Defending boundary dispute

GDB2222

ThisIsWeird said:

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.

Your question has been answered. See "Yes. Exactly the same." above. 

If the OP's friend had built the shed (or his house) without permission, he could by now have applied for adverse possession. But, he did have permission to use the land temporarily, so adverse possession cannot apply. 

"beaks are not impressed by litigants chasing a few inches 'on the matter of principle'" - that may be true, but judges are still required to uphold the law. The judge will indeed take into account the terms of the permission given, and that's an evidential matter about which the op has said very little.

ThisIsWeird

The actual outcomes from such 'laws' are often decided by individual cases such as these, each taken on their own merit. They are not all writ in stone.

And that is surely a statement of the bleedin' obvious? Take it to its logical conclusion; the encroachment here varies from zero to around 500mm. Are you saying a 20-year old house, built with the permission of the land owner at the time, would be required to be demolished due to a 50cm encroachment? Ok, what about a 250mm trespass?  100mm? Seriously?

They'd all be 'breaking the law', but even if one judge were to be that bolshie, another would likely not be.

Not writ in stone.

sheramber

The case has already gone to court.

The OP wants advice on how to defend the position.

Whether  anybody here thinks he should or should not  be required to remove the shed  from the neighbour's garden is no longer relevant.

the court will make the decision.

anselld

sheramber said:

The case has already gone to court.

The OP wants advice on how to defend the position.

Whether  anybody here thinks he should or should not  be required to remove the shed  from the neighbour's garden is no longer relevant.

the court will make the decision.

Not really.  Costs are still accumulating.  If there is little chance of winning or if the OP friend cannot afford the price of losing then it would be better to remove the shed now.  

I would agree it could potentially go either way or some middle ground but whereas the Developer can afford to lose and is probably mostly in the right, the OP friend can apparently barely afford to move the shed now, let alone lose the case, further fees *and* move the shed anyway.

sheramber

anselld said:

sheramber said:

The case has already gone to court.

The OP wants advice on how to defend the position.

Whether  anybody here thinks he should or should not  be required to remove the shed  from the neighbour's garden is no longer relevant.

the court will make the decision.

Not really.  Costs are still accumulating.  If there is little chance of winning or if the OP friend cannot afford the price of losing then it would be better to remove the shed now.  

I would agree it could potentially go either way or some middle ground but whereas the Developer can afford to lose and is probably mostly in the right, the OP friend can apparently barely afford to move the shed now, let alone lose the case, further fees *and* move the shed anyway.

Which is why the OP is wanting advice on how to defend the position so  the shed  remain where it is.

Nobody has come up with any such advice so  it appears there is none.

[Deleted User]

The only applicable advice is get your own survey done with a view to arguing that the boundary is too vague to say if it encroaches or not, assuming that's possible.

MobileSaver

[Deleted User] said:

The only applicable advice is get your own survey done with a view to arguing that the boundary is too vague to say if it encroaches or not, assuming that's possible.

It's a bit late for that as the previous neighbour has already submitted a witness statement confirming he/she "was happy that it encroached onto her land", so there's no dispute about the encroachment.

Unless there's something the OP hasn't yet mentioned it seems there simply is no defence for their friend and they are foolish to allow this to go to court which will only increase how much it all costs to rectify.

AlwaysTrying23

ThisIsWeird said:

Not sure this shed is 'trespassing' - the previous neighbour agreed for the OP's friend to put it there.

How would this work out if it was something else - a parked car?! Could you force the owner to move it, after 'inviting' them to place it there 20 years ago? Or would you just give them notice that permission was now rescinded, and - if they didn't shift it - they'd have it removed? No idea.

I look forward to seeing how this pans out

I certainly agree that the OP's friend does not have entitlement to that strip, certainly legally. But, they 'took' it with permission and in good faith, and assuming it would be a permanent arrangement. Yes, I agree it should now - in equally good faith - be given back as requested, but at a cost to the OP's friend? Hmm, not so sure.

If this were to go 'civil' dispute, I think an adjudicator may well come down on the side of the OP's friend, as they were permitted to build their garage there by the previous owner; the decision could well come down to what is 'reasonable' - these things are not writ in stone, especially when only thin slices of land are involved. The disruption and inconvenience caused to the 'innocent' OP's friend would, I think, be taken into account against the minor gain for the neighbour.

AT23, ask your friend if they have LegProt on their house insurance, if they do, then they should call them up for advice. They should be able to make a calculated judgement on the likelihood of successfully defending any claim by the neighbour. If they reckon it's greater than a 50% chance, they will likely take it on.

Thanks for the reply. Their house insurance will not cover boundary disputes. I agree with your way of thinking but will the courts on the day is the million pound question. 

AlwaysTrying23

GDB2222 said:

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? 

Yes the level of negative perspective on the situation has been slightly surprising but I am personally of the view that very few things in life really have a single perspective. Witness statement states they were fully aware of the situation and accepted the new fence as the boundary. 

Grizebeck

Which track is this case on and when is the final hearing