My ongoing boundary dispute ordeal/odyssey (advice sought)

Section62

ThisIsWeird said:

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?

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?

I don't think there is evidence to support that.

My expectation would be for the boundary to extend from the party wall perpendicular across the front path (~1.5m?), and only then turn at an angle.  That would mean your conjectured black boundary line is wrong.

It is difficult to be sure from the pictures, but it appears to me the centreline of the angled path intersects with the projected partywall line approximately where the front edge of the path along the facade would be.  That would make sense from a practical point of view - each property owns their front path, and half the (angled) shared path down to the road.

The image below isn't at a sufficiently large scale, but hints the boundary might be a continuation of the partywall line, before going off at an angle.

Bear in mind Land Registry plans usually only show an indicative boundary, and the OS mapping shows what the surveyor 'sees' on an aerial photograph.

ThisIsWeird said:

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

I'd be cautious with this - the true extent of the RoW needs to be confirmed before assuming the path to the left has no Row for the neighbour.

LA's typically use a generic/standard contract for disposal of council property, and they often contain generic clauses about rights to use paths, utilities, drainage etc.  Although the neighbour has no obvious need to use the path along the front of the OP's house, that doesn't mean they don't have the right.  TBH it would be best not to put any obstructions on paths - it is asking for trouble and doesn't help resolve the core issue.

ThisIsWeird said:

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.

As above, I think this is just an optical illusion.  It would help if the OP could post some more pictures of how the path(s) are arranged closer to the house.

I think what you are proposing as a boundary is probably what it is already.

Titus_Wadd

OP I'd second the warning against doing anything that gives the other party an inch of moral high ground.  I would say, though, that it is very difficult at times to keep turning the other cheek.  We've been "playing the long game" of ridiculous reasonableness for 5 years.  It's not easy.  

A cautionary tale: Our legal protection insurance underwrote over £50k of legal action - it resolved nothing but at least we'd only spent around £8K of our own money on legal advice beforehand.  No one won or lost because the judge refused to hear the case because there was an admin error in submitting the substantive case having been awarded an injunction without notice, meaning we, as applicants were liable for the fees of both sides.  So the legal protection paid dearly for their admin mistake.  We paid dearly too because the neighbours from hell think they have won.  Legal protection is not a silver bullet.  We could resubmit the case because it wasn't heard but that would be at our expense.

We are now reliant on the police bringing an effective harassment case (I'm not confident), to stop the harassment aspect.  As well as the harassment charge there is an on-going 4 year issue with a blocked right of way which, as a scenario, more closely resembles the OP's case.  I'm not sure when or how we are going back to court because we can't sell up and move out with a significant obstacle on the right of way.  

OP, get everything in writing; if you discuss anything in person get the other party to agree what was said via email.  Get a door cam or similar (we have cheap Blink cameras all around our house) and train it on the right of way, as you understand it, to capture your continued use of the RoW, if you capture anything else it may or may not be useful in a court case.  Explain that you are not directly filming them or their property.  It's to boost security for both houses. With Blink the clips auto-delete after 30 days to comply with the rules about data storage.  If there is a valid reason for storing a clip you can download and save them longer. Ideally you won't need to go to court but it is worth staying squeaky clean just in case and play the long-game.  It's blummin hard to not react pettily!  Hopefully you'll come and update this thread going forward with positive news.

ThisIsWeird

Section62 said:

I don't think there is evidence to support that.

My expectation would be for the boundary to extend from the party wall perpendicular across the front path (~1.5m?), and only then turn at an angle.  That would mean your conjectured black boundary line is wrong.

ThisIsWeird said:

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

I'd be cautious with this - the true extent of the RoW needs to be confirmed before assuming the path to the left has no Row for the neighbour.

LA's typically use a generic/standard contract for disposal of council property, and they often contain generic clauses about rights to use paths, utilities, drainage etc.  Although the neighbour has no obvious need to use the path along the front of the OP's house, that doesn't mean they don't have the right.  TBH it would be best not to put any obstructions on paths - it is asking for trouble and doesn't help resolve the core issue.

ThisIsWeird said:

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.

As above, I think this is just an optical illusion.  It would help if the OP could post some more pictures of how the path(s) are arranged closer to the house.

I think what you are proposing as a boundary is probably what it is already.

I take on board what you say.

Unless the OP knows differently, tho', then it could be fingers crossed time.

This image, tho', does seem to suggest that the resin drive has come very significantly over the OP's frontage:

Pobjoy, is that as it appears - does their black paved edging go right up to your house wall?

Any chance of taking some pics straight-on to your house, so that your, and your neighb's, respective gardens can be viewed at the same time?

And, could you post the actual wording in your deeds (and ideally your neighb's) that refer to what each has as a RightofWay over this land?

Section62

ThisIsWeird said:

Section62 said:

ThisIsWeird said:

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.

As above, I think this is just an optical illusion.  It would help if the OP could post some more pictures of how the path(s) are arranged closer to the house.

I think what you are proposing as a boundary is probably what it is already.

I take on board what you say.

Unless the OP knows differently, tho', then it could be fingers crossed time.

This image, tho', does seem to suggest that the resin drive has come very significantly over the OP's frontage:

Actually, I think you are probably right that the resin crosses over the boundary near the house, but only by half the width of the path.

If the OP insisted that none of the resin surface could be on their side of the boundary then it would lead to the slightly strange situation where the type of material changes in the middle of the path.  Although that works fine on wide driveways, having a 'path' which is 50/50 one material and another is going to look unusual.  Personally I'd be willing to let the resin stay (although making it clear I won't pay for a future replacement on their whim) provided the boundary line is clearly marked by something like the studs I suggested the other day.

ThisIsWeird

Titus_Wadd said:

OP I'd second the warning against doing anything that gives the other party an inch of moral high ground.  I would say, though, that it is very difficult at times to keep turning the other cheek.  We've been "playing the long game" of ridiculous reasonableness for 5 years.  It's not easy.  

A cautionary tale: Our legal protection insurance underwrote over £50k of legal action - it resolved nothing but at least we'd only spent around £8K of our own money on legal advice beforehand.  No one won or lost because the judge refused to hear the case because there was an admin error in submitting the substantive case having been awarded an injunction without notice, meaning we, as applicants were liable for the fees of both sides.  So the legal protection paid dearly for their admin mistake.  We paid dearly too because the neighbours from hell think they have won.  Legal protection is not a silver bullet.  We could resubmit the case because it wasn't heard but that would be at our expense.

We are now reliant on the police bringing an effective harassment case (I'm not confident), to stop the harassment aspect.  As well as the harassment charge there is an on-going 4 year issue with a blocked right of way which, as a scenario, more closely resembles the OP's case.  I'm not sure when or how we are going back to court because we can't sell up and move out with a significant obstacle on the right of way.  

OP, get everything in writing; if you discuss anything in person get the other party to agree what was said via email.  Get a door cam or similar (we have cheap Blink cameras all around our house) and train it on the right of way, as you understand it, to capture your continued use of the RoW, if you capture anything else it may or may not be useful in a court case.  Explain that you are not directly filming them or their property.  It's to boost security for both houses. With Blink the clips auto-delete after 30 days to comply with the rules about data storage.  If there is a valid reason for storing a clip you can download and save them longer. Ideally you won't need to go to court but it is worth staying squeaky clean just in case and play the long-game.  It's blummin hard to not react pettily!  Hopefully you'll come and update this thread going forward with positive news.

Your LepProt messed up?! Oh dear :-(

You are absolutely right in your advice; the OP here has done all the right things, from warning them of a potential issue before the event, to offering mediation. The neighbour poo-pooed both. The OP has continued to behave beyond reproach.
The neighb has gone on to simply deny the almost-certainly true situation as being the case. A triple-barreled shotgun was seemingly used, aimed at their own feet.
This would have been a perfect case for LegProt (a competent outfit, mind...)

ThisIsWeird

Section62 said:

ThisIsWeird said:

Section62 said:

ThisIsWeird said:

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.

As above, I think this is just an optical illusion.  It would help if the OP could post some more pictures of how the path(s) are arranged closer to the house.

I think what you are proposing as a boundary is probably what it is already.

I take on board what you say.

Unless the OP knows differently, tho', then it could be fingers crossed time.

This image, tho', does seem to suggest that the resin drive has come very significantly over the OP's frontage:

Actually, I think you are probably right that the resin crosses over the boundary near the house, but only by half the width of the path.

If the OP insisted that none of the resin surface could be on their side of the boundary then it would lead to the slightly strange situation where the type of material changes in the middle of the path.  Although that works fine on wide driveways, having a 'path' which is 50/50 one material and another is going to look unusual.  Personally I'd be willing to let the resin stay (although making it clear I won't pay for a future replacement on their whim) provided the boundary line is clearly marked by something like the studs I suggested the other day.

As part of any deal, my first requirement would be to insist the new boundary line exited in a straight line from the exact mid point of the houses. 
Where it then goes is up to negotiation; jaunty angle - £5k, continued straight - £10k+
It would be no great hardship for a cut to be made, and the black edging taken at the new line. Any resin over the new boundary would be straightforward to remove, and worth it.
I really hope the OP does not entertain allowing the new boundary line to cross over his 'side'.

pobjoy

@ ThisIsWeird and Section62

I don't have a photo to hand, but the edge of the resin-and-brick surface starts at the shared downpipe, extending perpendicularly from the house fronts until it meets the hedge, then follows the western edge of what used to be the diagonal path down to the layby kerb.

If it had extended perpendicularly until it met the centreline of the path, then angled towards the road, there'd be less of a problem* as it would have followed what, all evidence indicates, to be the actual boundary. 

* This would still have rendered the deeds confusing, obscured the RoW, and destroyed a Council-owned section of the path!

While the deeds don't include the word path anywhere, clauses like this...

(From the 'Rights Reserved' section of my neighbours' deeds) "A right of way on foot only over the strip of land shown coloured blue on the plan..."

...in combination with the angle and position of the relevant boundary and strips on the LR plan and the old Council plan (which clearly shows the boundary within the path) mean other interpretations of the boundary position would be seriously perverse. The fact that the width of the access strips isn't specified in the deeds strongly suggests dimensions weren't necessary because the strips related to an existing  feature - the path.

The boundary studs idea is an interesting one. One of the three resolution ideas I put forward with the letter of claim for trespass, was a painted path (the path area would have been painted, at my neighbours expense, with a thick road-style paint in a mutually acceptable colour). I felt this was a very reasonable compromise on my part, but the neighbours didn't go for it. I guess I could try suggesting it again, if the land purchase doesn't happen.

@ Titus_Wadd

Your cautionary tale was much appreciated if a tad chilling! I hope your self control, patience, and resilience eventually pays off. As you say, playing the long game - resisting the temptation to hit back in petty ways - can be awfully hard at times.

Section62

ThisIsWeird said:

Section62 said:

Actually, I think you are probably right that the resin crosses over the boundary near the house, but only by half the width of the path.

If the OP insisted that none of the resin surface could be on their side of the boundary then it would lead to the slightly strange situation where the type of material changes in the middle of the path.  Although that works fine on wide driveways, having a 'path' which is 50/50 one material and another is going to look unusual.  Personally I'd be willing to let the resin stay (although making it clear I won't pay for a future replacement on their whim) provided the boundary line is clearly marked by something like the studs I suggested the other day.

As part of any deal, my first requirement would be to insist the new boundary line exited in a straight line from the exact mid point of the houses. 
Where it then goes is up to negotiation; jaunty angle - £5k, continued straight - £10k+
It would be no great hardship for a cut to be made, and the black edging taken at the new line. Any resin over the new boundary would be straightforward to remove, and worth it.
I really hope the OP does not entertain allowing the new boundary line to cross over his 'side'.

That's the bit we'd differ on - there's not much point in digging up an area of perfectly good paving to replace it with a different kind of paving, just to make a point.  So long as the boundary is clearly marked there's nothing to be gained by forcing the neighbour to remove and replace this surfacing - sure, use it as a negotiating tactic, but money they spend on redoing the surface is money they can't be giving to you to settle the matter. (these days with surfacing materials it is also worth considering the CO2 that would be produced for very little practical benefit)

Looking at it another way, if this was just the old concrete path which needed replacing to the same dimensions as it was (i.e. completely forgetting the neighbour's driveway) - how would you go about agreeing the shared responsibility to resurface/replace the path?  If the neighbour wanted resin and you were happy with concrete would you still insist 'your half' was redone in concrete, to sit alongside the neighbour's half in resin?  Or would you accept resin for the whole width of the path, provided the neighbour paid the whole of the increased costs?

The latter is effectively what the OP has got - the neighbour has kindly replaced the old concrete path with a nice resin one, entirely at their own cost.  The only thing missing is a clear demarcation of the boundary... which ought to be achievable for £50 or so.

pobjoy

I'd be unsympathetic to any compromise that left the black edging brick on my land visible or in situ. Because they hem the entire resined area they, visually at least, imply that the whole area belongs to No.10.   

Section62

pobjoy said:

...

The boundary studs idea is an interesting one. One of the three resolution ideas I put forward with the letter of claim for trespass, was a painted path (the path area would have been painted, at my neighbours expense, with a thick road-style paint in a mutually acceptable colour). I felt this was a very reasonable compromise on my part, but the neighbours didn't go for it. I guess I could try suggesting it again, if the land purchase doesn't happen.

I feel I'm a reasonable person, but you wouldn't get me to agree to put road marking 'paint' down on my drive/path.  It would make the front gardens look like an industrial estate.

Not sure what your plans are in the future in terms of selling up, but bear in mind 'kerb appeal' and also the impact of neighbour disputes on the ability to sell a property at market value.

As a would-be buyer I think I'd be less concerned about the loss of, or ambiguity over, a RoW which I don't really need, vs having a very clear statement "there is a neighbour dispute here" of having the path delineated in such an obvious way it cannot be missed by anyone.

If you meant painting the whole width of the path rather than just a thin boundary line then you'd need them to use a very good quality (read expensive) anti-slip paint - as painted surfaces are lethally slippery when wet/icy, and particularly dangerous when sloping as in your case.