moving a boundary as right of way has been historically been used

G_M

Slithery wrote: »

Surely those two sentances contradict each other? You can only put in a claim for adverse posession on unregistered land.

Linkprovided earlier:


adverse possesion

moneyistooshorttomention

Re the shed - you could pay a workman to come in and dismantle the shed (very carefully - so it wasn't damaged) and return it to your neighbour.

What are they going to do? Physically fight you to re-build it on your land?:cool:

Slithery

Ooooooops

moneyistooshorttomention

:rotfl: Well you know I'm an advocate of having a hosepipe available in one's garden - and the fancy to use it might come at some very odd times (like when someone else is "up to summat" they shouldn't be in one's garden) - totally coincidentally of course:)

Davesnave

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Re the shed - you could pay a workman to come in and dismantle the shed .

After the telling-off you gave GM for gender-bias last week, I'm shocked see this. :eek:

The OP clearly needs a tradesperson.


However, if the neighbour is in the process of selling, it would surely be much better if they just gifted the shed to the OP, rather than have an embarrassing wrangle over it and the land it stands on for....oh....I don't know....a couple of years.


Sheds are jolly useful. I have half a dozen of them myself.

G_M

Davesnave wrote: »

After the telling-off you gave GM for gender-bias last week, I'm shocked see this. :eek:

The OP clearly needs a tradesperson.

In fairness to moneyistooshort that was in relation to a land.... err ...person. And clearly moneyistooshort was right to castigate me as that is an occupation both men and women are equally capable of.

Dismantling a shed, on the other hand, is clearly mans work.

bouicca21

Not rising to the sexist bait ...

But genuinely interested - does not the fact that the shed has been in plain sight suggest that it was erected with the permission of the then land owner and that OP as successor in title has given tacit permission, ergo no claim for adverse possession should succeed?

An interesting and therefore expensive dispute looms.

Norman_Castle

roni.james wrote: »

Our neighbour now is selling his property and the buyers can't get a morgtage because of the boundary of the property. Our neighbour now is going to claim or change the boundary and incorporate the right of way as it has been historically been used by owners of his property.

roni.james wrote: »

his kitchen extension is right on his boundary and the kitchen door opens directly on the easement

Very odd to have a kitchen door opening into your neighbours garden. Does planning permission allow this? This could be the reason buyers cannot get a mortgage and for him owning the land outside the door is easier than adjusting the extension doorway.

As access is granted under the easement he cannot claim further rights due to historical use. He certainly cannot move the boundary.

moneyistooshorttomention

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Very odd to have a kitchen door opening into your neighbours garden. Does planning permission allow this? This could be the reason buyers cannot get a mortgage and for him owning the land outside the door is easier than adjusting the extension doorway.

As access is granted under the easement he cannot claim further rights due to historical use. He certainly cannot move the boundary.

Maybe these are rather old houses and there was some historical reason for that happening (eg both houses used to be in same ownership??).

These days - yes...it is odd. But, presumably, there is nothing to stop him/new owner of his house putting in French windows in a reception room in the house and accessing their back garden that way.