Adverse Possession

moneyistooshorttomention

Or, on the other hand, a neighbour that wants to be "in charge", has identified OP as next owner of house and is making it perfectly plain from the start that their attitude is "When I say jump - you are supposed to say "How high?" " and, if you buy this house after they've tried to "assert their authority" even before you move in the door = then you will have to be "firm" with them that them being "in charge" is not going to happen.

Now that is voice of experience time - on my current house - as one of my nfh tried to make it plain they were "in charge" before I'd even bought the house. Much wear and tear on my nerves, checking out the legal position on everything and a noticeable amount of buying bottles of wine to "drown sorrows" later - and that malarkey stopped after the first couple of years or so here.

By the sound of it - you will have to be prepared to be very "firm" with this neighbour in a variety of respects if you buy this house. But neighbours like that CAN be dealt with and at least there are two of you to do this....

Red-Squirrel_2

D_M_E wrote: »

Given the seller's "don't care" response to your query, you've got to wonder what else is waiting to surface.

They should sort it before sale and should have done so before offering the property for sale.

Maybe they are intimidated by the neighbours and don't want to approach them.

Could get expensive if you do buy and try and claim what's in the title.

Seems more likely that they’ve lived there for 20 years with no issues and are genuinely not bothered about a tiny strip of land either way.

Red-Squirrel_2

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Or, on the other hand, a neighbour that wants to be "in charge", has identified OP as next owner of house and is making it perfectly plain from the start that their attitude is "When I say jump - you are supposed to say "How high?" " and, if you buy this house after they've tried to "assert their authority" even before you move in the door = then you will have to be "firm" with them that them being "in charge" is not going to happen.

Now that is voice of experience time - on my current house - as one of my nfh tried to make it plain they were "in charge" before I'd even bought the house. Much wear and tear on my nerves, checking out the legal position on everything and a noticeable amount of buying bottles of wine to "drown sorrows" later - and that malarkey stopped after the first couple of years or so here.

By the sound of it - you will have to be prepared to be very "firm" with this neighbour in a variety of respects if you buy this house. But neighbours like that CAN be dealt with and at least there are two of you to do this....

Just out of interest, what percentage of the neighbours you’ve ever had were ‘nfh’?

Davesnave

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Seems more likely that they’ve lived there for 20 years with no issues and are genuinely not bothered about a tiny strip of land either way.

That might be true, but given what the OP already knows about the neighbours, it could also mean the vendors are content to be doormats and do anything for a quiet life.


It could also be the reason why they're moving.

franklee

I would also check if the current occupants of next door have been there for the whole 20 years the fence has been in that position. If not then at least you know they didn't move it so if there was encroachment it was done by a prior neighbour. Doesn't give you the land back but maybe some reassurance about them.

That said I would be worried at the behaviour at the viewing, was that the same neighbour?

Also I think most folks wouldn't be happy with an incomer wanting to move the fence.

Davesnave

franklee wrote: »

I would also check if the current occupants of next door have been there for the whole 20 years the fence has been in that position.

"The neighbour purchased his house four years ago, and the previous occupant was there for 12 years."

Red-Squirrel_2

Davesnave wrote: »

That might be true, but given what the OP already knows about the neighbours, it could also mean the vendors are content to be doormats and do anything for a quiet life.


It could also be the reason why they're moving.

Those are relatively new neighbours though, and are we sure they’re the relevant ones?

Davesnave

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Those are relatively new neighbours though, and are we sure they’re the relevant ones?

Well, they're 'neighbours,' so they're relevant, but I agree this sounds like a different neighbour from the errant-fence-owning one.

The fence seems to have been repositioned during the vendors' tenure, so my 'doormat' comment still seems relevant too.

franklee

Davesnave wrote: »

"The neighbour purchased his house four years ago, and the previous occupant was there for 12 years."

Thanks, that explains it.

Am still confused if OP's mentions of "the neighbours" and "one of the neighbours" are all from the same household or different ones. Maybe fence, planning and overgrown plant are all the same household or maybe not.

LandyAndy

red-squirrel wrote: »

just out of interest, what percentage of the neighbours you’ve ever had were ‘nfh’?

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: