apply. The neighbour has applied for planning permission in the past (without consulting me), and done major works, again without consulting me. This time he claims it was an oversight not to consult me but it just seems to be par for the course.

@Kelpie35:I have been presented with a fait accompli. The neighbour has spent a lot of money on the work and I am having to go out of my way to object. The choice should not be mine; first he has infringed my rights, now he is trying to make me feel bad about objecting to it.