My ongoing boundary dispute ordeal/odyssey (advice sought)

pobjoy

ThisIsWeird said:

Pobjoy, may I ask what the best outcome for you is? What outcome do you want?

The best outcome for me would be my neighbours reinstating the removed concrete path. This would mean no changes need to be made to the deeds or LR plans, and no money needs to change hands. I reckon this would be a relatively cheap solution, but I think the chances of it happening without a legal battle are slim.

My second-choice solution would be the land purchase that my neighbours appeared to agree to* five months ago.  

* After my neighbours' solicitor declared out-of-the-blue that a deal had been done, and, shortly after, abruptly stopped communicating with me (this was the same individual who had proposed the dodgy boundary agreement) I sought assurances from the conveyancer the matter had been passed onto. He confirmed that conveyancing was proceeding, that my portion of path would be purchased for £4500, all 'blue and brown strip' access/maintenance clauses would be removed from the deeds, and that all costs connected with the deal would be met by neighbours.

My third-choice solution would be some form of clear path demarcation (ideally without any of the black edging blocks remaining on my side of the boundary). Potentially this is the cheapest option.

The solicitor I used in November put all of these solution ideas to my neighbours. None were taken up at that time - my neighbours claiming instead that I hadn't provided them with sufficient evidence of the path-centre boundary position.

pobjoy

Sit down this weekend and write an outcome you feel is reasonable for both sides as your ultimate goal. Also think of an outcome that saves face for your neighbours.

Unfortunately, I can't think of any potential solution that allows my neighbour to completely save face. They clearly wanted to settle through a boundary agreement (this, I guess, would have allowed them to claim at a later date, that the boundary position was ambiguous when they undertook the work) but, as a boundary agreement would be illegal in this situation, there's no chance of that.

Purchase of my portion of the path would be a tacit acknowledgement that they were wrong to include it in their new parking area. Moving edging bricks and/or applying paint to their new surface, ditto 

One of the most frustrating aspects of this affair has been my neighbours' reluctance to offer any constructive solution suggestions or use mine as a starting point for negotiation. In the year since the dispute again, they have come up with precisely one resolution idea - the boundary agreement - and that was a non-starter primarily for the reason stated above.

Section62

pobjoy said:

Unfortunately, I can't think of any potential solution that allows my neighbour to completely save face. They clearly wanted to settle through a boundary agreement (this, I guess, would have allowed them to claim at a later date, that the boundary position was ambiguous when they undertook the work) but, as a boundary agreement would be illegal in this situation, there's no chance of that.

What would be illegal about a boundary agreement?

ThisIsWeird

pobjoy said:

ThisIsWeird said:

Pobjoy, may I ask what the best outcome for you is? What outcome do you want?

The best outcome for me would be my neighbours reinstating the removed concrete path. This would mean no changes need to be made to the deeds or LR plans, and no money needs to change hands. I reckon this would be a relatively cheap solution, but I think the chances of it happening without a legal battle are slim.
My second-choice solution would be the land purchase that my neighbours appeared to agree to* five months ago. 
* After my neighbours' solicitor declared out-of-the-blue that a deal had been done, and, shortly after, abruptly stopped communicating with me (this was the same individual who had proposed the dodgy boundary agreement) I sought assurances from the conveyancer the matter had been passed onto. He confirmed that conveyancing was proceeding, that my portion of path would be purchased for £4500, all 'blue and brown strip' access/maintenance clauses would be removed from the deeds, and that all costs connected with the deal would be met by neighbours.
My third-choice solution would be some form of clear path demarcation (ideally without any of the black edging blocks remaining on my side of the boundary). Potentially this is the cheapest option.
The solicitor I used in November put all of these solution ideas to my neighbours. None were taken up at that time - my neighbours claiming instead that I hadn't provided them with sufficient evidence of the path-centre boundary position.

Thanks, pobjoy.

Any idea what solutions your neighbour might be 'happy' with?

silvercar

pobjoy said:

ThisIsWeird said:

Pobjoy, may I ask what the best outcome for you is? What outcome do you want?

The best outcome for me would be my neighbours reinstating the removed concrete path. This would mean no changes need to be made to the deeds or LR plans, and no money needs to change hands. I reckon this would be a relatively cheap solution, but I think the chances of it happening without a legal battle are slim.

My second-choice solution would be the land purchase that my neighbours appeared to agree to* five months ago.  

* After my neighbours' solicitor declared out-of-the-blue that a deal had been done, and, shortly after, abruptly stopped communicating with me (this was the same individual who had proposed the dodgy boundary agreement) I sought assurances from the conveyancer the matter had been passed onto. He confirmed that conveyancing was proceeding, that my portion of path would be purchased for £4500, all 'blue and brown strip' access/maintenance clauses would be removed from the deeds, and that all costs connected with the deal would be met by neighbours.

My third-choice solution would be some form of clear path demarcation (ideally without any of the black edging blocks remaining on my side of the boundary). Potentially this is the cheapest option.

The solicitor I used in November put all of these solution ideas to my neighbours. None were taken up at that time - my neighbours claiming instead that I hadn't provided them with sufficient evidence of the path-centre boundary position.

The first choice isn’t going to happen, and I can’t see a court instructing the neighbour to remove a path that on the face of it is more aesthetically pleasing than the previous. I also can’t see a court saying a shared path should be reinstated as a path made up of two different surfaces.

would you accept the second choice if it was now offered?

I like the third choice, if you can agree on a suitable material.

GDB2222

Section62 said:

pobjoy said:

Unfortunately, I can't think of any potential solution that allows my neighbour to completely save face. They clearly wanted to settle through a boundary agreement (this, I guess, would have allowed them to claim at a later date, that the boundary position was ambiguous when they undertook the work) but, as a boundary agreement would be illegal in this situation, there's no chance of that.

What would be illegal about a boundary agreement?

I’m not entirely convinced that the OP is really looking for a solution. If he is, he should discuss what is feasible with his solicitor.

As things stand, the solicitor is probably already looking forward to buying his new Lexus. 

ThisIsWeird

pobjoy said:

The best outcome for me would be my neighbours reinstating the removed concrete path. This would mean no changes need to be made to the deeds or LR plans, and no money needs to change hands. I reckon this would be a relatively cheap solution, but I think the chances of it happening without a legal battle are slim. I agree. They almost certainly did commit 'trespass with criminal property damage', and were forewarned, so have seemingly ticked all the boxes for legitmate action to be taken if you were so inclined, and had deep pockets! But, I think most folk would regard this as unreasonable, especailly as there are simpler and neater solutions.  

My second-choice solution would be the land purchase that my neighbours appeared to agree to* five months ago. You have another path you can use? Or, you could instate one with some of the money from this sale? You can manage without this current path? I have to say, this would be my first choice. Anything you have to 'share', or any reference to a RoW in your deeds (unless only to your benefit - and even then...), makes a property less attracive. Full stop. Why? You don't need to ask - it's just happened to you, like many others

* After my neighbours' solicitor declared out-of-the-blue that a deal had been done, and, shortly after, abruptly stopped communicating with me (this was the same individual who had proposed the dodgy boundary agreement) I sought assurances from the conveyancer the matter had been passed onto. He confirmed that conveyancing was proceeding, that my portion of path would be purchased for £4500, all 'blue and brown strip' access/maintenance clauses would be removed from the deeds, and that all costs connected with the deal would be met by neighbours.

My third-choice solution would be some form of clear path demarcation (ideally without any of the black edging blocks remaining on my side of the boundary). Potentially this is the cheapest option. Yes, almost certainly the cheapest option. And very possibly also the most attractive to the neighbour - at first glance. But, as soon as the detail is brought to their attention, I suspect it'll quickly become less desirable to them; they'd need to demarcate the extent of your RoW over their land, and do this with evidenced or agreed accuracy. (It would be amusing to insist that they provide evidence for the boundaries, since that was their bullish earlier request of you...) You will require this marking so that you don 't trespass over their land, and they don't obstruct your RoW. No other marking is actually required in the foreseeable. So, again, it may be considered 'unreasonable' for you to not accept this if offered. Of course, should they do this correctly - as you should insist - it'll likely cost them a land surveyor (since they obliterated the old markings), a builder to remove any edge-brick trespass over land to which you have sole rights, and then the cost of the agreed type of marking - I think a contrasting colour on the resin would be unambiguous (I wouldn't trust a few studs, as they wouldn't be able to judge with the necessary glance, that they haven't parked over it), but that's your call? This will cost them a fair bit, and they'll end up precisely where they were before this silliness started. So suddenly not very attractive after all?

Is there the potential of a 4th choice - that of dividing that front area evenly? Ie, a perp boundary coming straight from your houses to the kerb? Obviously for a significantly more desirable sum. If I were your neighbour, I'd be chomping at this opportunity, knowing it would be the ideal solution, and also adding to the value of my property. Once a boundary fence is installed, you can ignore your neighbour hence forth. 

From your pov, I would suggest that it would not remove any value from your property at all; it is largely 'waste', but also adds a degree of uncertainty and unusualness to your boundary - I am pretty certain that anyone considering buying your house will have some concerns over such a weird line, and suspect (rightly) that the neighbour would not be happy with it. It will give them pause. They will expect a straight boundary line, and are extremely unlikely to consider this funny triangle to be of additional benefit; "Ooh! Should we buy this house instead, as it has this terrific triangle cutting across the neighbour's side! We could put a picnic table there, and wave at them!".

For a suitable payment, this would be my number one solution.

The solicitor I used in November put all of these solution ideas to my neighbours. None were taken up at that time - my neighbours claiming instead that I hadn't provided them with sufficient evidence of the path-centre boundary position. The cheeky wee scroats. They obliterated the path, so they need to evidence its true location. A judge would laugh their socks off at their request.

Replies in bold.

Once you have suspicion that they are stalling, you can begin to apply pressure. Certainly, your request for the missing documents are fair and reasonable, and should be done now, as they are disadvantaging you by this. Any failure by them to provide these on request will almost certainly count very poorly against them. I wouldn't threaten escalating the issue to their reg body at this stage - just a polite request, 'as I feel I may have been put at a disadvantage by not having sight of these documents as I consider all my options' - summat like that. If they fail to do so, then a second request, this time suggesting you'll escalate. All by email, all evidenced. And, if you threaten escalation, you carry it out.

If you haven't already started, then write the chronological log of what has taken place.

And then you have all the other stuff I suggested - to use as you see fit. Keep reminding them you are always willing to discuss mutually-agreeable ways forward.

May I ask what your neighbour paid for their property when they bought it a few years ago?

SootySweep1

Hi
Can I ask how attached are you to that hedge?

Another alternative could be for you to remove the hedge and put in place a fence/wall/hedge along whatever boundary you agree with your neighbour. 

Section62

ThisIsWeird said:

You have another path you can use? Or, you could instate one with some of the money from this sale? You can manage without this current path? I have to say, this would be my first choice. Anything you have to 'share', or any reference to a RoW in your deeds (unless only to your benefit - and even then...), makes a property less attracive. Full stop. Why? You don't need to ask - it's just happened
....
Is there the potential of a 4th choice - that of dividing that front area evenly? Ie, a perp boundary coming straight from your houses to the kerb? Obviously for a significantly more desirable sum. If I were your neighbour, I'd be chomping at this opportunity, knowing it would be the ideal solution, and also adding to the value of my property. Once a boundary fence is installed, you can ignore your neighbour hence forth. From your pov, I would suggest that (a) it would not remove any value from your property at all. It is largely 'waste', but also adds a degree of uncertainty and unusualness to your boundary - I am pretty certain that anyone considering buying your house will have some concerns over such a weird line, and suspect that the neighbour would not be happy with it. It will give them pause. They would expect a straight boundary line, and are extremely unlikely to consider this funny triangle to be of additional benefit; "Ooh! Should we buy this house instead, as it has this terrific triangle cutting across the neighbour's side! We could put a picnic table there, and wave at our neighbs!".

OP has previously said they need to retain the existing path because the width of their plot wouldn't be wide enough to park two cars and still be able to walk to/from the road.

There also still isn't clarity why the path goes at the angle it did - if it is because the slope on the land is too steep for a 'perpendicular' path then giving up the existing path and some of the plot width may preclude constructing a path which is DDA compliant (or at least wheelchair friendly) if the need for that arose in the future.

As a general thing, I'd expect the value of a property to be reduced by loss of (road) frontage width. Frontage width = ease of access and potential for sub-division of plots or extra parking, planning consent is frequently unobtainable due to lack of sufficient frontage to the road.  There is also the complication here of the layby - who owns it (not the "Highways Agency") and how use of it might be controlled in the future.

More frontage = more flexibility = more value.  I would never give up road frontage to solve a problem when there are easier solutions there for the taking.

ThisIsWeird said:

Yes, almost certainly the cheapest option. And very possibly also the most attractive to the neighbour - at first glance. But, as soon as the detail is brought to their attention, I suspect it'll quickly become less desirable to them; they'd need to demarcate the extent of your RoW over their land, and do this with evidenced or agreed accuracy. (It would be amusing to insist that they provide evidence for the boundaries, since that was their bullish earlier request of you...) You will require this marking so that you don 't trespass over their land, and they don't obstruct your RoW. No other marking is actually required in the foreseeable. So, again, it may be considered 'unreasonable' for you to not accept this if offered. Of course, should they do this correctly - as you should insist - it'll likely cost them a land surveyor (since they obliterated the old markings), a builder to remove any edge-brick trespass over land to which you have sole rights, and then the cost of the agreed type of marking - I think a contrasting colour on the resin would be unambiguous (I wouldn't trust a few studs, as they wouldn't be able to judge with the necessary glance, that they haven't parked over it), but that's your call? This will cost them a fair bit, and they'll end up precisely where they were before this silliness started. So suddenly not very attractive after all?

....

The cheeky wee scroats. They obliterated the path, so they need to evidence its true location. A judge would laugh their socks off at their request.

Thing is... a judge would likely laugh their socks off that many of the demands you are suggesting the OP makes of the neighbour, when there is no evidence of a problem existing.

I don't know how many times it needs to be said that there is no legal requirement for the extent of the RoW on the neighbour's side to be demarcated. In the absence of an existing problem - such as the neighbour obstructing the RoW by parking on it - a judge is not going to order the neighbour to alter the paving in any way shape or form.  After the judge has replaced their foot garments to the correct place, they will likely invite the OP to come back when there is a problem, and meanwhile stop wasting the court's time.

The stuff you've said above are just things made up to create self-imposed barriers to finding a reasonable solution to this problem.  If you are in this situation and find it "amusing" then you aren't trying to achieve a resolution.  Great if you are a multi-millionaire and can blow six-figure sums on legal action, but normal people need to find solutions and compromises that work.  Invariably that requires both sides to stop upping the ante and imposing unreasonable demands.  Most of the demands you are suggesting the OP imposes can easily be categorised as unreasonable, and a court would likely make short work of dismissing them.

ThisIsWeird

Section62 said:

OP has previously said they need to retain the existing path because the width of their plot wouldn't be wide enough to park two cars and still be able to walk to/from the road. Good point - missed that. But I think he meant if there were two cars parked, one behind the other, on the grassy driveway he has to his left? In any event, should he end up with a healthy £15k from one of the possible resolutions I've proposed, I don't think either parking or pedestrianing will remain an issue.

There also still isn't clarity why the path goes at the angle it did - if it is because the slope on the land is too steep for a 'perpendicular' path then giving up the existing path and some of the plot width may preclude constructing a path which is DDA compliant (or at least wheelchair friendly) if the need for that arose in the future. If, indeed. It seems to be simply historic - not sure Pobjoy knows? It's weird - yes, but everything else you've said about it is pure suppostion? So...

As a general thing, I'd expect the value of a property to be reduced by loss of (road) frontage width. 'General', sure, but each case on its merit, yes? Frontage width = ease of access and potential for sub-division of plots or extra parking, planning consent is frequently unobtainable due to lack of sufficient frontage to the road.  There is also the complication here of the layby - who owns it (not the "Highways Agency") I stand ready to be corrected - who does own the layby, then, and who owns the grassy strip between the layby and the houses? and how use of it might be controlled in the future. Quite possibly, which is why - like everything else - it's only a suggestion I made, and pobjoy - as he knows - would need to determine all of this. There's seemingly enough space to park two cars on his front lawn should he wish, as it seems that this is what the neighbour aims to achieve with their current, highly-restricted-due-to-the-triangle resined parking space. 

 

More frontage = more flexibility = more value. Always? Are you sure? Q for you - if you were considering buying a Pobjoy-type house, and had a choice of two; (1) has the expected straight neighbouring boundary line, no RoWs over eachother's land, and no dispute, and (2) had a next-to-useless triangle of land which cut across a neighbour's house front (always the potential for antagonism), a RoW for both parties over part of eachother's land (always the potential for antagonism), and an ongoing issue/dispute (definitely an antagonism), which would you choose? Which house is more saleable? How do their values correspond?

I would never give up road frontage to solve a problem when there are easier solutions there for the taking. "Never"? A bit sweeping, surely? I've explained the possible benefits for Pobjoy, but that's for him to determine. If selling that triangle does not significantly affect probjoy's practical use of his front space, and it provides him with what would be a more acceptable front design for most potential buyers, and if it gives him ~£15k, and a boundary fence and a full resolution of the current dispute, you'd still 'never' go for this?

Thing is... a judge would likely laugh their socks off that many of the demands you are suggesting the OP makes of the neighbour, when there is no evidence of a problem existing. They are not 'demands', let alone 'many'. Why do you keep over-egging my suggestions like this? As for claiming there is no problem existing, well...

I don't know how many times it needs to be said that there is no legal requirement for the extent of the RoW on the neighbour's side to be demarcated. 'Legal'? I didn't say there was. In the absence of an existing problem - such as the neighbour obstructing the RoW by parking on it - a judge is not going to order the neighbour to alter the paving in any way shape or form. Ditto, I never said they legally should or could. After the judge has replaced their foot garments to the correct place, fnurr they will likely invite the OP to come back when there is a problem, and meanwhile stop wasting the court's time. And that is what I've said. Pobjoy now (presumably) has LegProt, and can use it to tackle any future issues such as a quite-possible RoW impediment. 

Q for you - do you think infringements of the RoW is now more likely to occur, now that the neighbour has resined that area for parking and removed all demarcation lines and intends to park there, or will it remain just the same as before - ie not at all an issue? 

Before that possible/likely event, pobjoy can (and imo should) warn them of such possible consequences of a lack of boundary marking - as he rightly did when he warned them of the possible consequences of their previous resinous action. I do not believe I have suggested that probjoy tries to take legal action to force boundary markings; if this is implied in any of my posts, it wasn't my intention - I know it would be a hiding to nothing as he didn't have LP for that issue. But he can use the potential consequences of the neighbour's slack-jawed actions as a means to apply pressure. Ie, inform them; "I now don't know where the boundary lies, due to your client's actions. How can your client ensure that (a) I do not trespass over his land, and (b) he doesn't restrict my RoW?" Tell me now, S62, that this is an unreasonable thing for pobjoy to ask?

The stuff you've said above are just things made up to create self-imposed barriers to finding a reasonable solution to this problem.  If you are in this situation and find it "amusing" you know darned well that this whole issue is not to my mind 'amusing', so are again misconstruing my words then you aren't trying to achieve a resolution utter barlocks.  Great if you are a multi-millionaire and can blow six-figure sums on legal action, but normal people need to find solutions and compromises that work.  Invariably that requires both sides to stop upping the ante and imposing unreasonable demands.  Most of the demands you are suggesting the OP imposes can easily be categorised as unreasonable, and a court would likely make short work of dismissing them. My gawd - what an over-egg! Could you please list the 'unreasonable' 'demands' I am supposedly suggesting?

I'm disappointed - quite frustrated, actually - by your continued, very deliberate, misuse, misinterpretation, and misconstruing of my comments and advice.

Could you advise probjoy what you think he should do here? Accept the new situation 'until there is an actual problem'? And how should he tackle the (now most likely emboldened) neighbour should they be clearly - well, I think clearly, 'cos it's hard to tell as there are no actual markings on the ground - parking over his RoW? How should probjoy advance his case?