Can anyone comment on this boundary issue

Section62

DB1904 said:

Section62 said:

DB1904 said:

Had he known it was his land he would have already paved it...

If there was no dispute about land ownership it would be unwise to pave an area of soft landscaping without first checking the situation with covenants and planning consent.

With a dispute about land ownership, and with a neighbour who has already had enforcement action taken against them, that 'unwise' could now be upgraded to 'reckless'.

DB1904 said:

...I think you're just looking for problems that aren't there. 

In which case I have to query whether you've not read (or perhaps forgotten) what Tyler said in his first and third posts on this thread?


The arrangement of land along the road frontage of this row of properties is not 'normal' or straightforward. In the midst of a dispute with the neighbour Tyler needs to act with abundance of caution.  This is why I also said earlier in the thread that the same checks need to be made before putting up a fence, as someone else had suggested at that point.

There may be no problem there. But it would be very poor quality advice to suggest Tyler should proceed without doing some simple and low-cost checks on the lawfulness of alterations suggested by another forum member.

Have you read his post where had he known it was his property it would have been paved when he did the drive?

Yes.

I'm now wondering why you think a hypothetical situation which didn't happen in the past makes any difference to the reality that:

1) The existence of covenants and/or planning conditions is unknown.
2) The neighbour had enforcement action taken against them which could suggest covenants and/or planning conditions do exist.
3) Someone who was on the receiving end of enforcement action is now aware of those rules, and knows how unpleasant it feels.
4) Tyler exercising his rights has made the neighbour sufficiently angry that they are going to their solicitor.
5) The solicitor is unlikely to be able to offer any satisfactory legal remedy.

And
6) (somewhat hypothetically) it doesn't take much dot-joining to see that if Tyler were to now breach any covenant or planning restrictions the neighbour fell foul of, he could reasonably expect the neighbour to consider reporting him.


Or to put it another way, anyone advising "Don't worry about it Tyler" is potentially setting him up for one of the few acts of lawful 'revenge' the neighbour could do if they feel so inclined.


So, against that background, could you offer any rational explanation why expending a small amount of effort checking for covenants or planning restrictions before paving over that area of soft landscaping would be inadvisable?  Would it weaken his legal position? Would it involve a loss of face if he does it without telling anyone else?

Is there anything which would make it a bad idea to do something which would be advisable to do in any situation where you are planning to carry out alterations to soft/hard landscaping within your front garden?

DB1904

Section62 said:

DB1904 said:

Section62 said:

DB1904 said:

Had he known it was his land he would have already paved it...

If there was no dispute about land ownership it would be unwise to pave an area of soft landscaping without first checking the situation with covenants and planning consent.

With a dispute about land ownership, and with a neighbour who has already had enforcement action taken against them, that 'unwise' could now be upgraded to 'reckless'.

DB1904 said:

...I think you're just looking for problems that aren't there. 

In which case I have to query whether you've not read (or perhaps forgotten) what Tyler said in his first and third posts on this thread?


The arrangement of land along the road frontage of this row of properties is not 'normal' or straightforward. In the midst of a dispute with the neighbour Tyler needs to act with abundance of caution.  This is why I also said earlier in the thread that the same checks need to be made before putting up a fence, as someone else had suggested at that point.

There may be no problem there. But it would be very poor quality advice to suggest Tyler should proceed without doing some simple and low-cost checks on the lawfulness of alterations suggested by another forum member.

Have you read his post where had he known it was his property it would have been paved when he did the drive?

Yes.

I'm now wondering why you think a hypothetical situation which didn't happen in the past makes any difference to the reality that:

1) The existence of covenants and/or planning conditions is unknown.
2) The neighbour had enforcement action taken against them which could suggest covenants and/or planning conditions do exist.
3) Someone who was on the receiving end of enforcement action is now aware of those rules, and knows how unpleasant it feels.
4) Tyler exercising his rights has made the neighbour sufficiently angry that they are going to their solicitor.
5) The solicitor is unlikely to be able to offer any satisfactory legal remedy.

And
6) (somewhat hypothetically) it doesn't take much dot-joining to see that if Tyler were to now breach any covenant or planning restrictions the neighbour fell foul of, he could reasonably expect the neighbour to consider reporting him.


Or to put it another way, anyone advising "Don't worry about it Tyler" is potentially setting him up for one of the few acts of lawful 'revenge' the neighbour could do if they feel so inclined.


So, against that background, could you offer any rational explanation why expending a small amount of effort checking for covenants or planning restrictions before paving over that area of soft landscaping would be inadvisable?  Would it weaken his legal position? Would it involve a loss of face if he does it without telling anyone else?

Is there anything which would make it a bad idea to do something which would be advisable to do in any situation where you are planning to carry out alterations to soft/hard landscaping within your front garden?

Or maybe is you had read and understand what the op has written about the enforcement action you'd realise it was nothing to do with a covenant or planning breach. 

Jeepers_Creepers

Tyler, you have certainly looked at your deeds closely enough to realise that this land is yours. Could you look a bit closer to check for any covenants or restrictions to do with the house frontages and/or boundaries? Just tobesure tobesure. I suspect there won't be any, but it would be lax not to check.

Section62

DB1904 said:

Or maybe is you had read and understand what the op has written about the enforcement action you'd realise it was nothing to do with a covenant or planning breach. 

1) Reading.  I referred to those posts previously, so hopefully that won't be disputed.

2) Understanding. If you had carefully read and understood my post you'd notice I chose my words carefully said "enforcement action" rather than specifying the type of enforcement.

The reason for that is - despite Tyler's comment about lack of planning permission - there are many possible reasons why the council took enforcement action, but the type of enforcement is irrelevant to the point I am making and the advice I gave.

The multiplicity of reasons is related to the comment I made two-posts back that "the arrangement of land along the road frontage of this row of properties is not 'normal' or straightforward".

There are features which - in my experience - 'could suggest' covenants and/or planning conditions exist because the integrity of those features usually cannot be maintained without some form of legal protection.

But that doesn't mean that covenants or planning conditions must to be present because enforcement action was taken - I wouldn't be so definitive without knowing a lot more about the ownership of the land as well as the contents of Tyler's deeds and the property planning file.

On the other hand, you have now categorically stated that "the enforcement action [..] was nothing to do with a covenant or planning breach".  I'd be interested to understand what leads you to make that definitive statement based only on the evidence in this thread.  How can you know with certainty that a planning breach wasn't involved?

Also it would be useful to have a response to the yet unanswered point as to whether there is anything you can think of which makes my suggestion to Tyler of checking for covenants or planning conditions a bad idea. Jeepers is also suggesting this now, so if it is something Tyler shouldn't be doing, then now might be a good time for you to explain why.

Jeepers_Creepers

I'm thinking that perhaps Tyler (esp if that's his real name) may wish to now ask MSE to delete this thread, and he can always start a new one - under a new username - to ask any 'general' follow-up questions.

In the unlikely event that his neighbourly issue doesn't just fizzle out, the thread has a lot of info on it.

TYLER!

Section62

Jeepers_Creepers said:

I'm thinking that perhaps Tyler (esp if that's his real name) may wish to now ask MSE to delete this thread, and he can always start a new one - under a new username - to ask any 'general' follow-up questions.

In the unlikely event that his neighbourly issue doesn't just fizzle out, the thread has a lot of info on it.

I don't think that's necessary Jeepers - I've not seen anything said that the neighbour couldn't work out for themselves, and if they do find the thread then they have the consistent opinions being expressed that Tyler is within his rights to make use of his land in the way he wishes, subject only to carefully returning the neighbour's plants to them, and complying with the law himself.

It also serves as a great example (for future reference) of how to calmly and rationally deal with the situation, rather than flying off the handle and doing something which might be unlawful.

Tyler_Durden_UK

No Tyler isn't my real name, still nothing from my neighbour since the threat of legal action. I've been watering the plants. 

DB1904

Section62 said:

DB1904 said:

Or maybe is you had read and understand what the op has written about the enforcement action you'd realise it was nothing to do with a covenant or planning breach. 

1) Reading.  I referred to those posts previously, so hopefully that won't be disputed.

2) Understanding. If you had carefully read and understood my post you'd notice I chose my words carefully said "enforcement action" rather than specifying the type of enforcement.

The reason for that is - despite Tyler's comment about lack of planning permission - there are many possible reasons why the council took enforcement action, but the type of enforcement is irrelevant to the point I am making and the advice I gave.

The multiplicity of reasons is related to the comment I made two-posts back that "the arrangement of land along the road frontage of this row of properties is not 'normal' or straightforward".

There are features which - in my experience - 'could suggest' covenants and/or planning conditions exist because the integrity of those features usually cannot be maintained without some form of legal protection.

But that doesn't mean that covenants or planning conditions must to be present because enforcement action was taken - I wouldn't be so definitive without knowing a lot more about the ownership of the land as well as the contents of Tyler's deeds and the property planning file.

T

Also it would be useful to have a response to the yet unanswered point as to whether there is anything you can think of which makes my suggestion to Tyler of checking for covenants or planning conditions a bad idea. Jeepers is also suggesting this now, so if it is something Tyler shouldn't be doing, then now might be a good time for you to explain why.

That would be the OP stating their neighbour started to use land on the other side of their property they didn't own. 

Tyler_Durden_UK

Quick update for you all, no letters or contact off the back of my neighbours 'you'll be hearing from my solicitor' statement.
However, today I went to get something from my car and someone has (in the last few days / 24 hours) moved the pots with my neighbours plants in back onto my drive. In doing so one of the plants has been dislodged from the pot.
I do have a ring type camera on my front door but it didn't pick up anything. Have moved the pots back onto neighbours drive.

Norman_Castle

Tyler_Durden_UK said:

 someone has (in the last few days / 24 hours) moved the pots with my neighbours plants in back onto my drive.

Onto your block paving or back to their original position?