Boundary problem

Section62

Bendy_House said:

In practice, going the 'legal route' will very likely follow a process where mediation will be recommended as the initial step. In this, most likely the results from a paid surveyor will be the key factor. When presented with such clear information, and in front of a proper mediator, most people - even idiots - become quite sensible.

If med were to happen, and the neighbour simply tries to dismiss such information, it will serve them very badly indeed when the legal process moves on.

How would that work?

Litigation mediation is usually done on the basis it is confidential and without prejudice.

If anything were to serve a litigant very badly it would be breaching the confidentiality the attempts at mediation had been conducted under.

Refusal to participate in mediation is often a bad idea, but that is a different thing altogether.

Section62

doodling said:

Hi,

rigolith said:

Unless there is some evidence, like letters or complaints registered, you wouldn't get anywhere. The seller would just say that they were not disputing the boundary and you couldn't prove otherwise.

Its the claim of a right of access via the back garden which would be difficult to hide.  For there to be no dispute the OP would need to grant that right to the neighbour and inform purchasers as part of the sale.

I wouldn't buy a house which has a right of way through the back garden - if the OP tried to hide the dispute then it would come to light fairly quickly when I found the neighbour on my land and he said he had a right to be there.  At that point I've got the choice between having a neighbour dispute or suing the OP for the costs of moving somewhere else - I'd probably choose the latter.

What claim of right of access?

There's a risk here of turning a molehill into a whole mountain range.

Bendy_House

Whatdoiknow said:

Bendy_House said:

Do you have LP on your House Insurance?

I wouldn't raise their hopes up if they do. I did and when the house next door to me was sold the buyer got planning permission to build a house very near to my boundary. The builders damaged a concrete fence post that was mine, they then dug out the footings for the house and after heavy rain the mud collapsed into the footings taking out 5 fence panels of mine that fell down completely. 

After complaining and wanting the fence replaced straight away as it gave open access to my back garden they didn't bother. So I turned to the legal protection through Direct Line and after sending in several photographs showing the collapsed footings and my fence laid flat on the ground and several following letters the insurance company decided there was only a 50% chance of winning a legal case so didn't bother and closed the case.

In the end they were absolutely hopeless and only suggested to me that they were interested in sending several letters so they could claim their expenses.    

I presume this was all ultimately sorted out just as it should have been? Ie, the collapsed footings and flat fence has all been uncollasped and fence re-erected? Ie, the neighb's builders messed up big time, but then sorted it?

Cool.

In which case it is no surprise at all that your LP didn't wade in just to cover the temporarilly-breached access to your garden.

melb

Have you looked on a very good website called Gardenlaw.co.uk at all?  There is a forum which deals specifically with boundaries and you will get lots of helpful information on there from people who have experienced issues such as yours and i think there are a couple of experts on there as well ie RICS members.  I wish you good luck

BrainDrained

theoretica said:

BrainDrained said:

I'm afraid the legal route is beginning to look like the best way forward.
<snip>

The easiest route out is to look at the deeds, and agree that it does look like they own the land up to the edge of your drive and the hedge was theirs.  Then you need to live with it and start working out if you can put up the fences you want just on your own land.  As I said earlier, so long as there is room to park, any buyer won't care that you used to think the boundary was somewhere else.  How would you feel if you went the legal route and it came back with this conclusion after that?

The land registry plan he showed me does not appear to agree with the line of the historic boundary that's been in place for 50 years. Which takes precedence?

I've asked for a copy of my own deeds to see if they show the same boundary as his plan does.  I'm pretty sure the plans will have been lodged at different times,  the properties were not registered when first built.  

BrainDrained

Section62 said:

doodling said:

Hi,

rigolith said:

Unless there is some evidence, like letters or complaints registered, you wouldn't get anywhere. The seller would just say that they were not disputing the boundary and you couldn't prove otherwise.

Its the claim of a right of access via the back garden which would be difficult to hide.  For there to be no dispute the OP would need to grant that right to the neighbour and inform purchasers as part of the sale.

I wouldn't buy a house which has a right of way through the back garden - if the OP tried to hide the dispute then it would come to light fairly quickly when I found the neighbour on my land and he said he had a right to be there.  At that point I've got the choice between having a neighbour dispute or suing the OP for the costs of moving somewhere else - I'd probably choose the latter.

What claim of right of access?

There's a risk here of turning a molehill into a whole mountain range.

He has no right of access.   Whether he *says* he has I have no control over.

 This isn't my main concern by any means. It's being somewhat overemphasised by some posters but its made me realise I have to make it crystal clear to him. I only mentioned it in the first place as an example of how argumentative he can be. 

doodling

Hi,

Section62 said:

doodling said:

Hi,

[Deleted User] said:

Unless there is some evidence, like letters or complaints registered, you wouldn't get anywhere. The seller would just say that they were not disputing the boundary and you couldn't prove otherwise.

Its the claim of a right of access via the back garden which would be difficult to hide.  For there to be no dispute the OP would need to grant that right to the neighbour and inform purchasers as part of the sale.

I wouldn't buy a house which has a right of way through the back garden - if the OP tried to hide the dispute then it would come to light fairly quickly when I found the neighbour on my land and he said he had a right to be there.  At that point I've got the choice between having a neighbour dispute or suing the OP for the costs of moving somewhere else - I'd probably choose the latter.

What claim of right of access?

There's a risk here of turning a molehill into a whole mountain range.

What about:

BrainDrained said:

theoretica said:

<snip>
 Would your driveway be workable if nextdoor put a fence up along the edge of the newly cleared area?  The buyers won't know to be emotionally invested in 'how things used to be'.

Unfortunately the idea of a replacement fence isn't workable.  I have already suggested it. Even offered to pay for it.  Neighbour says they want it covered in artificial grass (!) with no physical barrier,  because they need the extra space for opening car doors. 
Almost their entire front garden is block paved and the width of it wasn't an issue for the previous owners.

 I think their insistence that the boundary is along the edge of my drive is a way to prevent me erecting a fence.  He has already told me I can't have a 2m hedge or fence along the back garden. (Unspoken reason is that it would make it impossible to access his rear garden other than via mine.)

Which was corrected to:

BrainDrained said:

BrainDrained said:<snip>

 I think their insistence that the boundary is along the edge of my drive is a way to prevent me erecting a fence.  He has already told me I can't have a 2m hedge or fence along the back garden. (Unspoken reason is that it would make it impossible to access his rear garden other than via mine.)

Can't figure out how to edit.  Corrected last sentence should read - impossible to access his rear garden other than through his house.

Which clearly indicates that the neighbour believes that he should be able to access his rear garden via the OP's land.

Given that the OP disagrees with this then there is a dispute and it would be need to be declared to prospective purchasers.

Personally I would put up a 2m fence along the back garden to put an end to that possibility (and make it clear that I'm not going to be pushed around).  I'd also continue it between the drives once I'd sorted out where it should go (although between the drives a wall would be better - less likely to be damaged by someone "inadvertently opening their car door a little too vigorously").

SameOldRoundabout

Have you downloaded your deeds on land registry? You say you’ve asked for a copy, have you paid £3 to see them on your mobile? Quick and easy. If they match the deeds he’s shown you then it looks like you will still have a problem. As far as I can see here either the deeds he has are correct and you are encroaching on his land, or it’s the other way round and he’s now trying to encroach on yours. It needs proper sorting ASAP if you plan to sell. 

Check the deeds (post them here if you want further helpful opinions on them, with diagrams of the current lay of the land if needed too), put a 2m fence along the back boundary next to his, stop access to his garden and if you are in the right get a solicitor letter sent re the front boundary. It may be enough to show him you won’t just let it slide this time. 

Section62

doodling said:

Which clearly indicates that the neighbour believes that he should be able to access his rear garden via the OP's land.

Given that the OP disagrees with this then there is a dispute and it would be need to be declared to prospective purchasers.

No, there really isn't, and it isn't helpful for this idea to be progressed.


The key word in the first quoted post is "Unspoken".

The neighbour has not made a claim.  The OP is reporting what she thinks the neighbour is thinking.

Nobody is under any obligation to declare a dispute which consists entirely of speculation about what someone else thinks.  If there was, then conveyancing would be a lot more colourful... with a great many 'thoughts' that neighbours would disagree with.


And if the neighbour does ask for ongoing permission to use the OP's garden for access then the OP is within their rights to say 'no', and would have no greater obligation to declare that as a 'dispute' than if the neighbour was claiming droit du seigneur.

diggingdude

I would be putting your higher rear fence as a priority and seeing what happens next. If I were looking to buy I wouldn't be happy with a 3ft fence the neighbour can watch me over anyway so I reckon that would help you sell