T-marks - Neighbour wants me to transfer responsibilty - need expert advice please

beckyben89

Hi everyone,

I bought my first home this year. The boundary at the end of our garden comprises part of an old stone building. The stone building is in the neighbour's garden (a farm) and our boundary is one of the walls of this building.

The neighbour approached me about this wall. He showed me from his garden that a part of it is leaning. From my garden, it looks fine. If it is leaning, it's going in the direction of my garden anyway. He said that the T-marks show that I am responsible for the wall. He said that if he pays my solicitor fees that I could transfer responsibility to him for looking after it. He wants to put a concrete bar on it and turn it into a storage shed (well that is what he says). My house and the estate it is on is located on land that this neighbour sold. He says that the T-marks were placed the wrong way mistakenly by the solicitor....

They have tried to say it is dangerous (it isn't). I'm happy to get a surveyor to look at it. After reading documents associated with my house, I can see that original plans with the whole development 25 years ago show that there was going to be a 3.5 metre track alongside this boundary to give access to farm sheds. My worry is if I transfer responsibility, that he would knock it all down, create a new bigger shed and get this track built in whilst accessing my garden.

If I say no and maintain the responsibility, would this stop him from doing the above? Also, is there a way that he can somehow steal my responsibility and transfer it to himself without me realising?

Thanks for any advice!

princeofpounds

Let's go back to basic assumptions here. 

T marks often don't mean as much as people think they do. Firstly, it's only a convention that they show responsibility for the boundary. They can mean anything, and they only mean something if the T mark is described in the title deeds. So - do the deeds describe what the T mark represents?

Secondly, there is a difference between being responsible for a boundary in general terms and being responsible for a specific boundary feature. If the deeds say you are responsible for the boundary wall, then that means something. But it may well just oblige you to keep some kind of boundary feature.

Thirdly - If this building belongs to your neighbour, there is nothing stopping him repairing what is possibly actually his wall with your permission for access (or even without your permission if he were to use the Access to Neighbouring Land Act to maintain his property). 

Fourthly - if your neighbour wanted to put in an access track and the wall did prevent him, he could do so by leaving that wall standing, and demolishing the rest of the building.

So this is all a bit curious. It's a bit less mysterious if you really are responsible for that wall, so let's figure that out first.

Socajam

Agree with above, do not rush into anything then when the truth comes out, it only turns out that you are misled.
If this was that important, why did your neighbour not have it done years ago.
Something sounds fish to me.  Get all your facts straight first and then decide - do not let him wear you down - take your time, it's your right to do so.

theartfullodger

Spend £3 with land registry for a copy of his deeds and plan and read them carefully.

Then get advice from local surveyor

Doozergirl

Mickey666 said:

It would be rather curious if the OP was responsible for one wall of a neighbours building.

It probably won't.  Deeds usually refer to the maintaining the boundary but not what forms it.    You could do it with a piece of string, with stones on the ground, whatever.  Walls or fences are the always property, and therefore the maintenance responsibility of the side that erected them.   

So it depend on what the deeds actually say, but it's unlikely to refer to the wall if the wall was someone else's in the first place. 

You never know.

I wouldn't get paranoid about it though.  What the document says is largely irrelevant.  I'd just find out what the neighbour wants to physically do and negotiate it, regardless of the T, which probably doesn't mean as much as both parties think it does.  

SharkMoney

Ignore him and let him go legal - costs will be enough to change his mind. 

martindow

SharkMoney said:

Ignore him and let him go legal - costs will be enough to change his mind. 

The OP has got to live with his neighbour so i don't think this is well advised.  The OP needs to get advice to see what the options are and then be friendly but firm to seek and agreement.  Neighbour disputes are never a good idea.

jimbog

As Zammo said in the 1980's : Just say 'no'

greatcrested

I'd just say 'yes'!

Let him take responsibility for both the boundary and the wall, and cover any and all related legalcosts.

OP can then wash his hands and let the neighbour do the maintenance work (which may or may not be needed, but why argue about it?).

* no legal cost to OP

* no maintenance cost to OP, now or future

* good neighbour relations maintained

Downside....?

Mojisola

beckyben89 said:

The boundary at the end of our garden comprises part of an old stone building. The stone building is in the neighbour's garden (a farm) and our boundary is one of the walls of this building.

He wants to put a concrete bar on it and turn it into a storage shed (well that is what he says).

I'd be concerned about what he's planning and would prefer to hold onto the boundary ownership.

Mickey666

Boundaries and boundary markers are two different things.  A boundary is just an imaginary line, which is why they require a boundary marker - typically a fence - to make them apparent.  Seems to me that there's no dispute over the actual boundary here.  it also seems there is no dispute over the boundary marker - it's the rear wall of the neighbour's building.  The apparent issue seems to be the ownership of that rear wall.

I'd be amazed if the neighbour did not own the wall when there seems to be no dispute that they own the rest of the building.  Also, as the building was there before the neighbour sold off land on which the OP's house and estate has been built, the neighbour must have once owned the entire building, rear wall and all - so why on earth would he want to convey away the rear wall in the first place?

I also don't really understand the point about the neighbour wishing to turn the building into a storage shed . . . what is it now?

Perhaps a drawing of things would help with understanding what's really going on here?