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

BarelySentientAI

"Bullish" =/= accusation of bullying.

"Bullish" = confident and assertive.

There have been no accusations of bullying on this thread as far as I am aware.  If there were, they would be unacceptable.

There have been many confident and assertive points made.  Making these and challenging these are both perfectly normal and acceptable parts of forum discussion.  There will not be unanimous agreement between all posters on all points.

Misthios

Thanks everyone.  I appreciate all views and assistance. I didn't take anything in the wrong way.  I ll have updates from Monday and I ll get back to you.
Unfortunately, the relations with the neighbours have soured a lot and there's no way we can talk. I have documented a lot of information in emails and texts and I ll contact my Legal Advice cover from Monday. I ll keep you posted. Have a great weekend ahead.

ThisIsWeird

Misthios said:

Thanks everyone.  I appreciate all views and assistance. I didn't take anything in the wrong way.  I ll have updates from Monday and I ll get back to you.
Unfortunately, the relations with the neighbours have soured a lot and there's no way we can talk. I have documented a lot of information in emails and texts and I ll contact my Legal Advice cover from Monday. I ll keep you posted. Have a great weekend ahead.

You will be asked by your LP, at least, if you have discussed this with your neighbour. If you are going to claim that relations have broken down too far, it may be worth providing examples of why and how - some of the comments they have said, for example. 

Currently, they probably feel the same about you as you do about them, and the status quo continues. You obviously do need to sort this - they cannot keep risking damage to your property - so you can do an approach in the first instance, regardless of what they are like. And, tbh, the more unreasonable they are, the easier your LP's task will be to sort them. They ain't actually going to hit you, so the worst you'll have is a slammed door or a few choice words. And you have this recorded.

Provided you are completely calm, reasonable, and matter-of-fact, and make it clear that what you are asking for is both completely reasonable (it is), and essential (ditto), then you can approach them on this basis. 

These are the facts; you must protect your home - you have no valid option. What they have done has caused some damage already, and will continue to do so if left unresolved. After being told of this, the neighbour is now liable for any subsequent damage. Your house insurance insists you sort this, or else they cannot be held responsible for covering any resulting damage - they may even refuse to cover you in future. And, you have Legal Protection - exactly what it's for.

Jellynailer

Oh dear,ThisIsWeird.

I did take a step back to good effect!  Ownership does not matter.  We have clarity thanks to the OP's posts and my efforts.  How about "Well done Jellynailer - an 80 yr old woman who can reach the parts that a boundary expert and some opiniated forumites failed to do. 

A nice cosy chat is not going to work.  It hasn't before and the clear provision in the deeds requires a letter sent recorded delivery.  I am sure the OP is perfectly capable of choosing the wording.  The important thing is to enclose the relevant section of the deed with its plan showing right of access and require the access strip to be cleared of all obstruction.  

The Leg Pro information is 'stable door' I suggest! 

Section62

Jellynailer said:

Oh dear,ThisIsWeird.

I did take a step back to good effect!  Ownership does not matter.  We have clarity thanks to the OP's posts and my efforts.  How about "Well done Jellynailer - an 80 yr old woman who can reach the parts that a boundary expert and some opiniated forumites failed to do. 

A nice cosy chat is not going to work.  It hasn't before and the clear provision in the deeds requires a letter sent recorded delivery.  I am sure the OP is perfectly capable of choosing the wording.  The important thing is to enclose the relevant section of the deed with its plan showing right of access and require the access strip to be cleared of all obstruction.  

OP, please don't do as Jellynailer is suggesting.  You will very likely regret it.

I'm sure they mean well, but they have misunderstood the situation and have drawn a conclusion which is not supported by the information you have posted.  There is nothing in the plans and extracts you've posted which suggests there is a "designated access strip".

Article 1(b) of the Second Schedule refers to a general right "to enter the property for the purpose of inspection and repair provided..." but makes no reference to a "designated access strip".  In fact, if my understanding of the extracts is correct this article is referring to people accessing your property, not you acessing number 17's.

There is a lot more research required before concluding anything for certain.  There needs to be a clear understanding of who the transferor was, and what their interest (if any) in number 17 was. I speculated yesterday that the land your house is built on was formerly in the same ownership as number 17 but that needs to be confirmed.  Unless the transferor was the owner of number 17 then they couldn't grant a right to 'neighbours' to access that property - you can grant rights which affect your own land, but you can't grant a right which affects someone else's.  Ownership does matter.

This is where professionals earn their money.

Jellynailer said:

The Leg Pro information is 'stable door' I suggest! 

This is particularly troubling.  The correct advice to the OP in this situation is to rely on the legal protection (they have already paid for) to give professional legal advice based on all the available information.  Jellynailer has already accepted that advice they gave earlier in this thread was wrong (more than once), and my understanding of the situation would mean the advice given in their latest post is also wrong.  To suggest taking legal advice of one forum member only in preference to using a professional legal advice service simply isn't good moneysaving.

Jellynailer, this isn't a competition.  The idea of this forum is for people to get good moneysaving advice, which usually comes about as a result of discussion between forum members.  Suggesting you've solved the OP's problem, when your solution isn't supported by the evidence, isn't helpful to the OP nor conducive to this forum working well.  Using phrases like "opiniated forumites" is also unhelpful.

The important thing here is for the OP to get the best advice the forum can give - and taking account of the situation and what we do know then the right advice here is for the OP to go to the legal protection people and see what they say.

Jellynailer

The Leg Pro opinion has been given repeatedly 'ad nauseum'.  The OP has got it and has got my advice.  

N.B.  I have cited the sources of my advice = successful outcomes to difficult cases which involved minimal cost - £40 for copies of sample deeds for 4 different tenures in my development.  Case 1 = harassment stopped and the 5 leaseholders were then nice to me.  Case 2 = My solicitor refused to deal with the neighbour (normal practice) who had to appoint a solicitor with almost immediate effect thereafter.= crystal clear in my transfer deeds so no contest & neighbour paid up.  Both cases beneftted from my careful research prior to my decision on what to do.

As previously stated by one of my detractors, a Leg Pro will want cudos from a win in court.

This is all I have to say.  The OP has all the opinions + my advice + clarity of the issue and is best left now to concentrate on getting the problem sorted.

p.s. As a newish forumite I am on a learning curve.  In future, I wlll limit my posts to communications with an OP and ignore the others unless they offer clarity on the nature of the problem to be solved.

ThisIsWeird

Legal Protection is great. I may have recommended it once or twice.

They are particularly good for 'advice', pure and simple. Folk worry that to contact their LP means there will be a 'dispute', or a huge and complex leviathan will uncontrollably begin to roll. 

No. They will simply listen, give advice, ask for further details, and then suggest what you should do. If their suggestion - usually a letter (sometimes a 'letter-before action', sometimes with included quotes to put right what was done wrong) - does not work, then they will suggest the next move, possibly including mediation. Or, they'll just take on the case, assuming it's a valid one that they know they'll win. But all under your control.

Misthios should, I think, contact them in any case as part of their research towards this issue. Simply no harm in doing so, and what they are told may focus the direction of their thoughts and actions.

I think that Misthios should also consider what the best outcome for them actually is, so that this is kept as simple as possible, and everyone can go about their day.

If Misthios really considers it important to gain ownership of that strip, assuming it is rightfully theirs, then they can anticipate not only some significant costs - a land survey at least - and then the hassle of a legal challenge (assuming the Land Survey returns an unambiguously positive result), but also a complete fall-out with their neighbour. And there begins the issue - what do I do with this strip?!*

Misthios will never be friends with this inconsiderate neighbour, but that's a whole world away from having an enemy.

As for this strip, what would Misthios do with it? I've already suggested that much of what's towards the far, sharp, end will not be wide enough to allow proper access to a good part of that wall, so they'd still need access to the neighbour's garden for this. And you can bet your bottom dollar, that gaining this access from now on will require a court order against their disgruntled neighbour.

What Misthios actually needs is for the neighbour to move their bits away from that wall, and regular access to keep ivy at bay. Both are reasonable, both are their entitlement, and both should be achievable with little work and guidance from their LP. Both should hopefully also occur without a complete failure of relations with this neighb.

*Of course, should a land survey come back to state that Misthios 'owns' a good 3'+ wide strip all along there, then different matter :-)

Section62

Jellynailer said:

The Leg Pro opinion has been given repeatedly 'ad nauseum'.  The OP has got it and has got my advice.  

N.B.  I have cited the sources of my advice = successful outcomes to difficult cases which involved minimal cost - £40 for copies of sample deeds for 4 different tenures in my development.  Case 1 = harassment stopped and the 5 leaseholders were then nice to me.  Case 2 = My solicitor refused to deal with the neighbour (normal practice) who had to appoint a solicitor with almost immediate effect thereafter.= crystal clear in my transfer deeds so no contest & neighbour paid up.  Both cases beneftted from my careful research prior to my decision on what to do.

As previously stated by one of my detractors, a Leg Pro will want cudos from a win in court.

This is all I have to say.  The OP has all the opinions + my advice + clarity of the issue and is best left now to concentrate on getting the problem sorted.

p.s. As a newish forumite I am on a learning curve.  In future, I wlll limit my posts to communications with an OP and ignore the others unless they offer clarity on the nature of the problem to be solved.

Unfortunately your latest advice didn't provide the clarity you claim.

For the avoidance of doubt and to address the confusion that may have been created, the OP should note the following:

1) The "designated access strip" you claim exists doesn't.

2) "Part b of the Second Schedule" doesn't give the rights you suggest it does.

3) There is no "inset plan".

Writing to the neighbour demanding they clear a "designated access strip" (which doesn't exist in reality) under threat of legal action would at best result in no more than just some embarrasment for the OP, but at worst could result in counter action by the neighbour.

I wonder whether you've drawn the conclusions you have because you didn't notice the images of the extracts of the OP's title deeds and LR plans have been posted in a somewhat random order, rather than as they appear in the original document?  I.e. what you believe to be an "inset plan" in reality isn't part of either schedule 1 or 2 and therefore doesn't have anything to do with demarking a "designated access strip".  Because the images aren't in the correct order it does take quite a bit of detective work to figure out the correct sequence.

BarelySentientAI

Jellynailer said:

N.B.  I have cited the sources of my advice = successful outcomes to difficult cases which involved minimal cost - £40 for copies of sample deeds for 4 different tenures in my development.  Case 1 = harassment stopped and the 5 leaseholders were then nice to me.  Case 2 = My solicitor refused to deal with the neighbour (normal practice) who had to appoint a solicitor with almost immediate effect thereafter.= crystal clear in my transfer deeds so no contest & neighbour paid up.  Both cases beneftted from my careful research prior to my decision on what to do.

<sarcasm>
Super - if we're going to count successful cases then I'm somewhere over 250 compared to your two.  Does that mean I 'win' and only my opinion is correct?
</sarcasm>

You will be well aware that all cases are different and stand only on the merits of the available evidence relevant to that actual case.

The evidence we have available here does not support your assertions.  More evidence might become available that entirely supports your position, in which case I am sure we would all revise our opinions and probably end up agreeing - as we have all agreed that the priority point in this case is to prevent and mitigate damage to the wall, regardless of the other concerns.

Jellynailer said:
p.s. As a newish forumite I am on a learning curve.  In future, I wlll limit my posts to communications with an OP and ignore the others unless they offer clarity on the nature of the problem to be solved.

That approach vastly reduces the usefulness of the forum.  Discussion between posters often advances everyone's understanding.  I have, on several occasions, been able to identify an oversight in my logic because another poster has challenged an assumption that I didn't realise I had made.  That is part of healthy adult debate and creates the best outcome for all.

Don't take challenges to your logic personally and engage with them rationally.  That way everyone wins.

Section62

ThisIsWeird said:

...

What Misthios actually needs is for the neighbour to move their bits away from that wall, and regular access to keep ivy at bay. Both are reasonable, both are their entitlement, and both should be achievable with little work and guidance from their LP. Both should hopefully also occur without a complete failure of relations with this neighb.

...

^This.

Raising the ground level against the OP's house wall is the one thing which would quite clearly be actionable if it has been done in a way which poses a risk of harm to the OP's property. The irony here is the thing which is actionable was one of the things the OP was advised to leave out of the 'notice before action".

Everything else - the planning consent, the overgrowing hedge, the "designated access strip" - is just a distraction from the key issue.  If the OP does have ownership of land outside of the flank wall of the house then that can be clarified later - but is largely moot because as you pointed out earlier in the thread the Access To Neighbouring Land Act gives the OP the right to enter the land to carry out any maintenance work required.