Money Moral Dilemma: Should we help pay for the fence our new neighbours put up?

TrevorJ

A few comments mention that it is usual that the fence on the left as you look out of the back door is your responsibility. I wouldn't simply assume that or you might have problems. As a few others have mentioned - on my deeds it clearly shows that I am responsible for the fence on the right - my neighbour the left. So take care.

Emerion

Neighbour issues are always tricky because you are stuck with them whatever you decide to do. I agree with many responders that your neighbours are in the wrong. You know better than any of  us what kind of people they are. You could take the view that it’s worth contributing a bit to keep the peace. If you do decide to do that, don’t just pay up and say nothing. Make it clear that they should have asked first, and that this won’t be happening again. As an alternative view, my parents-in-law tried that approach after  an unreasonable action by their neighbour. Having “won” that battle, the neighbour became more and more unreasonable on other issues, expecting them to back down on every occasion and becoming quite nasty when they didn’t. They phoned or came round to yell abuse, they threatened to tell lies about them around the village. It made my kindly parents-in-law miserable. I’m not suggesting that these people are like that. Maybe they are just thoughtless. But the fact that they thought they could rip down a fence without permission, choose another one without consultation, and then had the cheek to ask for some money for it, makes me suspicious that they might be. If they are, I would say that you will contribute next time the fence needs replacing as long as they check with you first about what needs to be done. Be calm, be firm, do not shout. Good luck. 

koalakoala

keithyno.1 said:

As unfortunate a situation as this is, nearly everyone who’s replied up to now has expressed moral indignation and/or focussed purely on the monetary aspect. But maybe the poster needs to look at it another way.

It’s a fact that the vast majority of neighbour disputes usually start over one or more of three things:

1) Fences
2) Parking
3) Overhanging trees etc

This obviously refers to the first one. Now, as aggrieved as the poster may feel about the removal of an old but functional fence AND then being asked to contribute towards it, maybe they need to put their annoyance to one side and look at the bigger picture. 

Firstly, they DO now have a new fence in place. With proper care (painting with weather-proof materials etc) it could be assumed that this new fence will last a lot longer than the old one, and so shouldn’t need replacing again for quite a few years to come.

But secondly, and maybe more importantly, perhaps they need to consider whether it’s worth getting off on a bad footing with these new neighbours. Yes, they’ve been there longer than the new arrivals but that’s inconsequential because they are now just that, neighbours, and will continue to be in the future. So, is it worth risking bad feeling over this, possibly leading to ongoing unpleasantness?

Nearly everyone realises (or at least, most people do) that it’s just good to co-exist with your neighbours in a state of harmony, friendliness and co-operation. It makes life more pleasant for everyone involved. Personally I have great neighbours, 4 immediately to the left of my house which is in a terraced block, and 5 immediately to the right. Everyone is friendly, and we all help each other out as and when required. You could say I’m lucky, but then generally you get back what you give out in life.

So, maybe the poster should look more to the future instead of concentrating on this immediate issue which is obviously troubling them. As they get to know these new neighbours better, they might find they’re fantastic people who’ll do anything to help anyone, but due to the cost of their move are a bit stretched financially and, thinking they were doing the right thing by having the new fence put up, just want the cost split between both properties as on the face of it it IS to the benefit of both.

Maybe the poster might think about when they’re next going away and want someone to keep a general eye on their property. And the numerous parcel deliveries most of us get these days, and the handiness of having a good neighbour who’s happy to accept delivery on their behalf instead of it having to keep being rescheduled. And the errands their neighbour might run for them if they’re ill or self-isolating. Or the help they may just need to help clear the snow off the driveway during the next bad winter. Etc, etc.

In short, it’s just GOOD to get on with your neighbours. Unlike most other things related to properties, you can’t put a price on the value of good ones. So think about biting the bullet over the cost of this new fence, stump up half of it with a reasonable show of willingness and hope for the best. And as I said earlier, generally you get back what you give out in life.

Not everyone is that amenable !

BMW51K

Looks like a fine example of poor communication on behalf of your neighbour.
I suggest that you politely decline their offer to receive a contribution from you, but suggest to them that should they feel inclined to do something similar in the future they should come and talk to you first to establish your position. If they then want to continue and do whatever it is - it's their problem and expense.

Cliver029

first of all check with land registry. If you both own the respective properties it will be clearly stated who owns that boundary.  Then take it from there, it does sound like your relationship was not a good one if they just went without asking, but either way you need to decide  wether it’s worth the hassle

monkeycat25

I think it is a lot of a cheek! Courtesy would be to ask first then you could have had some input into the type of fence, the quality, the installers, etc. My neighbours and I have a shared fence, it's clear on the plans so we discussed first. I wanted to use my regular landscaping guy but they found someone who was £100 cheaper. To me £50 is nothing compared to having someone I know and have used before but as they did all the organisation, I left it to them. Now when they ask me who I can recommend I say I'll let you know and then forget... (they have asked him to quote twice and he never gets the business so i think they are just using his quote as a bench mark)

Mojisola

becs_86 said:

I assumed that all houses went by the same  ‘rule’ - you’re responsible for the the fence which is on the left (as you stand looking at it from the door). 

This is an extremely persistent myth. 
Sometimes your deeds will specify which boundaries should be maintained but very often it's down to who wants the fence most. 
In this case, if the neighbours wanted the cost shared then the decisions about removing the old fence and what replacement is bought should also have been shared. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

TrevorJ said:

A few comments mention that it is usual that the fence on the left as you look out of the back door is your responsibility. I wouldn't simply assume that or you might have problems. As a few others have mentioned - on my deeds it clearly shows that I am responsible for the fence on the right - my neighbour the left. So take care.

It's typical for deeds to mention who is responsible for maintaining a boundary, this doesn't require a fence, just anything to show where the boundary lies, some sticks in the ground would do the trick. 

Unless it is specifically written that a fence, hedge, etc must be in place and maintained then there's no obligation to have one nor to maintain one that may be there, who ever installs the fence owns it and another party shouldn't interfere with it.

If you keep certain animals you are responsible for them outside of your property which for the average person means having a fence, wall, etc to keep your dog in the garden. 

The thing about maintaining fences to the left holds no weight. 

And are these "moral dilemmas" really real? 

If they are then the person with the question, considering the above, should only pay for the fence if they wish to own half of it and have a say in what happens to it in the future. 

Neo367

They actually owe you for taking  down the fence without asking, that is not allowed and is actually criminal damage and possibly theft

Section62

Samphirem said:

I would only take the lengthy advice given above with the proviso that these new neighbours have shown you their colours and you need to set clear boundaries for future work if you decide to contribute. For example, insist on being told before any noisy work begins and so on. In short, make clear you are not a pushover who will put up with anything but you (unlike them) are a reasonable person happy to co exist alongside other reasonable people.   

It isn't reasonable to "insist" on being told before any noisy work begins. People don't have that right.  But it would be sensible to mention to a neighbour if noise particularly affects you, or if there are particular times or days when noise is problematic (night working for example).  A reasonable neighbour will comply with a polite request.


Responding to other posts - there is no magic rule about boundary ownership. The "on the left as you look..." rule is an urban myth.


And for the dilemma - I would explain about the environmental impact of timber production and wood preservative manufacture (plus transport), and highlight how the replacement of a perfectly good fence has caused unnecessary environmental damage - likely including the deaths of many polar bears, whales, and sea turtles.  I would state that my ethical and conscientious beliefs prevent me from contributing financially to such damage.  I would add my apologies for any inconvenience this might cause to the neighbour, but finish by saying how critical it is that we all play our part in protecting the environment.  I would anticipate them never mentioning the subject again (but possibly muttering to their friends about the environmental nutcase living next door).  That would be a small price to pay in order to dodge contributing financially to their profligate waste.