Ownership of property boundaries

Land_Registry

ivk said:

frugalmacdugal said:

Hi.

maybe would help if you explained what your concern/problem is, make things clearer?

No concerns. We are just looking to buy the house and I want to understand the relevant rules, rights and responsibilities. Nearly all discussions I can find about it go no further the usual suggestions about being nice and cooperative with neighbours or discuss boundary positions, and I must admit this doesn't help much with understanding the legal status of things.

For example, @stuhse says that it's boundary features that can be subject to ownership, but if there are none and nothing the deed says about it, who would have the right and/or responsibility to erect some? Another question might be, for the rear fence at the top of the image, whether the owner of the property would have the right to change it as they like.

You can obtain whatever information is available and then draw your own conclusions. The key then is to discuss it with your neighbours as appropriate before doing anything. 

The legal status is fairly clear - sort it amongst yourselves. Courts don’t want to be dragged into such matters as a solution lies with the neighbouring landowners sharing information, discussing wants/needs and agreeing a way forward. Courts nowadays often have a ‘mediation’ process in place to try and help the parties resolve such matters to save on court time. 

As others have posted the T marks go hand in hand with the written words taken from the same deed. The legal status at the time is between the named parties but the wording can always be open to interpretation, hence each neighbour thereafter has a say effectively as they may read it differently. 

The original parties aren’t the ones who would enforce a ‘personal covenant’ after they’ve sold up and moved on. Legally the personal covenant is still in play IF the new owners include their own personal indemnity covenant to ‘observe and perform’ the original covenant. If each new buyer does that then the personal covenant remains in play legally. If they don’t a legal argument could be made that it no longer applies but again common sense should be applied as explained. 

A positive covenant is where one party agrees to do something and binds an individual. A restrictive covenant, far more numerous, binds the land so with each purchase the new owner is bound by the restrictive covenants imposed so not to keep chickens; not to sell alcohol; and not to run the property as an asylum - three of the most popular restrictive covenants imposed by Victorian builders. 

As for your For examples …. you have a right to erect a boundary feature or to change the one at the rear. Common sense says before you do so you discuss and agree it with the relevant neighbour. As if you do something that they see as contrary to their understanding then you may get a legal challenge. But remember the law is really there to guide you and based on the basic premis that you a don’t do anything to flout it so all discussed/agreed and formalised as appropriate. 

And finally, land law in England & Wales is complex and derived over centuries of changing land and property ownership. The use of boundary features, too numerous to mention, and phrases like “my home is my castle” should be sufficient to understand that trying to ascertain and understand the general law re such matters is never going to give you a straight answer. As you have two neighbours for every boundary feature it’s more about what both think/agree than any legal understanding 

ThisIsWeird

ivk said:

No concerns. We are just looking to buy the house and I want to understand the relevant rules, rights and responsibilities. Nearly all discussions I can find about it go no further the usual suggestions about being nice and cooperative with neighbours or discuss boundary positions, and I must admit this doesn't help much with understanding the legal status of things.

For example, @stuhse says that it's boundary features that can be subject to ownership, but if there are none and nothing the deed says about it, who would have the right and/or responsibility to erect some? Another question might be, for the rear fence at the top of the image, whether the owner of the property would have the right to change it as they like.

Pleased there are no known concerns, and perfectly reasonable to wish to understand the rights and responsibilities.

The 'legal' side has been largely explained by the other replies.

In short, if no written reference is made in the deeds that oblige any party to maintain a physical fence, then there is no need to. Obviously, most folk do want to clearly determine their 'boundaries', and also to give themselves security and privacy. If one party has a need to contain something within their land - say a dog - then they do have an obligation to provide a physical restraint, regardless of who has implied responsibility for the fence.

When a fence needs repair or replacement, you should both read your deeds and approach the other party. Don't touch a fence until you have that smiley chat. Although marker 'T's are not, in themselves, writ in stone (unless referred to in the deeds), they are 'commonly regarded' as indicating the boundary maintaining responsibilities. For your right-hand double-T boundary, for example, I'd first be guided by the written deeds, and then check - as best you can - where the current fence lies. If you live in a semi, it should be pretty easy to determine whether it sits 'on' the boundary line, or to one side of it. Ditto with terraced houses, but often not easy with detached.

Armed with this, the next thing would be the friendly chat. Keep in mind that if the neighbour is unreasonable or truculent, then there is next to nothing you can do to oblige them to fix 'their' fence, or contribute to 'shared' costs.

I'd suggest your options then are limited to putting up your own fence. Even this doesn't come without issues! If the RH boundary is, as the Ts 'imply', 'shared', then where do you position 'your' fence if the neighbour refuses to engage? You could rightly place it 'on' the boundary line as it presumably currently runs, and hope that the neighb doesn't raise any silly objection, but this would be fully at your cost, and I doubt you could prevent the neighb from painting or attaching things to the other side since half the fence sits on their land... Or, you play safe (as you would if it wasn't a party fence), and position the new posts fully on your side of the invisible boundary line, ideally with the backs of your posts touching the boundary. That way you own that fence 100%. If you do this in the case of a belligerent 'shared boundary' neighbour, guess what - you have just given them 2 extra inches of usable land. Grrr. :-)

The same applies to an unhelpful neighbour who has an 'implied' responsibility for a fence, which is currently fully on their land, but who refuses to repair or replace it. What do you do? All you can do is to put up your own fence on your side - and watch in annoyance as they then remove their old fence, and gain 4" of land they didn't previously have. Grrrrrr :-)

In practice, most folk are 'neighbourly', and won't be arrisols. But if they are, then almost certainly best to take it on the chin, and you'll have learned what they are like and should be handled in future.

If that black-outlined rectangle is your (semi) property, then normal 'party wall' rules apply to the shared wall therein. I wouldn't worry about this - every semi and terrace has them, and it rarely becomes an issue. If it does, then rules do apply, far more so than fences :-)

stuhse

ThisIsWeird said:

 . Although marker 'T's are not, in themselves, writ in stone (unless referred to in the deeds), they are 'commonly regarded' as indicating the boundary maintaining responsibilities. 

It is impossible to maintain or own a boundary- a boundary is just an infinitely thin line between land in different ownership.

It is the use of this terminology (responsibilities) that i believe leads to misunderstandings- (responsibilities should be replaced with ownership).....  T markers commonly refer to who owns the 'boundary feature' at the time the plan is drawn.  With ownership does not come any special requirement (or responsibility) to maintain the boundary feature to any particular standard or to replace it at the end of its life. There is no requirement in law to have a boundary feature at all between land in different ownership.

You can own a fence , wall or a hedge  (boundary feature) .  Or you can agree shared ownership with your neighbour. The extent to which any boundary feature is  maintained is entirely up to the owner(s). (all subject to any contary wording in the deeds that is legally valid and has not been made defunct by subsequent case law eg.personal/positive covenants which do not always pass to new owners)