We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Fence Ownership (yes I know It's a tricky one)
Comments
-
Not sure you got the point.
The neighbouring property's original left-hand boundary is now the OP's left-hand boundary. The status of the boundary between the OP and the neighbour is whatever was agreed when the OP's plot was split from the neighbour's. It could be either or neither. Any kind of "convention" is irrelevant.
0 -
Our property is a bit of a nightmare as it not only borders 4 properties, but we are responsible for 3 of the 4 fences. Although there was also a boundary swap before we moved in between the previous neighbours, the deeds were redrawn with new T marks and Our conveyancing solicitor wouldn't complete until he'd seen the deeds. Our neighbour to the right came round to demand we pay for new fencing. Considering she demanded we take a tree down as it was dropping leaves on her driveway ( we live opposite woods!) which I pointed out she hadn't offered to contribute to, I took great delight in showing her the deeds confirming she owned the fences which didn't need replacing and we would not be contributing financially.
She now comes round to complain every time Amaz0n or Evr1 deliver a parcel by mistake to her. There's a reason some people live alone......😉
2 -
We have hedges, and they are an awful lot of work. But, they look nice. I'm not sure I'd take that hassle on just to save the cost of a fence.
No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?2 -
I get that.
The convention is of neighbourliness. In a row of houses, there will almost always be an accepted order, written in the deeds or no, such as with the other houses in this case - all look after their LH fence. That's the 'convention' here.
In the absence of any written indication in the deeds - and all that's there are ambiguous T marks on the neighb's side, but even then usually impossible to enforce - neighbourly 'convention' directs neighbourly folk to follow the acknowledged convention.
Based on what we are told, the OP does not at all need to look after this fence.
One of the end properties in each row will almost certainly have two fences to look after - that's the price of having an end row property. I've never heard of this conventional responsibility of the end property being delegated to the next one along, which appears to be what the neighbour is attempting here.
By any 'convention', the neighbour here appears to be wrong.
It's up to the OP what to do about it.
0 -
My house is in an avenue that was originally divided into plots and sold individually. Most of my neighbours houses were built in the 1920s leaving just 2 plots, one being mine, which were developed in the 1970s. My house has no T's to indicate that any of the boundaries are my responsibility. I have no idea if any of my neighbours do.
However we all get along really well and on one side one neighbour was having trouble with a very large privet hedge interfering with their drains. We had a chat and agreed to get rid of the hedge and put a fence in and we shared the cost and because we worked together we had a double sided fence put in so we both had the "nice side". A few years later a wall between me and my other neighbour blew over in the gales. I never even asked my other neighbour to share the cost because it was not a wall he could even see as he had a hedge in front of it, but he came around and asked me how much it was going to cost to rebuild which wasn't too bad as all the bricks were reusable and he came around with half the cash.
I think my message is that while you have no responsibility sometimes it's good for future relationships to consider contributing to the cost in the interests of maintaining good relationships, especially if this is going to be your home for a long time
4 -
That's a nice outcome.
Now, if the first neighbour had instead come over and insisted, on no evidenced basis, that the privet hedge was yours, and to remove it and replace it with a timber fence, and, "By the way, make sure I have a good side ..", would that have made any difference? :-)
0 -
That in fact had happened with the previous owner and why the hedge was still there as the previous owner had incorrectly stated the hedge was theirs and refused to remove it. That gave me the thought that no T existed on their side either. My neighbour was actually happy to pay for the lot and it was my idea to share the cost. But to answer your question I would have gone as far as sharing the cost but I may not have gone as far as paying for the lot. Having said that I hated the hedge and it was huge and was going to be hard for me to maintain so I would have had to pay someone to look after it so at some point I would have wanted it down anyway and would likely have paid for the lot to achieve it
1 -
I wonder what the neighbour's Legal Protection would have to say about this "convention". My guess is it would be difficult to hear them for the mirth.
There - is - no - convention.
Neighbours might informally agree amongst themselves each will look after their left-hand boundary or whatever, but that carries next to no legal weight.
One of the end properties in each row will almost certainly have two fences to look after - that's the price of having an end row property. I've never heard of this conventional responsibility of the end property being delegated to the next one along, which appears to be what the neighbour is attempting here.
I'd suggest you've not experienced many boundary disputes - and never hearing of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
If responsibility for a boundary is legally defined, it is usually the person selling the land who gets to decide. Sometimes that process is organic (for example in a village where land has been sold by the Manor over a period of centuries and then sub-divided) and sometimes more structured (for example a developer builds a whole street).
The theory you've put forward about end properties is more likely to happen in the latter case, but there is no law or rule which dictates an end property having to be made responsible for two boundaries. It is down to the whim of whoever gets the job to decide when the title is created/split. An end property having responsibility for two boundaries is common, but not the only way to do it. Sometimes it is a property somewhere in the middle that gets the luxury of the two. Sometimes a property will have none.
Who gets to have responsibility for which boundary is more or less random, it is not by any form of "convention".
But the bit which is important for the OP's situation is the person selling a portion of land away from their own is the one who usually gets to decide responsibility for their common boundary at the point the sale takes place. Regardless of whatever else happens in the street, the neighbourhood, the town, responsibility for the boundary between the OP's plot and the neighbouring plot (theirs used to be part of), was likely a decision made by or on behalf of the original owner. What happens elsewhere is just noise and not relevant to the issue here.
This is why it is important for the OP to search out the agreement made when the new plot was created. That - legally - will be 99% of what matters in this case.
0 -
No need to be rude.
I've explained what I mean by 'convention'. GGirl has explained the convention she and her neighbs have adopted, and it's nicely different to the OP's (afawk).
Have I made any reference to calling up LegProt and citing 'conventions'?
In a row of properties, there is almost always an accepted conven…, er, arrangement/agreement/plan of who looks after which fence. One of the end properties will almost certainly have the honour of looking after two. And my sheltered life has no bearing on that.
You disagree with this?
0 -
You disagree with this?
Yes.
I've explained already how ownership/responsibility for boundaries on a street develops (over time) legally. It has nothing to do with "convention".
Yet despite this you continue to mislead other forum members by asserting that responsibility for the boundary between the OP and the problematic neighbour can be determined by some form of "convention".
That is misleading because no such "convention" exists. Responsibility - if any exists - would be the product of a legal agreement. If there is no legal agreement then there is no responsibility, save for the cases where there is a separate duty to contain animals (e.g. dogs).
The previous owner of the neighbouring plot could - legally - have made the OP's plot responsible for maintaining the common boundary, absolutely regardless of what else happens on that street. In my experience that would be the more likely scenario because the vendor would want to pass liability and expense to the buyer… but the reverse can also be true. Either way, the neighbour could have valid reason for thinking the OP has responsibility for the boundary - and that doesn't make the neighbour "an arris".
Legal responsibility won't be based on urban myths or "convention". It will be in a legal agreement, or non-existent.
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 355.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 456.2K Spending & Discounts
- 248.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 606K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 179K Life & Family
- 263.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards