Party Wall Query

WIAWSNB

Section62 said:

Not clear whether the neighbour is claiming ownership of the wall, nor that it is a party wall.  But what the OP did say is the neighbour is "citing the party wall act".

If CD is a party wall then works of a possibly structural nature to the wall along the red line may fall under the PWA provisions.

It would be better for the OP to speak to a PWS themselves to clarify the situation, rather than getting antsy with the neighbour and goading them into appointing their own PWS.

Also needs some clarification on why EF is also a party wall, and who owns the structure which is surrounded on three sides by the OP's property.

BIB 1: Yes, I did assume that the neighb was claiming some shared - or party - 'right' over the red-highlighted stretch. 

BIB 2: Possibly, but really quite a stretch for the neighbour to shout PWA when it's an unconnected and "small" retaining wall for the garden, which the OP's builder just "planned to strengthen".

Perhaps Pen could clarify what, exactly, the issue is?

grumpy_codger

WIAWSNB said:

grumpy_codger said:
Typically, a retaining wall belongs to the higher-level property that soil it retains. If so, so does the wall built on the retaining wall. 

I think the person on whose land the retaining wall actually sits owns it, be it higher or lower. Unless the deeds state otherwise.

I agree. Although looking at the title plan it's difficult to establish the exact position of the  bondary (it's not even a straight line), this can be possible. 
Interestingly, it's a wall (double line) in the plan, not a boundary line. And if you zoom it in, the wall starts to the left of the next house wall line, where the yellow (shared) path is.

WIAWSNB

What's in the yellow gap between 102 & 104, Pen? And could you show us all the associated text on that page, please, and in any other part of the deeds.

Section62

WIAWSNB said:

What's in the yellow gap between 102 & 104, Pen? And could you show us all the associated text on that page, please, and in any other part of the deeds.

It should be a covered passageway at ground floor level, with foul and surface water sewers underground, as well as a (possibly later addition) water supply pipe which goes to the outbuildings.  104 102 likely owns the freehold, and probably has bedrooms above the passageway.

Edit: house numbers wrong way round.

grumpy_codger

Section62 said:

WIAWSNB said:

What's in the yellow gap between 102 & 104, Pen? And could you show us all the associated text on that page, please, and in any other part of the deeds.

It should be a covered passageway at ground floor level, with foul and surface water sewers underground, as well as a (possibly later addition) water supply pipe which goes to the outbuildings.  104 likely owns the freehold, and probably has bedrooms above the passageway.

In fact, in this case a part of 102 is above the passageway.

WIAWSNB

Section62 said:

It should be a covered passageway at ground floor level, with foul and surface water sewers underground, as well as a (possibly later addition) water supply pipe which goes to the outbuildings.  104 likely owns the freehold, and probably has bedrooms above the passageway.

Ah, that would explain why the OP's wall there is a 'party' type. 

Section62

grumpy_codger said:

Section62 said:

WIAWSNB said:

What's in the yellow gap between 102 & 104, Pen? And could you show us all the associated text on that page, please, and in any other part of the deeds.

It should be a covered passageway at ground floor level, with foul and surface water sewers underground, as well as a (possibly later addition) water supply pipe which goes to the outbuildings.  104 likely owns the freehold, and probably has bedrooms above the passageway.

In fact, in this case a part of 102 is above the passageway.

Thanks, I meant 102 but typed 104.  The red line boundary would be on the other side of the passageway if 104 owned it.

WIAWSNB

So, the two obviously 'party' walls are marked as such, leaving EF which I presume are garages, so ditto there.
The garden boundaries are 'marked' only as 104's responsibility, but with no associated text to clarify. 
The boundary in question also appears to be in line with 102's main house - sans passageway - so where is the retaining wall in relation to this?

And what does the neighbour want and expect - a particular type of finish?

Anyhoo, try and clarify what the neighbour is actually claiming, and why. If he's suggesting that this garden boundary is a 'party' type, then show him the deeds plan above, and his if you have a copy, and ask him nicely to explain how he comes to that conclusion. If, against what it suggests in both sets of deeds, he still claims 'party' and wants an unreasonable say in the retaining wall, then see if he's happy to pay half towards it; he cannot have it both ways.

If he's a clearly unreasonable fellow, and claims 'right's' he cannot evidence, whilst also refusing a (50%) contribution towards it, then you may need to just inform him you are going ahead with the work on the basis of ownership as indicated in the deeds map, coupled with the principle of it usually being the retained land that has the ret-wall responsibility. And, since it's on your land, you intend to continue; if he interferes, he'll be trespassing.

If he still disagrees, then inform him that the 'correct' thing for him to do is engage a surveyor - but that you certainly aren't going to waste your money on anything like this when you believe the deeds maps are unambiguous. It's entirely up to him to prove his otherwise erroneous claim.

If he threatens to physically interfere with your builder, I suggest you have two basic options; the first is to just call the police once your builder is there; they won't 'take sides' in the actual dispute, but should have a quick look at what's going on, and inform the neighbour firmly that he mustn't physically interfere, but should take the correct legal action 'if he truly believes he has a case'. You can demonstrate that you've taken all reasonable steps to come to an agreement; "I've shown him the deeds map - see? - that's 'party', but this one isn't - and I've even offered to go 'party' - if he contributes half. And I've told him the correct thing is to engage a surveyor. He has accepted none of this, but just threatened to interfere..."

Or, if you are reluctant to proceed with the wall on the basis you don't want a 'scene', then put in writing a brief account of the situation, what you have offered to do based on the deeds, and that he is preventing this from taking place. He will therefore be directly liable when the wall fails even further, or collapses. Give him that in a recordable way. Oh, and also record any conversation you have with him.

Section62

WIAWSNB said:

So, the two obviously 'party' walls are marked as such, leaving EF which I presume are garages, so ditto there.
The garden boundary is 'marked' only as 104's responsibility, but with no associated text to clarify. 
That boundary line also appears to be in line with 102's main house - sans passageway - so where is the retaining wall in relation to this?
And what does the neighbour expect - a particular type of finish?

They are (or were) probably privies (i.e. having a water supply) or coal sheds.  EF is a party wall with the one which seems to be owned by 106.

From the EA pictures and the OP's "At the bottom of the wall is a small retaining wall" comment, I think it is a case of having a brick wall which retains a (small?) amount of soil on the OP's side.  If I were the neighbour I'd want to understand what the repairs involve and whether the result will be durable.

The other thing is the plan the OP has posted may not be correct. It shows 106 having no rear garden - which may have been the case at some point in time (though unusual for Victorian terraces like this) - but doesn't represent the current situation.  The lack of text to go with the 'T' mark might be related to whatever has led to the plan not showing the boundaries as they appear to be today.

WIAWSNB

Section62 said:

From the EA pictures and the OP's "At the bottom of the wall is a small retaining wall" comment, I think it is a case of having a brick wall which retains a (small?) amount of soil on the OP's side.  If I were the neighbour I'd want to understand what the repairs involve and whether the result will be durable.

Of course.

In which case, there's no case. 

What we've been told is, "The landlord is now trying to dictate exactly how the wall is repaired citing the party wall act, adding considerable cost."