Defending boundary dispute

GDB2222

AlwaysTrying23 said:

silvercar said:

Can you move the shed without moving the foundation? Sheds stand perfectly well on shale, so it maybe an option to shove some shale on the new area and move the shed along.

What is the state of the 20 year old shed? Is it going to survive a move?

It’s a big concrete shed / workshop. Not an easy job to move or dismantle. It was refreshed in 2020. 

You asked for how best to defend this court action, and the answers have been very negative. I suppose the one glimmer of hope might be with the witness statement from the former neighbour. What does that say? 

ThisIsWeird

AT23, where is this shed positioned - at the bottom of the garden where the boundary error is at its max 0.5m?

If so, I would hazard that this would make it less likely that the new neighbour would achieve a complete claim, should they pursue it legally.

Having followed some cases involving boundary disputes, they often do not have 100% clear-cut outcomes; each situation can be very different, and the adjudicator will take into account things like just how much land is involved; I don't know how wide each garden is in your friend's case, but a zero-to-500mm strip is not a 'lot', and less than even a boundary hedge would be. They'd also take into account the consequences of reverting to the 'correct' boundary line; I think I can say with complete certainty, for example, that if part of your friend's house was 'trespassing' by the 500mm, there is absolutely no way they'd be forced to change that by dismantling part of the property.

So, the adjudicator will tend to apply a judgement they consider to be most the fair and reasonable to both parties. I'd suggest that repositioning the majority of this boundary would be straight-forward and would be considered the 'right' thing to do, since your friend and their old neighb didn't make ithe alteration official. However, if this shed only protrudes near the bottom of the garden, so could be accommodated with a relatively minor kink at just that point, then I suspect an adjudicator would recommend it would be unreasonable for a solid garage to be dismantled for such a minor transgression.

Does your friend have LP on their insurance?

If the garage is positioned as above, would your friend consider that as a proposal? "How about I accept the boundary be reinstated to its 'correct' position as far as it reasonably can, but to expect the garage to be dismantled for what would remain a relatively minor 'transgression', one made as an agreement between two friends in good faith, would be unreasonable. I am even happy to put in writing an agreement that, when the garage does require major work or rebuilding in the future, the opportunity will be taken to move it fully on to my original land?" 

If the neighb says 'Non' to this, I think it would count against them, and I'm not at all sure they'd win. 

LegProt is your friend.

jonnydeppiwish!

ThisIsWeird said:

AT23, where is this shed positioned - at the bottom of the garden where the boundary error is at its max 0.5m?

If so, I would hazard that this would make it less likely that the new neighbour would achieve a complete claim, should they pursue it legally.

Having followed some cases involving boundary disputes, they often do not have 100% clear-cut outcomes; each situation can be very different, and the adjudicator will take into account things like just how much land is involved; I don't know how wide each garden is in your friend's case, but a zero-to-500mm strip is not a 'lot', and less than even a boundary hedge would be. They'd also take into account the consequences of reverting to the 'correct' boundary line; I think I can say with complete certainty, for example, that if part of your friend's house was 'trespassing' by the 500mm, there is absolutely no way they'd be forced to change that by dismantling part of the property.

So, the adjudicator will tend to apply a judgement they consider to be most the fair and reasonable to both parties. I'd suggest that repositioning the majority of this boundary would be straight-forward and would be considered the 'right' thing to do, since your friend and their old neighb didn't make ithe alteration official. However, if this shed only protrudes near the bottom of the garden, so could be accommodated with a relatively minor kink at just that point, then I suspect an adjudicator would recommend it would be unreasonable for a solid garage to be dismantled for such a minor transgression.

Does your friend have LP on their insurance?

If the garage is positioned as above, would your friend consider that as a proposal? "How about I accept the boundary be reinstated to its 'correct' position as far as it reasonably can, but to expect the garage to be dismantled for what would remain a relatively minor 'transgression', one made as an agreement between two friends in good faith, would be unreasonable. I am even happy to put in writing an agreement that, when the garage does require major work or rebuilding in the future, the opportunity will be taken to move it fully on to my original land?" 

If the neighb says 'Non' to this, I think it would count against them, and I'm not at all sure they'd win. 

LegProt is your friend.

Oh for Pete’s sake.

The shed is now trespassing on the neighbours land and the new owner wants the land - it needs to be moved regardless of what the previous neighbour says. There was no legal agreement to gift the land or sell it the friend. There is no adverse possession as the previous neighbour agreed they could USE it not own it.

This is simple - friend has to pay to move the shed or go to court which they are quite likely to lose and perhaps end up paying costs which will be well in excess of the cost of a new shed.

Why on earth do you insist on giving out advice that is quite simply wrong?

theoretica

ThisIsWeird said:

If the garage is positioned as above, would your friend consider that as a proposal? "How about I accept the boundary be reinstated to its 'correct' position as far as it reasonably can, but to expect the garage to be dismantled for what would remain a relatively minor 'transgression', one made as an agreement between two friends in good faith, would be unreasonable. I am even happy to put in writing an agreement that, when the garage does require major work or rebuilding in the future, the opportunity will be taken to move it fully on to my original land?" 

If the neighb says 'Non' to this, I think it would count against them, and I'm not at all sure they'd win. 

LegProt is your friend.

If there is something you want (like the land the shed is on) it is only fair to offer equal in return, and good practice to sweeten the deal.  So not offering the boundary in it's 'correct' position, except when it benefits you - but offering a boundary which mostly favours the neighbour, except where the shed is so they get at least equal return. And formalising the agreement.

ThisIsWeird

jonnydeppiwish! said:

ThisIsWeird said:

AT23, where is this shed positioned - at the bottom of the garden where the boundary error is at its max 0.5m?

If so, I would hazard that this would make it less likely that the new neighbour would achieve a complete claim, should they pursue it legally.

Having followed some cases involving boundary disputes, they often do not have 100% clear-cut outcomes; each situation can be very different, and the adjudicator will take into account things like just how much land is involved; I don't know how wide each garden is in your friend's case, but a zero-to-500mm strip is not a 'lot', and less than even a boundary hedge would be. They'd also take into account the consequences of reverting to the 'correct' boundary line; I think I can say with complete certainty, for example, that if part of your friend's house was 'trespassing' by the 500mm, there is absolutely no way they'd be forced to change that by dismantling part of the property.

So, the adjudicator will tend to apply a judgement they consider to be most the fair and reasonable to both parties. I'd suggest that repositioning the majority of this boundary would be straight-forward and would be considered the 'right' thing to do, since your friend and their old neighb didn't make ithe alteration official. However, if this shed only protrudes near the bottom of the garden, so could be accommodated with a relatively minor kink at just that point, then I suspect an adjudicator would recommend it would be unreasonable for a solid garage to be dismantled for such a minor transgression.

Does your friend have LP on their insurance?

If the garage is positioned as above, would your friend consider that as a proposal? "How about I accept the boundary be reinstated to its 'correct' position as far as it reasonably can, but to expect the garage to be dismantled for what would remain a relatively minor 'transgression', one made as an agreement between two friends in good faith, would be unreasonable. I am even happy to put in writing an agreement that, when the garage does require major work or rebuilding in the future, the opportunity will be taken to move it fully on to my original land?" 

If the neighb says 'Non' to this, I think it would count against them, and I'm not at all sure they'd win. 

LegProt is your friend.

Oh for Pete’s sake.

The shed is now trespassing on the neighbours land and the new owner wants the land - it needs to be moved regardless of what the previous neighbour says. There was no legal agreement to gift the land or sell it the friend. There is no adverse possession as the previous neighbour agreed they could USE it not own it.

This is simple - friend has to pay to move the shed or go to court which they are quite likely to lose and perhaps end up paying costs which will be well in excess of the cost of a new shed.

Why on earth do you insist on giving out advice that is quite simply wrong?

Because it isn't necessarily wrong.

Q - if the OP's friend had built a house extension over that squint boundary 20+ years ago instead of a garage, would this new neighbour have any chance whatsoever of having it removed?

anselld

ThisIsWeird said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

ThisIsWeird said:

AT23, where is this shed positioned - at the bottom of the garden where the boundary error is at its max 0.5m?

If so, I would hazard that this would make it less likely that the new neighbour would achieve a complete claim, should they pursue it legally.

Having followed some cases involving boundary disputes, they often do not have 100% clear-cut outcomes; each situation can be very different, and the adjudicator will take into account things like just how much land is involved; I don't know how wide each garden is in your friend's case, but a zero-to-500mm strip is not a 'lot', and less than even a boundary hedge would be. They'd also take into account the consequences of reverting to the 'correct' boundary line; I think I can say with complete certainty, for example, that if part of your friend's house was 'trespassing' by the 500mm, there is absolutely no way they'd be forced to change that by dismantling part of the property.

So, the adjudicator will tend to apply a judgement they consider to be most the fair and reasonable to both parties. I'd suggest that repositioning the majority of this boundary would be straight-forward and would be considered the 'right' thing to do, since your friend and their old neighb didn't make ithe alteration official. However, if this shed only protrudes near the bottom of the garden, so could be accommodated with a relatively minor kink at just that point, then I suspect an adjudicator would recommend it would be unreasonable for a solid garage to be dismantled for such a minor transgression.

Does your friend have LP on their insurance?

If the garage is positioned as above, would your friend consider that as a proposal? "How about I accept the boundary be reinstated to its 'correct' position as far as it reasonably can, but to expect the garage to be dismantled for what would remain a relatively minor 'transgression', one made as an agreement between two friends in good faith, would be unreasonable. I am even happy to put in writing an agreement that, when the garage does require major work or rebuilding in the future, the opportunity will be taken to move it fully on to my original land?" 

If the neighb says 'Non' to this, I think it would count against them, and I'm not at all sure they'd win. 

LegProt is your friend.

Oh for Pete’s sake.

The shed is now trespassing on the neighbours land and the new owner wants the land - it needs to be moved regardless of what the previous neighbour says. There was no legal agreement to gift the land or sell it the friend. There is no adverse possession as the previous neighbour agreed they could USE it not own it.

This is simple - friend has to pay to move the shed or go to court which they are quite likely to lose and perhaps end up paying costs which will be well in excess of the cost of a new shed.

Why on earth do you insist on giving out advice that is quite simply wrong?

Because it isn't necessarily wrong.

Q - if the OP's friend had built a house extension over that squint boundary 20+ years ago instead of a garage, would this new neighbour have any chance whatsoever of having it removed?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/couple-told-demolish-80000-extension-29835935

68mm encroachment built four years ago and yes they have to remove it and pay court costs. 

GDB2222

ThisIsWeird said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

ThisIsWeird said:

AT23, where is this shed positioned - at the bottom of the garden where the boundary error is at its max 0.5m?

If so, I would hazard that this would make it less likely that the new neighbour would achieve a complete claim, should they pursue it legally.

Having followed some cases involving boundary disputes, they often do not have 100% clear-cut outcomes; each situation can be very different, and the adjudicator will take into account things like just how much land is involved; I don't know how wide each garden is in your friend's case, but a zero-to-500mm strip is not a 'lot', and less than even a boundary hedge would be. They'd also take into account the consequences of reverting to the 'correct' boundary line; I think I can say with complete certainty, for example, that if part of your friend's house was 'trespassing' by the 500mm, there is absolutely no way they'd be forced to change that by dismantling part of the property.

So, the adjudicator will tend to apply a judgement they consider to be most the fair and reasonable to both parties. I'd suggest that repositioning the majority of this boundary would be straight-forward and would be considered the 'right' thing to do, since your friend and their old neighb didn't make ithe alteration official. However, if this shed only protrudes near the bottom of the garden, so could be accommodated with a relatively minor kink at just that point, then I suspect an adjudicator would recommend it would be unreasonable for a solid garage to be dismantled for such a minor transgression.

Does your friend have LP on their insurance?

If the garage is positioned as above, would your friend consider that as a proposal? "How about I accept the boundary be reinstated to its 'correct' position as far as it reasonably can, but to expect the garage to be dismantled for what would remain a relatively minor 'transgression', one made as an agreement between two friends in good faith, would be unreasonable. I am even happy to put in writing an agreement that, when the garage does require major work or rebuilding in the future, the opportunity will be taken to move it fully on to my original land?" 

If the neighb says 'Non' to this, I think it would count against them, and I'm not at all sure they'd win. 

LegProt is your friend.

Oh for Pete’s sake.

The shed is now trespassing on the neighbours land and the new owner wants the land - it needs to be moved regardless of what the previous neighbour says. There was no legal agreement to gift the land or sell it the friend. There is no adverse possession as the previous neighbour agreed they could USE it not own it.

This is simple - friend has to pay to move the shed or go to court which they are quite likely to lose and perhaps end up paying costs which will be well in excess of the cost of a new shed.

Why on earth do you insist on giving out advice that is quite simply wrong?

Because it isn't necessarily wrong.

Q - if the OP's friend had built a house extension over that squint boundary 20+ years ago instead of a garage, would this new neighbour have any chance whatsoever of having it removed?

Yes. Exactly the same. 

The difference is that house extensions are so expensive that nobody would be daft enough to build one on land they didn't own or have a long term licence to use. 

It's possible that the licence was long term, but I'd expect that to be in writing.

lincroft1710

ThisIsWeird said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

ThisIsWeird said:

AT23, where is this shed positioned - at the bottom of the garden where the boundary error is at its max 0.5m?

If so, I would hazard that this would make it less likely that the new neighbour would achieve a complete claim, should they pursue it legally.

Having followed some cases involving boundary disputes, they often do not have 100% clear-cut outcomes; each situation can be very different, and the adjudicator will take into account things like just how much land is involved; I don't know how wide each garden is in your friend's case, but a zero-to-500mm strip is not a 'lot', and less than even a boundary hedge would be. They'd also take into account the consequences of reverting to the 'correct' boundary line; I think I can say with complete certainty, for example, that if part of your friend's house was 'trespassing' by the 500mm, there is absolutely no way they'd be forced to change that by dismantling part of the property.

So, the adjudicator will tend to apply a judgement they consider to be most the fair and reasonable to both parties. I'd suggest that repositioning the majority of this boundary would be straight-forward and would be considered the 'right' thing to do, since your friend and their old neighb didn't make ithe alteration official. However, if this shed only protrudes near the bottom of the garden, so could be accommodated with a relatively minor kink at just that point, then I suspect an adjudicator would recommend it would be unreasonable for a solid garage to be dismantled for such a minor transgression.

Does your friend have LP on their insurance?

If the garage is positioned as above, would your friend consider that as a proposal? "How about I accept the boundary be reinstated to its 'correct' position as far as it reasonably can, but to expect the garage to be dismantled for what would remain a relatively minor 'transgression', one made as an agreement between two friends in good faith, would be unreasonable. I am even happy to put in writing an agreement that, when the garage does require major work or rebuilding in the future, the opportunity will be taken to move it fully on to my original land?" 

If the neighb says 'Non' to this, I think it would count against them, and I'm not at all sure they'd win. 

LegProt is your friend.

Oh for Pete’s sake.

The shed is now trespassing on the neighbours land and the new owner wants the land - it needs to be moved regardless of what the previous neighbour says. There was no legal agreement to gift the land or sell it the friend. There is no adverse possession as the previous neighbour agreed they could USE it not own it.

This is simple - friend has to pay to move the shed or go to court which they are quite likely to lose and perhaps end up paying costs which will be well in excess of the cost of a new shed.

Why on earth do you insist on giving out advice that is quite simply wrong?

Because it isn't necessarily wrong.

Q - if the OP's friend had built a house extension over that squint boundary 20+ years ago instead of a garage, would this new neighbour have any chance whatsoever of having it removed?

It is not unknown for houses to be demolished that have been built in the "wrong place".


There are 3 (possibly more) reasonable solutions avoiding complete demolition of the shed


1) Demolish that part of the shed that is trespassing.

2) Offer the neighbour a similar size or even slightly larger piece of friend's garden, paying all costs incurred

3) Friend purchases "borrowed land" at fair or even slightly higher market value, again paying all costs incurred

ThisIsWeird

Of course it isn't 'unknown', but that is not what I asked.

If someone would like to actually answer the Q - would the OP's friend be forced to demolish part of their house in this situation? I know what outcome I would bet on.

These sorts of situations are not writ in stone. When they go to legal action, all sorts of other considerations are involved, and are taken into account by the judge. One is the true belief of the defendant; what were they led to understand would be the situation by the neighbour. Another is the amount of land involved - beaks are not impressed by litigants chasing a few inches 'on the matter of principle'. And another is what the consequences of any change would be, such as having to demolish a 20 year old building, built in good faith,  with permission, for less than a couple of feet of ground, probably only 4m long.

[Deleted User]

anselld said:

ThisIsWeird said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

ThisIsWeird said:

AT23, where is this shed positioned - at the bottom of the garden where the boundary error is at its max 0.5m?

If so, I would hazard that this would make it less likely that the new neighbour would achieve a complete claim, should they pursue it legally.

Having followed some cases involving boundary disputes, they often do not have 100% clear-cut outcomes; each situation can be very different, and the adjudicator will take into account things like just how much land is involved; I don't know how wide each garden is in your friend's case, but a zero-to-500mm strip is not a 'lot', and less than even a boundary hedge would be. They'd also take into account the consequences of reverting to the 'correct' boundary line; I think I can say with complete certainty, for example, that if part of your friend's house was 'trespassing' by the 500mm, there is absolutely no way they'd be forced to change that by dismantling part of the property.

So, the adjudicator will tend to apply a judgement they consider to be most the fair and reasonable to both parties. I'd suggest that repositioning the majority of this boundary would be straight-forward and would be considered the 'right' thing to do, since your friend and their old neighb didn't make ithe alteration official. However, if this shed only protrudes near the bottom of the garden, so could be accommodated with a relatively minor kink at just that point, then I suspect an adjudicator would recommend it would be unreasonable for a solid garage to be dismantled for such a minor transgression.

Does your friend have LP on their insurance?

If the garage is positioned as above, would your friend consider that as a proposal? "How about I accept the boundary be reinstated to its 'correct' position as far as it reasonably can, but to expect the garage to be dismantled for what would remain a relatively minor 'transgression', one made as an agreement between two friends in good faith, would be unreasonable. I am even happy to put in writing an agreement that, when the garage does require major work or rebuilding in the future, the opportunity will be taken to move it fully on to my original land?" 

If the neighb says 'Non' to this, I think it would count against them, and I'm not at all sure they'd win. 

LegProt is your friend.

Oh for Pete’s sake.

The shed is now trespassing on the neighbours land and the new owner wants the land - it needs to be moved regardless of what the previous neighbour says. There was no legal agreement to gift the land or sell it the friend. There is no adverse possession as the previous neighbour agreed they could USE it not own it.

This is simple - friend has to pay to move the shed or go to court which they are quite likely to lose and perhaps end up paying costs which will be well in excess of the cost of a new shed.

Why on earth do you insist on giving out advice that is quite simply wrong?

Because it isn't necessarily wrong.

Q - if the OP's friend had built a house extension over that squint boundary 20+ years ago instead of a garage, would this new neighbour have any chance whatsoever of having it removed?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/couple-told-demolish-80000-extension-29835935

68mm encroachment built four years ago and yes they have to remove it and pay court costs. 

The facts are rather different there though. There was an existing extension that they replaced, and they lied about building the new one in the same spot. Furthermore the position of their extension caused their neighbour's extension to have issues with damp, that they didn't experience before.

In the OP's case they just want the land, the shed isn't causing problems and its position was agreed with the previous owner. Because it's at the end of the garden, the boundary is a bit more fuzzy than in that case where the extension was physically joined to the house. The further from the house you get the more vague the boundary gets as it's typically an extension of the partition wall that is obscured by the outer brickwork and likely not straight anyway.