Boundary lines

Flowers98rac

This is the new gate I just had to buy and the old one got ruined with Ivy. Next door doesn’t have a back gate 

Flowers98rac

This is my new gate but her ivy on her side 

Section62

Flowers98rac said:

This is my new gate but her ivy on her side 

OP, see here -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80110339/#Comment_80110339

You won't find the answer on this forum - if there is nothing in the deeds of the two properties then you'll probably need to get a solicitor or a boundary surveyor to help you, and probably go back the the plans when the properties were first built and sold.

My guess is you own the passageway based on the roof design, and also that several other properties in the development have a side gate leading to the rear garden which suggests this was something the designer thought was a good idea.  From what I can make out, number 7 has their access from the other side, therefore wouldn't need this passageway themselves.  But that is only a guess.

sheramber

So the ivy is no linger blocking your gate.

ThisIsWeird

Hi Flowers.

Phew - this is mind-blowing stuff! I had the houses mixed up for a bit there.

Ok, your house is the bungalow, which does have that extended canopy-roof over the path, and the detached house to your left is the one you are having issues with?

What we see in the deeds map does not fully correlate with what's on the ground. So, the first thing is to check YOUR deeds in DETAIL, and see if there are any other maps showing that path in a different colour, ideally brown. And also read the written content carefully - I'm not sure what the relevant sections will come under, but usually it's things like 'covenants', 'easements', stuff like that? Or Section A? Or 'C' in your neighb's copy.

And then you NEED to download a copy of your neighbour's deeds and repeat the process - check the maps, and read the content - and look for some 'blue'.

If you struggle with this, then you can always post the relevant sections on here for us to read. You can keep identifying references off it, but it doesn't really matter as this is all stuff in the public domain, and you aren't doing anything wrong.

On the 'ground' - in that pic above - anyone looking at that would, I think, naturally assume that the path is 'yours', as it's a continuation of the path in front of your property, is the only direct access to your garden, and has 'your' roof covering it. That roof has been done 'properly', and has been 'flashed-in' with lead into your neighbour's wall. However, your deeds map appears to be equally clear that the gap is between your boundary - which looks to be tight against your house wall - and the neighbouring house, so lies within your neighb's curtilage.

The actual boundary between your two properties at the front is a bit shoogly, tho', and doesn't follow the expected straight line that appears in the deeds map.

So, what happened here? Obviously, I have no idea. The gap shown in the map between your two properties would suggest (I think) that the extended roofline is a later addition, but nothing here is writ in stone at the mo'. The shoogly boundary at the front would, I think, add to this conclusion, with a previous pair of owners having agreed to allow your house access to its rear via that gap. But, unless the deeds clarify this, we do not know.

So, please download and read. Ask here for help if needed.

Meanwhile, a couple of things that can be said: (1) (unless the situation is different in Wales), then you DO have a right to access otherwise inaccessible parts of your property in order to carry out maintenance. You may have to enforce this rule, but it does exist. And (2) you can cut away any greenery that comes over your boundary. It is always good practice to inform folk that you intend to do this, so they aren't surprised at rustling and clipping going on at their boundary, and a casual "I'm happy to dispose of the clippings - unless you want them?" is polite too. Will you be DIYing this, or getting someone in?

It's a bit more tricky if the ivy is causing damage to your fence, and that looks like a hell of a load of material - soil, even?, building up on the other side! In 'law', I understand that if the fence is entirely yours - you put it up and it sits on your side of the boundary line - so within your property - then the neighb should not touch it, or allow anything against it that could cause damage. But, it would appear you have a delicate situation going on here, so perhaps now is not the time to start pushing such issues.

You may need to have a calm and rational conversation with this neighb, so please avoid any nit-picking, or claims that you are not certain about; be a paradigm of reason.

There - you have homework to do!

Did I ask - do you have Legal Protection included in your house insurance?

Section62

ThisIsWeird said:

On the 'ground' - in that pic above - anyone looking at that would, I think, naturally assume that the path is 'yours', as it's a continuation of the path in front of your property, is the only direct access to your garden, and has 'your' roof covering it. That roof has been done 'properly', and has been 'flashed-in' with lead into your neighbour's wall. However, your deeds map appears to be equally clear that the gap is between your boundary - which looks to be tight against your house wall - and the neighbouring house, so lies within your neighb's curtilage.

The actual boundary between your two properties at the front is a bit shoogly, tho', and doesn't follow the expected straight line that appears in the deeds map.

So, what happened here? Obviously, I have no idea. The gap shown in the map between your two properties would suggest (I think) that the extended roofline is a later addition, but nothing here is writ in stone at the mo'. The shoogly boundary at the front would, I think, add to this conclusion, with a previous pair of owners having agreed to allow your house access to its rear via that gap. But, unless the deeds clarify this, we do not know.

I think it is a case where the "general boundary" shown on the plan doesn't accurately show the legal boundary - someone has just drawn a big fat straight line on the plan because that is close enough when representing a general boundary.

That OS plan is an old version, probably dating from the early 1970's, and doesn't show all the boundary features on the development.  OS mapping is produced to certain standards, such as not showing deviations from 'straight line' unless the deviation exceeds a certain amount... it is impossible to produce plans at 1:1250 or 1:2500 scale with every single detail shown.

I suspect the true boundary is dog-legged rather than a straight line, with the dog-leg accounting for the passageway and path leading up to the OP's rear gate.  But this can't be proved from the plan as it simply isn't accurate enough.  To illustrate the point, the 'boundary' between number 7 and their neighbour to the left (round the corner) is also not shown as it appears on the ground.

The only evidence the roof over the passageway was a later addition seems to be the fact it is not shown on the OS plan.  My guess (based on the properties in the area) is that the roof was probably original, and the issue is with the OS plan being 'wrong' - albeit OS plans don't always show every detail (see above) and therefore this roof may have been omitted from the plan because the mapping standard in use at the time said it should be.

ThisIsWeird

Probably good news, then. 
What do you suggest Flowers does now? Engage a land surveyor, or continue their research first?
Is there likely to exist more detailed plans?

Section62

ThisIsWeird said:

Probably good news, then. 
What do you suggest Flowers does now? Engage a land surveyor, or continue their research first?
Is there likely to exist more detailed plans?

I'd say 'neutral' news rather than good... simply that as evidence the deed plan is possibly not accurate enough to prove the boundary is a straight line.  But that doesn't mean the boundary isn't a straight line.

It may be worth a bit more research, but unless the neighbour has a change of heart then it is difficult to see this ending up as anything other than a 'legal' job.  There are pros and cons of approaching a solicitor this early... but if insurance LP advice is an option then I'd not delay talking to them before the neighbour escalates the situation.