Retaining wall - neighb wants it better than original.

theoretica

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Norman_Castle said:

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Apparently the problem neighbour cited her builder who said (well, duh...) "A proper block wall is the best way to do it..." and that was enough. The nice neighb's solicitor must have been utter carp.

A proper wall presumably would be better as it wouldn't need replacing in the near future. I wouldn't render or paint it though and doubt there's any obligation to do so.

Fair point. But an obligation to make it significantly better than original? Surely the only 'fair' outcome would be 'Either replace the wall to at least original standard, or contribute that cost towards the neighb's request for betterment.'?

Summat like that?

I would think the obligation is 'stop your garden and wall falling into your neighbours'.

Section62

Jeepers_Creepers said:

I can't help thinking there was some simple step missed by the 'nice' neighb at some point. The nice neighb was totally ok from the outset to repair the wall as it originally was, and make good any damage to the garden including the 'flowerbed' that ran along that side (which, theoretically, she didn't have to as the failing wall was not anticipated). But whether this was put across in a clear and provable manner, I don't know. Quite possibly she did so verbally, and this was immediately countered with some crazy stuff.

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Norman_Castle said:

(Yeah yeah - you are now going to tell me there's no obligation to fix fences... :-)  )

I think the answer to the BiB is in the second quote... there may not be an obligation to fix fences, but there is an obligation to fix a retaining wall that you have responsibility for.  Whether the other person is above or below, they have a right for their land to be supported or not to have your land falling onto theirs, whichever applies.

On failure of the original wall the nice neighbour had a responsibility to repair/replace it, and do so with any modification the injured party reasonably requests to reduce the risk of the same thing happening again.  (not sure what you mean by the failing not being anticipated, I don't think that would alter the 'loss', but it is a factor in negligence though)

If the neighbour is unconcerned with a like for like replacement then no problem. But if they point out the original wall was defectively designed, and (there's good grounds) the same thing could happen again, then like-for-like replacement isn't enough if the neighbour wants to push it.

Put it another way, if there was a flimsy plastic fence between the properties and the nice neighbour's dog got into the other one's garden and savaged their pet, it would be unreasonable for the nice neighbour to just put the same (or similar) flimsy fence back up.  It can be foreseen that the same thing is likely to happen again.  Substitute 'tons of earth' for 'dog' and that's broadly where nice neighbour has found themselves.

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Surely, if she could show that she'd made it evidentially clear - "I will, of course, repair the wall to its original condition, and make good any damage caused to your garden - please let me know when my builder can do this." then there would have been no case to answer?

As above, it is more of a 'fit for purpose' test than 'original condition'.

Presumably there was a length of time between the wall failing and the court case... and the relevant procedure was followed so there was a chain of correspondence including a letter before action?  It is one of those cases where some money spent on professional legal advice no later than the deadline in the letter before action was the only way to save the situation - not a criticism, just a reflection on the outcome.

The sensible approach at that time would probably have been building a more robust wall, but sans render and paint. 'Battles and wars' and all that.

Otherwise, if I'd been in that situation and been 'b'-minded enough I'd have given serious thought to 'terracing' that side of the garden such that any walls that might fail would do so contained within my own property - in other words that a strip of my land was at the same level as her garden (or that the level difference was only marginal). Then plonk a normal fence on the boundary.

Now a judgement has been made the options are limited.  And obviously nobody should ever go against a court order.  But unless specified otherwise, a one-block high retaining wall, rendered and painted in the choice of colour of the neighbour is still a concrete block retaining wall, rendered and painted in their choice of colour.  How someone landscapes their garden well within their own boundaries should be a matter only for them (subject to planning consents etc)

Which is why the wording of the judgement would make interesting reading.

Jeepers_Creepers

Yup, fair points S62.

Jeepers_Creepers

Update on this.
The court case seemingly cost the 'nice' neighb in the region of £1k, which doesn't seem too bad.
The outcome is that she needs to rebuild the retaining wall to the new standard.
The almost-funny thing is that the 'bad' neighb's retaining wall on the other side of her garden - which she has responsibility for - is also collapsing, so the neighb on that side will be expecting the same improved standard from her... What the lawd giveth, the lawd youknowwhat.

The tragedy in this whole case is that the 'bad' neighb clearly has some emotional/personality issues going on, and is acting for purely malicious reasons. This has just come back to bite her really hard on another of her issues - the padlocking and blocking of the shared rear garden alleyway. I think I had another thread on this, so will update it on there.