Confused about whether is a boundary wall or nothing of the sort, please help!

Misthios

BarelySentientAI said:

Misthios said:

BarelySentientAI said:

Those diagrams and photographs all seem to agree - and indicate that the boundary between properties is along the wall of your house.

i.e. there is no sliver or triangle beside it to argue about, that is all the neighbours land.

The boundaries guy wasn't sure about it either because he said that could also be an error in the neighbour's title plan.

An error on their plan that matches an equal and opposite error on yours?  It's certainly possible, particularly if one was sort of copied from the other, but it seems more likely to me that both plans are correct.

Misthios said:

The only thing the boundaries guy was certain about was that the neighbour's property is considered neighbouring and not adjoining, my understanding from what he told me, is that they have no right at all to attach anything on my house's side wall. 

Yeah, I think you need to separate the two things in your head.  I presume the check on 'adjoining' is to match the text you quoted earlier about party walls.

It's not true that a neighbour has no right under any circumstances to attach something on a wall that is the boundary of their plot (otherwise how would anyone in a terrace or semi build an extension?) - but equally they can't just do it willy-nilly.

If that wall is entirely yours, and it seems like it would be given it's the external side wall of your house, then they shouldn't be fixing anything to it as far as I know.

He answered that, if they want to be built an extension in this case, they would have to do it at least a metre away and clear from my wall. I am awaiting his final report and will get back to you 👍

Jellynailer

ThisIsWeird said:

Jellynailer said:

The key fact is that you clearly own the sliver of land.

Unless I'm missing something, I cannot see how this can be certain.

It'll be interesting to see what this neighbour's deeds map looks like, but I'm concerned that the OP's map does not show a red line to indicate ownership of that strip.

The deeds plan is the one with the slither. It shows all 4 dwellings. The other plan looks like a land registry site plan for the OP's house + garage = showing the structures.  It is certainly not the deeds plan.  My own site plan is not correct but my legal rights are based on the deeds plan. 

Jellynailer

Correction = am getting cross eyed with so much partial information + opinions.  The larger plan does not show all 4 dwellings.  The smaller plan does but does not show the cross hatching so cannot be the deeds plan and is not a normal site plan either.  Can the OP confirm that the larger plan with the sliver IS the plan attached to the deeds.

Re BarelySentientAl comments = You're taking a very bullish position based on evidence that I don't think is there....I fear you are leading the OP down a potentially expensive and argumentative route based on assumptions at the moment:

This is unacceptable.  All you and others need to do is raise the question with the OP as to the sources of the uploaded plans, not have a go at me without good reason when I have advise how to limit the expense of sorting it out contrary to the repeated advice of others that it will be necessary to go to court

BarelySentientAI

Jellynailer said:

Re BarelySentientAl comments = You're taking a very bullish position based on evidence that I don't think is there....I fear you are leading the OP down a potentially expensive and argumentative route based on assumptions at the moment:

This is unacceptable.  All you and others need to do is raise the question with the OP as to the sources of the uploaded plans, not have a go at me without good reason when I have advise how to limit the expense of sorting it out contrary to the repeated advice of others that it will be necessary to go to court

You recommended (not suggested considering, or indicated that it might be a route when the evidence supported it, or anything else - a straightforward and simple recommendation) that the OP wrote a letter before action including accusing the neighbour of blocking an adopted footpath and of trespass, and advised that they should then unilaterally remove the neighbour's property, all whilst preparing a court brief, calculating appropriate compensation and lining up a solicitor.

It is entirely acceptable, and I think morally necessary on this site, to point out that this is a strong position to take based on unclear and potentially contradictory evidence, and that pursuing that path could be both expensive and cause arguments with the neighbour if some of the assumptions and evidence were not clarified.

Section62

Misthios said:

...

He answered that, if they want to be built an extension in this case, they would have to do it at least a metre away and clear from my wall. I am awaiting his final report and will get back to you 👍

Whoever you spoke to, they weren't a boundary expert then.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Is it not the case that ultimately OP doesn't need to own the triangle of land, they just need the flower bed removed, or perhaps more accurately just need to hold the neighbour accountable should it (or any of the other issues) actually case damage to their property at any point (mainly damp)? 

BarelySentientAI

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Is it not the case that ultimately OP doesn't need to own the triangle of land, they just need the flower bed removed, or perhaps more accurately just need to hold the neighbour accountable should it (or any of the other issues) actually case damage to their property at any point (mainly damp)? 

Very much so.  Things being attached to and potentially damaging that wall is by far the more important concern.

Understanding the ownership would help guide how that could be done, but is secondary in my opinion.

Section62

Jellynailer said:

....

This is unacceptable.  All you and others need to do is raise the question with the OP as to the sources of the uploaded plans, not have a go at me without good reason when I have advise how to limit the expense of sorting it out contrary to the repeated advice of others that it will be necessary to go to court

I agree with BarelySentientAI's response to this, particularly their "morally necessary" point.  This is a money saving site, and adopting a strategy which could rapidly escalate a situation and lead to very significant legal costs is not "moneysaving".

Nobody (as far as I can see) has claimed "it will be necessary to go to court".  However that could be a consequence of sending someone a "letter before action" without having a legal basis for doing so.  The recipient would be more than entitled to treat it with the seriousness a "letter before action" deserves and seek legal advice.... then submit a claim against the sender for their legal costs when it is demonstrated that the sender's claim has no basis.

The problem with starting the legal ball rolling is that you can't just hop off when it suits... the other party has rights too.  Sensible litigants don't start the process until they know they have a very good chance of winning.

Suggesting/advising a legal response to a situation has to be done with great caution... and frankly is somewhat reckless if it doesn't include the advice to speak to a professional legal advisor before embarking on that strategy.  Hopefully the OP has picked up on the need for caution here.

Jellynailer

To Barely Sentient & S62

As a result of your 'bullying' charge, I have taken the time to review all the posts from the start. What I found was information from the OP about the unreasonable behaviour of the neighbour and agreement by others that she was “hellish”. The others also repeatedly stated that the OP's legal action would require an expensive court case One said that a better alternative tfor a solicitor to send a letter as a bluff to prompt a compromise and so save money. I doubt if any good solicitor would be happy to do so. I suggested an assertive polite and sympathetic letter with no mention of court action. (It worked for me on a trespass issue by residents of neighbouring leasehold flats).

I have also reviewed the evidence for the strip and ownership of it. The strip is shown in the legal deeds (otherwise known as the Transfer Deed). The content of this document was negotiated by the solicitor of whoever was first buying one of the 5 properties. It then becomes standard for the other 4. Therefore the large plan IS the relevant plan in law. However, I now realise that I have been mistaken in saying the OP owns the strip but the neighbour does not own it either.

The strip is a designated access strip (shown in the smaller plan within the Schedules of the Transfer deed for illustrative purposes). Part b of the Second Schedule gives rights “in respect of neighbouring & adjoining properties to enter and make good any damage”. This inset plan shows the strip stopping at the far end of No 5 dwelling past which is the back garden of No 5.

Access to the strip is blocked by a high overgrown hedge which is also intruding onto the frontage of No 5 and across the pavement of the highway (which may have been adopted in conjunction with the adoption of the area hashed brown).

I was also mistaken in raising the issue of planning permission for the extension which I thought extended behind the hedge. The aerial view posted by the OP shows otherwise. Anyway, the issues of extension and planning permission became irrelevant after the OP confirmed the date of build. Yet other posters have continued to seek to address these issues.

Finally, for both my property disputes I did not contact my Leg Pro in case the information I gave would result in higher premium and or withdrawal of cover but also because of the likely long delay if the Leg Pro had to research my legal rights. So, like the OP, I did my own research and found an 'Update' registered by the developer after the first set of freehold properties were sold. This denied the leaseholders right of access to my land (contrary to the wording of their leases). Given they were obnoxious to the point of pure harassment, I used the term Notice before Action in my letter.

In conclusion, comments were posted so thick and fast that we ended up like the children's story about the sky falling down. I urge both of you to undertake your own review of all the comments and acknowledge that there is a distinct difference between assertion and agression.

Thank you in anticipation

ThisIsWeird

Jellynailer said:

To Barely Sentient & S62As a result of your 'bullying' charge, I have taken the time to review all the posts from the start. What I found was information from the OP about the unreasonable behaviour of the neighbour and agreement by others that she was “hellish”. The others also repeatedly stated that the OP's legal action would require an expensive court case One said that a better alternative tfor a solicitor to send a letter as a bluff to prompt a compromise and so save money. I doubt if any good solicitor would be happy to do so. I suggested an assertive polite and sympathetic letter with no mention of court action. (It worked for me on a trespass issue by residents of neighbouring leasehold flats).I have also reviewed the evidence for the strip and ownership of it. The strip is shown in the legal deeds (otherwise known as the Transfer Deed). The content of this document was negotiated by the solicitor of whoever was first buying one of the 5 properties. It then becomes standard for the other 4. Therefore the large plan IS the relevant plan in law. However, I now realise that I have been mistaken in saying the OP owns the strip but the neighbour does not own it either.The strip is a designated access strip (shown in the smaller plan within the Schedules of the Transfer deed for illustrative purposes). Part b of the Second Schedule gives rights “in respect of neighbouring & adjoining properties to enter and make good any damage”. This inset plan shows the strip stopping at the far end of No 5 dwelling past which is the back garden of No 5.Access to the strip is blocked by a high overgrown hedge which is also intruding onto the frontage of No 5 and across the pavement of the highway (which may have been adopted in conjunction with the adoption of the area hashed brown).I was also mistaken in raising the issue of planning permission for the extension which I thought extended behind the hedge. The aerial view posted by the OP shows otherwise. Anyway, the issues of extension and planning permission became irrelevant after the OP confirmed the date of build. Yet other posters have continued to seek to address these issues.Finally, for both my property disputes I did not contact my Leg Pro in case the information I gave would result in higher premium and or withdrawal of cover but also because of the likely long delay if the Leg Pro had to research my legal rights. So, like the OP, I did my own research and found an 'Update' registered by the developer after the first set of freehold properties were sold. This denied the leaseholders right of access to my land (contrary to the wording of their leases). Given they were obnoxious to the point of pure harassment, I used the term Notice before Action in my letter.In conclusion, comments were posted so thick and fast that we ended up like the children's story about the sky falling down. I urge both of you to undertake your own review of all the comments and acknowledge that there is a distinct difference between assertion and agression.Thank you in anticipation

Please take a step back, Jellynailer.

I, too, misread and misjudged the situation as it developed, and had to temper many of my comments to suit.

I think it still remains most likely that the OP does not, unfortunately, own that strip - it ain't outlined in red on their deeds, but sadly is on the neighbour's. The red lines can cross black lines, and - afaIk - are the best indication of ownership.

I don't need to defend S62 and AI - they are more than capable of doing so, and I suspect won't even bother; they just don't have to.

For the OP, the 'good' news is that all this probably doesn't matter that much. The neighbour must not not not cause anything to damage their property. What they've done so far has and most likely will, so to sort that wee issue out should be very straight-forward. The OP then has the ongoing right to reasonable access to maintain that wall. If the neighbour doesn't like this, then (a) tough, and (b) they can greatly reduce the numbers of access by telling the OP, "We'll keep our stuff and ivy away for you." Win-win.

If the OP did own that strip, I suspect the undoubted pleasure of evicting the neighbour from it would soon be tempered by the need to mark the strip off, and even then the OP would still need access to the neighb's garden at the 'sharp' end of that strip.

Initially galling, yes, but I suspect the best outcome for the OP is to oblige the neighb to remove everything away from that wall, far enough to allow it to fully ventilate, and to remove and make good any fixtures. I am pretty sure that this can be done with a conversation, backed up with the OP's legal rights - the ol', "I really don't want to take legal action over such an easy to resolve issue, but I've had to inform my house insurance that damage was being caused, and they say they may need to reconsider the policy unless it's sorted. They recommended I seek legal advice for this, and fortunately I do have LP cover for £100k if needed." That should bring them to their senses. If it doesn't, then the OP acts on this. "All I need is for you to remove everything that you've attached to my wall - I will make good any holes (can't trust them to do it properly...) - and to leave at least a 1' (or whatevs) space between my wall and anything you place there to prevent damp." Oh, and OP, record this conversation, and take lots of photos.

On the LegProt point, these are with companies independent of the insurance policy - you could even use them to take action against your insurer if needed :-) AfaIk, there should be no increase in premium following an action; they'll simply engage to give you advice for you to follow, and will then step in to act if needed - and if they know they are more than 50% likely to win. In other words, it's a nice wee earner for them.