My ongoing boundary dispute ordeal/odyssey (advice sought)

GDB2222

i_like_cats said:

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!

Tyson's a shadow of his former self, I gather. I hope he made some decent money from allowing himself to be hit repeatedly. 

ThisIsWeird

GDB2222 said:

i_like_cats said:

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!

Tyson's a shadow of his former self, I gather. I hope he made some decent money from allowing himself to be hit repeatedly. 

He got whalloped by a YouTuber today, in fact.

newsgroupmonkey_

ThisIsWeird said:

GDB2222 said:

i_like_cats said:

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!

Tyson's a shadow of his former self, I gather. I hope he made some decent money from allowing himself to be hit repeatedly. 

He got whalloped by a YouTuber today, in fact.

Well that's not quite true is it.
Neither of them hit the other particularly hard.

pobjoy

ThisIsWeird said:

pobjoy said:

(Update added to original post)

Please tell us you are still using your RoW?...

Yes, I'm still using it, and will continue to do so until my neighbours purchase the land.

ThisIsWeird

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

ThisIsWeird said:

GDB2222 said:

i_like_cats said:

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!

Tyson's a shadow of his former self, I gather. I hope he made some decent money from allowing himself to be hit repeatedly. 

He got whalloped by a YouTuber today, in fact.

Well that's not quite true is it.
Neither of them hit the other particularly hard.

No idea - I didn't watch it :-)

pobjoy

(Update added to original post)

jimbog

Thanks for the update and well done 👍🏻 
Are the council aware that your neighbour has resurfaced their (council’s) land?

pobjoy

>>Are the council aware that your neighbour has resurfaced their (council’s) land?

I've not contacted the council, so probably not.

our_des

pobjoy said:

>>Are the council aware that your neighbour has resurfaced their (council’s) land?

I've not contacted the council, so probably not.

Now the transfer from you to them is complete, you should let the council know what they've done to the councils land.

Section62

our_des said:

pobjoy said:

>>Are the council aware that your neighbour has resurfaced their (council’s) land?

I've not contacted the council, so probably not.

Now the transfer from you to them is complete, you should let the council know what they've done to the councils land.

Why? What is the benefit to the OP?

As discussed earlier in the thread, the area is probably housing land rather than highway, and the amount surfaced is very small.  Whichever council department owns it (if it really isn't the OP and the neighbour) is arguably gaining by having a little less grass to cut.

I would never recommend people do work (like paving) on council-owned land without the consent of the council, but as this has been done already the question is whether the council will ask the neighbour to reinstate ~1.5m^2 of grass, or just go 'whatevs'.

Other than revenge (odd, given the OP ultimately got what they wanted) there is no benefit to the OP.  In fact highlighting this issue to the council could make it more difficult for the OP in the future if he wants to get his equivalent area paved.  It will also likely be obvious to the neighbour that the OP has been stirring up trouble (and they will think that even if he hasn't) which could only serve to exacerbate the ongoing neighbour dispute.

This is a money saving site.... if reporting the issue to the council helped resolve matters then it might be something worth doing.  But now it can only serve to make a bad situation worse.  It isn't money saving to do something which has the potential to upset your neighbour simply for spite.

OP, you've got them to buy the land from you.  Move on with life and don't expend any more of your time and money on the issue.  Your health and wellbing is more important.