Neighbour won't pay their half of housing association fence

KAL2

The fences were there when we moved in,  we are BOTH jointly responsible for any repairs  for the fences either side. I have checked it out with the housing association today.  I am happy to pay my half plus i said i would pay for the delivery so i am doing more then my fair share,  they however are are failing their responsibility. 

olgadapolga

Kim_kim said:

I don’t think there is such a thing as a joint fence.  Your house will be responsible for one side and his house another.  The HA will only do external fences not dividing fences.

This isn't always the case.

My current home has boundaries with four other properties and the boundaries ARE shared. I am expected to split the costs of maintaining the boundaries with the respective neighbour(s), depending on which part of the boundary is in need of maintenance. The only boundary I am solely responsible for is at the front. That said, if I want to replace a fence and the neighbour doesn't want to then the cost is on me. But I have lovely neighbours, one of whom insisted on replacing the fence between us which had fallen down in the storms. Wouldn't let me pay anything towards it, even though I offered to, on the basis that we should both be paying for it.

At my last house, we were next to a HA property. The fence fell down. My property deeds stated quite clearly that the boundary was NOT mine to maintain so I told the tenants that they needed to speak with the HA. The HA quoted some rubbish about it was my responsibility as it was the boundary on the left as you look at it from the road. They even sent a dodgy picture of properties and boundaries that looked as though it had been cobbled together on Microsoft Paint. I sent a copy of my title deeds etc to the MD of said housing association with a strongly worded letter, next thing I know they are apologising and getting the fence replaced. The HA in question had an odd rule that the tenants were responsible for the upkeep of boundaries UNLESS it was shared with a property not owned by the HA, in which case the HA would maintain it. For that particular property, all of the surrounding properties were privately owned so the HA were responsible for the lot, except the front one, which had no fence.

Your HA may not be correct in their assumptions about who is responsible for the boundary. However, it may come down to if you need and want a fence then you might have to pay for it all as maintaining s boundary does not necessarily mean having a fence there, whether or not one was there when you moved in.

KAL2

There has to be a fence as both side have a dog.  I will just have to pay for it all,  i might  just put a big 7 ft one there lol. 

LilElvis

KAL2 said:

There has to be a fence as both side have a dog.  I will just have to pay for it all,  i might  just put a big 7 ft one there lol. 

Great idea! Until the council inform you that it is too high and require you to lower it - at your cost. Lol.

KAL2

How would they know lol,  it can't be seen from the street and the neighbours won't say anything as they are failing their responsibility to share the cost of the fence anyway. 
They wouldn't care what size it was,   there is nothing there at the mo, just a big gap and they don't care. 

ElephantBoy57

KAL2 said:

How would they know lol,  it can't be seen from the street and the neighbours won't say anything as they are failing their responsibility to share the cost of the fence anyway. 
They wouldn't care what size it was,   there is nothing there at the mo, just a big gap and they don't care. 

Planning permission is not required provided that: 1. The wall or fence is not more than 2 metres in height anywhere on your property except where it adjoins a road or footpath. In this case the height is restricted to 1 metre.

If you seriously want it seven feet tall, you need planning permission.

GaleSF63

KAL2 said:

How would they know lol,  it can't be seen from the street and the neighbours won't say anything as they are failing their responsibility to share the cost of the fence anyway. 
They wouldn't care what size it was,   there is nothing there at the mo, just a big gap and they don't care. 

For the sake of about 5 inches, stick to 2 metres and don't invite unnecessary trouble. 

HampshireH

It's very common for HA tenancies to state that they have no repairing obligations for dividing fences between two properties owned by them.

This is frequently written into tenancy agreements as a joint tenant responsibility. They are frequently only responsible for marking the boundary (and that doesn't mean installing a fence) though many will do so when facing a public footpath in the interests of privacy and security.

The OP is correct in her understanding.

MoneySeeker1

Is there another way to look at this? That being that their dog is the one of the two most likely to attack (given that theirs is a known to often be aggressive breed and yours just has 3 legs) and so the onus would be on them if there were a dogfight and your dog got injured or killed. Is there a law that states they would be responsible for it if their dog is proven to be the attacker in any dog fight? If there is, then perhaps you could send them a letter (copy kept) expressing fears for your dogs welfare and quoting that law at them and that you would be using said law against them if your dog did suffer. There obviously should be a law like that, so I guess it's possible there might be one.

EDIT; No sooner had I typed that than I thought "There is - the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991".

davidmcn

MoneySeeker1 said:

Is there another way to look at this? That being that their dog is the one of the two most likely to attack (given that theirs is a known to often be aggressive breed and yours just has 3 legs) and so the onus would be on them if there were a dogfight and your dog got injured or killed. Is there a law that states they would be responsible for it if their dog is proven to be the attacker in any dog fight? If there is, then perhaps you could send them a letter (copy kept) expressing fears for your dogs welfare and quoting that law at them and that you would be using said law against them if your dog did suffer. There obviously should be a law like that, so I guess it's possible there might be one.

EDIT; No sooner had I typed that than I thought "There is - the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991".

Might help if you read the law first. Staffies aren't "dangerous dogs".