Can neighbour ask us to move a retaining wall?

Slithery

Section62 said:

I would, in the politest possible terms, suggest that you treat diystarter7's advice with a  great deal of caution.

My thoughts exactly. They have proved on dozens of threads now that their knowledge of property law and correct procedures leaves much to be desired and could leave anyone that takes their advice in serious legal and financial problems.

Bendy_House

Mojisola said:

The neighbour would have to accept that the new wall would be in the same place and they would have no say in the style - if that stretch no longer matches their other walls, so be it.

You'd have thought!

A lady on my sis's estate was responsible for the rotted timber retaining wall which was put in by the house builder around 12 years previously. No prob - they were happy to replace it, like for like. "Uh-uh, not good enough", said their immediate 'lower' neigh, "I want a masonry wall, rendered and painted to match my house"

And she sued for this, and won!

Ath_Wat

Bendy_House said:

Mojisola said:

The neighbour would have to accept that the new wall would be in the same place and they would have no say in the style - if that stretch no longer matches their other walls, so be it.

You'd have thought!

A lady on my sis's estate was responsible for the rotted timber retaining wall which was put in by the house builder around 12 years previously. No prob - they were happy to replace it, like for like. "Uh-uh, not good enough", said their immediate 'lower' neigh, "I want a masonry wall, rendered and painted to match my house"

And she sued for this, and won!

That's why the post you have quoted isn't good advice really - the matter hinges on who is responsible for the retaining wall (not the boundary, which is a different thing).  The OP's position has to remain that they are not responsible for it, given that the neighbouring property originally built it.  If they accept responsibility for it at all they accept all sorts of things, and they do not, by accepting responsibility, get to say that the neighbour has no say in what it looks like or how it is built.  That's not how it works.

Bendy_House

Ath_Wat said:

That's why the post you have quoted isn't good advice really - the matter hinges on who is responsible for the retaining wall (not the boundary, which is a different thing).  The OP's position has to remain that they are not responsible for it, given that the neighbouring property originally built it.  If they accept responsibility for it at all they accept all sorts of things, and they do not, by accepting responsibility, get to say that the neighbour has no say in what it looks like or how it is built.  That's not how it works.

With respect, that wasn't my advice.

I offered three options to the OP, ranging from taking full responsibility for this wall (which I described as 'nutty'), to telling the neighb to effectively get lost.

Imo, the third option, a compromise - shared cost and boundary straddling - for a wall that should now last many decades (see out both the OP and the neighb...), is probably the best outcome for keeping everyone happy (and to prevent the risk of litigation, which the OP 'might' ultimately win, but will be agony for all, and runs the real risk of revealing that the OP's land HAS built up against that wall as well - the OP is uncertain about this.)

Personally, I'd gently make it clear to the neighb how wrong they almost certainly were with their initial assumption, and - after they acknowledged this - then agree a compromise, because that's wot decent folks try and do (especially if it's less than 100% clear cut!).

Bendy_House

Ariel's, you haven't mentioned whether there's a retaining wall between you and your OTHER neighbour?

arielsmelody

You asked about retaining walls on the other side - the houses are all cut into the hillside, so on the other side there is a big wedge shaped chunk of the original ground left with walls on both sides a couple of foot into the properties, although the houses themselves are at similar levels. We've also got a 2m retaining wall behind the house and another one along the front garden. So we are not short on retaining walls! 

diystarter7

Bendy_House said:

diystarter7 said:

OP
You may recall my earlier post re my thoughts re our son's house a detached house being a few feet higher annd though the fence is next doors responsibility according to the deeds we came to the conclusion if the retaining wall ever needed work to shore up his land, our son would pay for if advised to do so.

Just found this on the net.
------------------------------------------

a landowner who owns a retaining wall that supports his own land is under a general duty of care to maintain the wall in such a condition that his land is prevented from collapsing onto his neighbour's lower land.15 Oct 2021

Party Walls - boundary-problems.co.uk

IF the OP (ie, the original builder of the OP's house) had landscaped their garden or plot to increase it's height relative to the neighbour's land, and as a result needed to prevent this change in level from moving on to the neighb's land, then, yes, the OP would be liable for a retaining wall on THEIR land to prevent this from happening.

IF the NEIGHBOUR (ie, the original builder of the neighb's house) levelled their plot, reducing the bordering height to the point where the OP's ground might start moving on to theirs as a result, then, yes, the neighb would be liable for a retaining wall on THEIR land to prevent this from happening.

I think it's that clear. And it would 'seem' as tho' the latter situation is the case here.

Thank you, I appreciate your response and see where you are coming from.

Good luck OP.

Ath_Wat

Bendy_House said:

Ath_Wat said:

That's why the post you have quoted isn't good advice really - the matter hinges on who is responsible for the retaining wall (not the boundary, which is a different thing).  The OP's position has to remain that they are not responsible for it, given that the neighbouring property originally built it.  If they accept responsibility for it at all they accept all sorts of things, and they do not, by accepting responsibility, get to say that the neighbour has no say in what it looks like or how it is built.  That's not how it works.

With respect, that wasn't my advice.

I offered three options to the OP, ranging from taking full responsibility for this wall (which I described as 'nutty'), to telling the neighb to effectively get lost.

Imo, the third option, a compromise - shared cost and boundary straddling - for a wall that should now last many decades (see out both the OP and the neighb...), is probably the best outcome for keeping everyone happy (and to prevent the risk of litigation, which the OP 'might' ultimately win, but will be agony for all, and runs the real risk of revealing that the OP's land HAS built up against that wall as well - the OP is uncertain about this.)

Personally, I'd gently make it clear to the neighb how wrong they almost certainly were with their initial assumption, and - after they acknowledged this - then agree a compromise, because that's wot decent folks try and do (especially if it's less than 100% clear cut!).

I know it wasn't your advice - I said the post you quoted wasn't good advice.  I didn't in any way suggest you approved of the post you quoted.  I replied to your post because the comments you had made about the post you quoted showed why it wasn't good advice.

Bendy_House

Oops, sorry.

jonnydeppiwish!

Any update on this op?