Defending boundary dispute

GDB2222

ThisIsWeird said:

born_again said:

ThisIsWeird said:

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.

While people get what you are saying.
Would you be prepared to stand the cost if the OP's friend lost the court case. If they used your advice. 

Sometimes having your say & then leaving at that, is best. 👍

This is one where the forum rules are key

Don't rely – verify!

Our Forum offers a wealth of MoneySaving wisdom, tips, hints and information both new and historical. However, some of the information changes quickly, is opinion or may be incorrect. We don't verify or take responsibility for what is posted by the community. No two people have the same circumstances or experience and it is up to you to investigate, check and check again before you make any decisions or take any action based on information you glean from our community. Remember, don't rely on what you are reading. Verify it and protect yourself. You are responsible for any action you consequently make.

No, I wouldn't personally risk it. I'd only pursue this if covered by legal protection. And possibly not even then.

In this specific case, it appears a land surveyor has been engaged, and I'd wait until they checked the OP's side too, and see what they say. I think I'd take my cue from that.

The OP says that the shed is built on the neighbour’s land, so the surveyor is just going to confirm that. He won’t get into the legal arguments, which is apparently what the OP’s friend is relying on. 

meeemee

If feel sorry for the new neighbours, I would hate to move into a new house to find extra expense and stress being caused by not being able to have my own land back, surely the old agreement went when the previous owner left, it’s like me having an agreement with a neighbour to park by car on their allocated parking space and expecting a new neighbour to be cool with that! 

MattMattMattUK

The fact that your friend is going to court is going to make this a car crash, they will loose, it will cost them a lot of money and they will then have to do what they should have done in the first place.

CSI_Yorkshire

meeemee said:

If feel sorry for the new neighbours, I would hate to move into a new house to find extra expense and stress being caused by not being able to have my own land back, surely the old agreement went when the previous owner left, it’s like me having an agreement with a neighbour to park by car on their allocated parking space and expecting a new neighbour to be cool with that! 

Not only expecting it, but actually going to court over it.

What if the old neighbour had said "actually, I want to use that bit of my land again, you no longer have permission to encroach".  Would people's advice still be "just use it anyway, fight them to the end"?

sheramber

I appreciate all replies. He has actually accepted the shed can be moved but it’s who pays for this which is currently disputed. He is in no position to and the claimant refuses also. One could argue had the claimant checked the house before buying, even using google maps, this could have been brought up and reduced from the asking price.

 Is the court case to decide who pays?

Seems an odd way to go about it.

Your friend could end up with the cosrts of the court case plus the removal costs.

AlwaysTrying23

GDB2222 said:

AlwaysTrying23 said:

Grizebeck said:

AlwaysTrying23 said:

Grizebeck said:

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

The case is being rearranged to allow for a survey to be completed. I’ll keep you in the loop. 

Ok but what track is this case on

Was allocated to the fast track 

Does your friend realise that he is at considerable risk of losing his home over this?

He really must have professional representation, and if he can’t afford that there is no sensible alternative but to settle the case on the best terms he can. 

He had legal representation but I don’t believe the risks were ever stated to be so drastic! It was more a case of he was willing to compromise and work with the Neigbour but they presented an ‘all or nothing approach’ to resolving the dispute.   

AlwaysTrying23

The OP says that the shed is built on the neighbour’s land, so the surveyor is just going to confirm that. He won’t get into the legal arguments, which is apparently what the OP’s friend is relying on. 

This was already established and the judge from the previous hearing stated my friends compromise to rectify the fence up to the shed was reasonable. However the application declined it. 

AlwaysTrying23

meeemee said:

If feel sorry for the new neighbours, I would hate to move into a new house to find extra expense and stress being caused by not being able to have my own land back, surely the old agreement went when the previous owner left, it’s like me having an agreement with a neighbour to park by car on their allocated parking space and expecting a new neighbour to be cool with that! 

Playing devils advocate, you are not comparing apples for apples. A permanent fixed building is not easily nor cheaply moved. Not to mentioned it had been in place for over 20 years. 

Buying anything as significant as a property surely requires a level of due diligence which would have brought this into preliminary discussions with the seller. 

As I said I’m merely playing devils advocate here to explore both sides of the coin. 

AlwaysTrying23

sheramber said:

I appreciate all replies. He has actually accepted the shed can be moved but it’s who pays for this which is currently disputed. He is in no position to and the claimant refuses also. One could argue had the claimant checked the house before buying, even using google maps, this could have been brought up and reduced from the asking price.

 Is the court case to decide who pays?

Seems an odd way to go about it.

Your friend could end up with the cosrts of the court case plus the removal costs.

I believe so. The applicant wants the boundary restored, has refused various compromises and is looking for legal backing in his favour.  

ThisIsWeird

AlwaysTrying23

This was already established and the judge from the previous hearing stated my friends compromise to rectify the fence up to the shed was reasonable. However the application declined it. 

So that compromise has been offered? Along with a written assurance that when the situation allows -  eg the garage requires work or rebuilding, or when funds allow, your friend will complete the  boundary move? This has been done in a recordable way?

I am not recommending that your friend tries to challenge this legally, but would reiterate that a judge would likely find this neighbour's actions to be unreasonable, given the clear agreement with the previous owners.

(This is not like the other case a few pages back of the new house extension encroaching a couple of inches.)

AT23, if your friend is still debating whether this is worth pursuing - and if they cannot even afford the cost of moving the garage, then that would surely be a crazy risk - then they may wish to ensure they are talking with boundary dispute specialists. There are a number of these, and some will even provide an opinion for free, given the outline of the situation. Write a brief and succinct overview, including all relevant points, and no filler. Eg, whether you can evidence (witnesses) the original agreement, and the compromise offer made. If they all say 'non', well...