My ongoing boundary dispute ordeal/odyssey (advice sought)

pobjoy

Thanks very much for all the suggestions and observations. Lots of food for thought, and your comments are a real morale-booster. When there are significant developments I will post updates here.

To clarify a few points...

Sadly I didn't have legal protection insurance when the affair started.

I don't have a mortgage but my neighbour does.

I've lived in my house for thirteen years. My current neighbours moved in circa 2020.

I do occasionally use the disappeared path. It goes against the grain, but I don't want my neighbours to think I've forgotten about the situation or for them to claim at some later date that I never used it. They use it almost every day because they park one of their cars on and (I estimate) sometimes slightly over the eastern edge of the path, meaning the driver has to exit onto the RoW.    

None of the plans (Land Registry, Council, conveyancing pack...) quite capture the unusual shape of the two sloped front gardens, or the angle of the boundary/concrete path, but the old council plan in the second image comes close. My neighbours' front garden is basically triangular, albeit with the southern tip of the triangle snipped off. One of annotations on my first image is, I now realise, potentially misleading. The purple "NORTH-SOUTH BOUNDARY" line is the line that marks the southern boundary of both properties. Below this line is the council-owned strip. 

What can't be seen from any of the photographs I posted is that the boundary path joined a concrete path that originally ran along the front of both houses. Only my bit of this frontdoor-to-frontdoor section now remains.

My neighbours' multi-award-winning (according to the footer on their stationary!) solicitors have already tried things I would classify as 'dirty tricks' so I plan to go through all documents connected with the sale with a fine-tooth comb. One thing that has occurred to me, is that they will try to sneak through a clause that will mean I inadvertently sign away my right to use the septic tank I share with my neighbours. Said tank is in my neighbours' back garden. On reflection, I really should have stipulated that my neighbours pay the cost of me hiring a solicitor to look over the sales paperwork if and when it arrives (I did insist they cover all conveyancing costs).

Early in the process I naively assumed that once I'd gathered sufficient evidence of the boundary position, I'd be able to persuade a solicitor to take on my open-and-shut case on a no-win-no-fee basis. At the end of last year, I made enquiries and quickly realised this was unlikely, which was a bit of a facer.

There have been particularly maddening moments in this saga (the moment I read the sentence pictured below for example!)  when I've seriously contemplated removing some or all of the edging bricks installed on my property. However, after researching the Party Wall Act, I'm glad I didn't go down the pick-axe route. At the very least I think I'd probably have a legal obligation to inform them in advance that I was intending to undertake work near the boundary.

silvercar

I would think it is the Land Registry details that count, over and above any other maps that are around. They are your ‘title deeds’ showing what land you own. Council maps pre-dating your purchase may be of historical interest and used to back up your case, but you’d have to have a lot of evidence to show that the title deeds at Land Registry aren’t what you should both be looking at. Worth downloading both yours and your neighbours to ensure they match. (£3 from the official site, don’t pay more from dodgy websites.)

pobjoy

Unfortunately, in my case the Land Registry map is pretty vague. It doesn't explicitly show the path:



(The strange bicolour plot reflects the fact that the previous owners acquired the freehold to the blue bit a few years after they purchased the house)

RHemmings

Would it be possible to claim the strip experimentally first by putting a few narrow-enough planters on it to only be on the OP's side? 

The experiment would be to see if the neighbour moves them, or leaves them there. Then, if they stay there, more permanent measures such as studs. 

Isn't it already the case that if the neighbour or the OP have to sell their house, that the dispute has to be disclosed? I personally would be quite put off by an ongoing land dispute if I was buying a property. 

our_des

How far over to the house next door but one to you have they gone? It looks like they share access of the previous driveway that goes up the side of their house, so have they also encroached their land too perhaps. 

Have you looked at the historic Street View images, do they show the council owned patch better?

Section62

RHemmings said:

Would it be possible to claim the strip experimentally first by putting a few narrow-enough planters on it to only be on the OP's side? 

The experiment would be to see if the neighbour moves them, or leaves them there. Then, if they stay there, more permanent measures such as studs. 

Neither the OP nor the neighbour can put things on the RoW as that would be obstructing it.  Even if the objects are wholly on the OP's side of the boundary line it would still interfere with the neighbour's right to use that strip of land as a RoW.

Section62

pobjoy said:

Unfortunately, in my case the Land Registry map is pretty vague. It doesn't explicitly show the path:

Many people would assume the front boundary runs from the centre of and perpendicular to the facade and out to the road.  The angled boundary you have is more like those seen on corner plots.

It isn't vital to your case, but it might be worth trying to get a better understanding of why the path was laid at an angle like it was - for example is the main village down the road to the right (so the path is angled to suit the walking desire line), or is it because the ground slopes so steeply that a perpendicular path would be too steep to use?  I can see the neighbour's solicitor attempting to make out the angled front boundary is an error - so being prepared to counter that with why the boundary is angled might be a good idea.

Having a shared path leading up to a path running across the front of both houses (e.g. to the front doors) is a fairly common feature of LA semi-detached properties - so that aspect isn't particularly unusual.  The unusual bit is the path being so angled to the facade.

RHemmings

Section62 said:

RHemmings said:

Would it be possible to claim the strip experimentally first by putting a few narrow-enough planters on it to only be on the OP's side? 

The experiment would be to see if the neighbour moves them, or leaves them there. Then, if they stay there, more permanent measures such as studs. 

Neither the OP nor the neighbour can put things on the RoW as that would be obstructing it.  Even if the objects are wholly on the OP's side of the boundary line it would still interfere with the neighbour's right to use that strip of land as a RoW.

Technically they can't, but physically they can and see if the neighbour objects. There seems to be no indication that the neighbour wants to use that path as a path, or they wouldn't have removed it. 

ThisIsWeird

pobjoy said:

Unfortunately, in my case the Land Registry map is pretty vague. It doesn't explicitly show the path:



(The strange bicolour plot reflects the fact that the previous owners acquired the freehold to the blue bit a few years after they purchased the house)

Whoa! "On the first day their contractors removed a shared concrete path that defined the boundary between our front gardens..." Where did that come from? Where is there any suggestion that this old concrete path, which does not appear in the LR map, determines - in any way - where the boundary lies?

That LR map does not show the path, no, but it does show where the boundary between your two houses lies - which is exactly where you'd expect, in the centre of your two symmetrical houses. And, it shows a continuation of that exact boundary line to the kerb, at the known jaunty angle. That boundary line does not step sideways as it leaves your house front.

The earlier photo of the front of your house makes it 100% easy to determine where your two houses join, which is almost certainly a few inches to the left of the DP. Like this:

And, from this unambiguous boundary line, that same thin black boundary line goes off at that slant, in a straight line, towards the kerb. The old concrete path would appear to be entirely within your curtilage - by a country mile.

I suspect your neighbour has robbed you more than you realise. And I suspect your neighbour may be starting to realise this - perhaps their solicitor has pointed it out?

You both seemingly have 'rights' over strips of each other's land, but that's it. The actual path, and the land surrounding it on both sides, may very well be yours.

Then there's this, which appears to be inaccurate - the colours have been displaced towards the right (their 'red' should be tight against the true black boundary line, for example). I haven't shifted the bottom tricolour, but you can work out what it would mean if I did; the path would largely disappear over to your side. 

All the plans - Deeds, Council, LR, etc - seem to indicate that your boundary line slopes down to meet the kerb very close to where a line taken from the side of your neighbour's house would join. That leaves your neighbour with a pitiful triangle of land:

So, I think your neighbour may have shot themselves in the foot. From what I see here, your neighbour does not have ownership of a half-strip of that path, but only a RoW over it. That path would appear to lie entirely within your curtilage, comfortably. They haven't encroached over their RoW on your path, but have completely engulfed your path and part of your land with it.

May I ask where you got the information that suggested the path marked the boundary? Or that the boundary ran down the centre of that path? Or anything like that? Is there any map or plan which shows the actual boundary line dog-legging over your side as it leaves the front of your property, before it then sets off towards the kerb? 

Based on whether you have such info that would counter what I've said, you may need to consider getting a Land Surveyor in to accurately determine where the true boundary lies, as this neighb may well be taking the Mick, and a lot more of your land than you think.

Meanwhile, you do now have LegProt added? Good. Should your neighb try any tricks regarding your Septic Tank, for example, you'll need this - but there's no reason to suspect they will. But any issues arising from this new resin drive - if the neighbour clearly starts parking over what you believe to be true boundary line, then hopefully your LP will fire off a warning shot, as this is a new issue.

Things to do? Don't let an impasse become the new Status Quo. Your neighbour might well be considering they've got away with what they've done, and may try just letting it be - knowing that they may be seriously stuffed if they push it. You cannot allow this - you need to keep making it clear what is your land. I would:

1) Place a planter to the left of that water barrel on what is clearly your land. That won't interfere with their RoW even if they have one.

2) Continue to use that path, ideally when they are there to observe. Use your best-known boundary line - coming from that DP - as your guide. They will see it as you coming over on to their land - enjoy telling them that, without a boundary mark to indicate to the contrary, you actually believe the 'true boundary to be coming as a straight line from that DP to there' - and watch them pale.

3) Challenge any vehicle that has - as far as you suspect - come over the true boundary line. Visibly take photos.

4) Do as S62 outlined - take accurate and detailed measurements, in a fully recorded manner, of reference points that cannot be challenged.

5) Make it obvious you are recording trespasses; if their car is parked poorly, then go to the kerb, and take a low shot towards where your house boundary is (ie, slightly to the left of the DP), showing that the vehicles are over that line.

6) I'd install a 'maskable' CCTV camera covering the outside, setting the mask over their side of the best known boundary line.

7) Consider a reply to their solicitor - valid points, but run up their bills. Perhaps point out that you suspect their trespass has been significantly greater than originally assumed (leave them guessing at what you mean by this). Point out that there is now no demarcation line, and that you therefore will find it impossible to determine at which point you may trespass over their property. Similarly, for them - how can they ensure that they are not trespassing over your property, on foot or with their vehicles? And, you may wish to add pressure by making it clear that any further false claims by them over this issue (such as their denial that the parking surface had encroached on your land) will be greeted very poorly by you, and could well terminate any discussion; you insist on honesty and clarity. (But, be clear about all that kind of stuff in your own head - and with advice). 

Collate everything that has taken place so far. Important ones that'll help you should this escalate, include that you warned them of the issue before they went ahead. That you have offered mediation, and they declined (very pooor show, that).

And please let me emphasise - with any agreement you may reach with them, it mustn't have them coming over the mid-point of your two houses, as the resin currently does. It just mustn't. Any new agreed boundary must start as a straight and perpendicular line from your house, before then going off at whatever angle you agree on. And what you agree on is entirely up to you. You may even decide that a completely straight boundary is the way to go! In which case that would cost them well in excess of, what, £10-15k? They are currently throwing that money away on stupid legal costs.

Twits.

Section62

RHemmings said:

Section62 said:

RHemmings said:

Would it be possible to claim the strip experimentally first by putting a few narrow-enough planters on it to only be on the OP's side? 

The experiment would be to see if the neighbour moves them, or leaves them there. Then, if they stay there, more permanent measures such as studs. 

Neither the OP nor the neighbour can put things on the RoW as that would be obstructing it.  Even if the objects are wholly on the OP's side of the boundary line it would still interfere with the neighbour's right to use that strip of land as a RoW.

Technically they can't, but physically they can and see if the neighbour objects. There seems to be no indication that the neighbour wants to use that path as a path, or they wouldn't have removed it. 

Not just 'technically', they would be legally wrong to do that.  It indication is the neighbour wants to incorporate what was a shared path into their own driveway.

The OP is in a legal dispute with the neighbour, at the moment they are (or at least appear to be) the party which has been legally wronged by the neighbour and have done nothing wrong themselves.

Doing something unlawful in response - particularly only to see if the neighbour objects - will give the neighbour ammunition to use against the OP.  It would be a case of shooting oneself in the foot to hand the neighbour the opportunity to do so.

And it could get worse - unlawfully putting obstructions on the RoW gives the neighbour the opportunity to have a 'trip' or 'fall'.  The resulting PI claim could cost the OP (say) a six-figure sum - with very little in the way of defence because they clearly knew the neighbour had a right to use the RoW.  Without legal expenses cover, and deliberately doing something the OP should know was wrong, there is no guarantee the OP's insurer would be sympathetic towards the OP's position, potentially leaving them personally exposed.

If you are in a dispute with a neighbour one of the worst things you can do is play tit-for-tat games.