My ongoing boundary dispute ordeal/odyssey (advice sought)

GDB2222

pobjoy said:

Something that occurred to me today...

Communications between myself and my neighbours' solicitor have, thus far, been conducted almost exclusively by email. When the solicitor first got in touch with me in March it was via a letter, and when I imposed a Nov 15 completion deadline in August I thought it wise to send the message in the form of a signed-for letter as well as an email. Apart from these postal interludes, all of our negotiations have been digital.

Re-reading that initial March 4 letter today (a letter that includes the sender's email address) I noticed this small print in the footer "We do not accept service by email or facsimile". Does this mean the solicitor could at a later date claim (for example) that I didn't supply them with the boundary position evidence they requested (evidence supplied as email attachments) or deny that they agreed to purchase my half of the path (a 'commitment' made by email only)?

I am now wondering if I should insist on communication by letter going forward.

They don’t want service of proceedings by email. 

I think that you are somewhat overthinking this. 

If you try to fight this in the courts as a litigant in person against a professional, you are highly likely to lose and have to pay your neighbour’s costs. It’s like you or I going up against Mike Tyson. So, at some point, if you want to fight this in court, you will need to pay for professional help. They can worry about things like service by email. 

Section62

GDB2222 said:

pobjoy said:

Something that occurred to me today...

Communications between myself and my neighbours' solicitor have, thus far, been conducted almost exclusively by email. When the solicitor first got in touch with me in March it was via a letter, and when I imposed a Nov 15 completion deadline in August I thought it wise to send the message in the form of a signed-for letter as well as an email. Apart from these postal interludes, all of our negotiations have been digital.

Re-reading that initial March 4 letter today (a letter that includes the sender's email address) I noticed this small print in the footer "We do not accept service by email or facsimile". Does this mean the solicitor could at a later date claim (for example) that I didn't supply them with the boundary position evidence they requested (evidence supplied as email attachments) or deny that they agreed to purchase my half of the path (a 'commitment' made by email only)?

I am now wondering if I should insist on communication by letter going forward.

They don’t want service of proceedings by email. 

I think that you are somewhat overthinking this. 

If you try to fight this in the courts as a litigant in person against a professional, you are highly likely to lose and have to pay your neighbour’s costs. It’s like you or I going up against Mike Tyson. So, at some point, if you want to fight this in court, you will need to pay for professional help. They can worry about things like service by email. 

...and sometimes more importantly, a legal professional will know what aspects of a case it is worth pursuing, and what needs to be dropped, and should advise in very clear terms not to proceed if the whole case is hopeless.  Being a LIP can be an interesting experience, but not when you are heavily invested (financially/emotionally) in the issue... then you need a professional outsider to help you make the right decisions.

pobjoy

If the purchase falls through, and I see legal action as my only practical option, I will use a solicitor. The reason I'm not currently using a solicitor is financial. If I'd negotiated through a solicitor this year, I suspect the process would have cost me thousands - thousands that I would have had to pass onto my cash-strapped (AFAIK) neighbours via the asking price for the land, making a land transfer solution much less attractive/likely.

Yes, a DIY approach means I've undoubtedly made mistakes (On reflection, back in May I really should have insisted on a deadline and the 'deal' being set out in a signed document. The only concrete evidence I have that an agreement was reached is a series of emails from the conveyancer in which he confirms my understanding of it)  but I don't believe any of those mistakes have seriously weakened my bargaining position, or made the situation more tangled than it already was.     

Niv

I have caught up on this thread but I cannot confirm / see one element (I may have missed it!). Is the neighbour preventing / disputing that you can walk up the edge of the resin drive (the area that used to be the concrete path)?

The cut off bullet point in post one does seem to indicate that they accept the old concrete path as the boundary line so surely they cant be accused of trying to undertake a landgrab? 

For what its worth, I like the idea of a couple of studs to mark the centre of the RoW (with both parties agreeing to this ofc), in an ideal world that could possibly extend to a couple of studs to also mark the edge of the path (but from what the OP writes I suspect that may be difficult to achieve).

On the assumption that they are not preventing you accessing the RoW and acknowledge you have the right to use it, I would think that the main outstanding point is around responsibility of maintenance. I agree with the OPs view that the concrete was low cost to maintain and robust whereas costs of replacing/repairing a resin drive are likely to be much higher and is blurred if it creeps into a wider repair across the neighbours land and if being really picky, there is a possibility that if the sub base was not properly installed the cars using the drive could damage the RoW path area even if not directly parked on it.

pobjoy

"Is the neighbour preventing / disputing that you can walk up the edge of the resin drive (the area that used to be the concrete path)?"

No, but the last I heard, they had reverted to claiming the boundary ran along the western side of the path not down the centre, so, by implication, they currently believe they have a RoW through the land occupied by my hedge (Obviously, in May I pointed out to the conveyancer that this boundary interpretation was incompatible with the purchase that had just been agreed)

"On the assumption that they are not preventing you accessing the RoW and acknowledge you have the right to use it, I would think that the main outstanding point is around responsibility of maintenance."

Maintenance is certainly an issue (legally, I'm now responsible for maintaining a surface I didn't choose or want) but I'd argue there are other equally important issues such as...

1. We now need to call on the services of a boundary surveyor if we want to locate the legal boundary between our front gardens. Previously anyone could have done it with a tape measure.

2. Clauses in our deeds now make no sense. How wide are the RoW strips? Where exactly are they?

3. I now can't see at a glance if I'm trespassing or not when using the path (This seems like a minor point, but when I'm doing something like cutting the eastern side of my hedge - something I've always used the path for - it would be useful to know where my RoW ends.)

4. Because the path no longer looks like a path, visitors who might have used the path to reach my door are now going to look at the area and think "That belongs to no.10. I'll use the drive instead." So what?  A future owner might well want to park two vehicles in my drive making pedestrian access and deliveries difficult. If that happened, it would be nice to have an obvious alternative to the drive available.

5. The concrete path was visually ambiguous (It angled towards my house, but because of the hedge, could, I admit, be mistaken for part of No.10's garden) which seemed appropriate as it was a shared structure. Because the new surface has a brick surround all the way round it, everyone looking at it is going to think "That entire area belongs to No. 10". Through their actions, my neighbours have created a pronounced visual disconnect between the actual boundary and the apparent boundary, and made my front garden seem smaller than it actually is. I realise this isn't exactly earth-shattering, but I think most homeowners would object to this if it happened to them.    

Niv

pobjoy said:

"Is the neighbour preventing / disputing that you can walk up the edge of the resin drive (the area that used to be the concrete path)?"

No, but the last I heard, they had reverted to claiming the boundary ran along the western side of the path not down the centre, so, by implication, they currently believe they have a RoW through the land occupied by my hedge (Obviously, in May I pointed out to the conveyancer that this boundary interpretation was incompatible with the purchase that had just been agreed)

"On the assumption that they are not preventing you accessing the RoW and acknowledge you have the right to use it, I would think that the main outstanding point is around responsibility of maintenance."

Maintenance is certainly an issue (legally, I'm now responsible for maintaining a surface I didn't choose or want) but I'd argue there are other equally important issues such as...

1. We now need to call on the services of a boundary surveyor if we want to locate the legal boundary between our front gardens. Previously anyone could have done it with a tape measure.

2. Clauses in our deeds now make no sense. How wide are the RoW strips? Where exactly are they?

3. I now can't see at a glance if I'm trespassing or not when using the path (This seems like a minor point, but when I'm doing something like cutting the eastern side of my hedge - something I've always used the path for - it would be useful to know where my RoW ends.)

4. Because the path no longer looks like a path, visitors who might have used the path to reach my door are now going to look at the area and think "That belongs to no.10. I'll use the drive instead." So what?  A future owner might well want to park two vehicles in my drive making pedestrian access and deliveries difficult. If that happened, it would be nice to have an obvious alternative to the drive available.

5. The concrete path was visually ambiguous (It angled towards my house, but because of the hedge, could, I admit, be mistaken for part of No.10's garden) which seemed appropriate as it was a shared structure. Because the new surface has a brick surround all the way round it, everyone looking at it is going to think "That entire area belongs to No. 10". Through their actions, my neighbours have created a pronounced visual disconnect between the actual boundary and the apparent boundary, and made my front garden seem smaller than it actually is. I realise this isn't exactly earth-shattering, but I think most homeowners would object to this if it happened to them.    

If you went with, I believe, your second option for resolution of this issue (selling them the land) points 1 and 2 would get resolved. 3 would become moot as it would fall to the neighbour to cut that side of the hedge if they wished. Point 4 would half exist - the access, so if you did agree the sale - how would access be possible pedestrians and deliveries? (I know from what you said that this has stalled, possibly indefinitely) . Point 5 agreed it does look like their land now - the sale option would also make this moot.

I really do wish you luck in resolving this with your neighbour and I do hope they come back to the table on the sale of the strip option that you both seem to have had some common ground on.

I totally agree that if your situation happened to me I would be similarly annoyed as yourself. The problem for both of you is you are where you are and something needs to give. Even selling the land to them will likely leave a sour taste as the price will likely cover little more than your expenses. 

pobjoy

"I really do wish you luck in resolving this with your neighbour and I do hope they come back to the table on the sale of the strip option"

Thanks. When there are significant developments, I'll add updates to my original post.

pobjoy

(Update added to original post)

i_like_cats

GDB2222 said:

pobjoy said:

Something that occurred to me today...

Communications between myself and my neighbours' solicitor have, thus far, been conducted almost exclusively by email. When the solicitor first got in touch with me in March it was via a letter, and when I imposed a Nov 15 completion deadline in August I thought it wise to send the message in the form of a signed-for letter as well as an email. Apart from these postal interludes, all of our negotiations have been digital.

Re-reading that initial March 4 letter today (a letter that includes the sender's email address) I noticed this small print in the footer "We do not accept service by email or facsimile". Does this mean the solicitor could at a later date claim (for example) that I didn't supply them with the boundary position evidence they requested (evidence supplied as email attachments) or deny that they agreed to purchase my half of the path (a 'commitment' made by email only)?

I am now wondering if I should insist on communication by letter going forward.

They don’t want service of proceedings by email. 

I think that you are somewhat overthinking this. 

If you try to fight this in the courts as a litigant in person against a professional, you are highly likely to lose and have to pay your neighbour’s costs. It’s like you or I going up against Mike Tyson. So, at some point, if you want to fight this in court, you will need to pay for professional help. They can worry about things like service by email. 

Presuming he’s the younger man, my money’s on OP beating Mike Tyson!

ThisIsWeird

pobjoy said:

(Update added to original post)

Please tell us you are still using your RoW? For gawd's sakes, don't stop doing so. And visibly so.
Any hint of them parking over it, make an overt point of taking photos from the road end, low, and aimed up the path line - to indicate vehicles parking too close. Then get your tape measure out, and take measurements betwixt hedge and cars. 
Make them squirm. This is all perfectly entitled and reasonable.