Being pressured to contribute towards fence
Options
Comments
-
People don't own boundaries; they share them.SavvySaver24 wrote: »Surely it comes down to whose boundary it is?.
Someone may, or may not, have a responsibility for marking a particular boundary, but the means of doing this is usually optional.0 -
It is made quite clear in our plans who owns which boundaries... we certainly don't 'share' them. Each house 'owns' one fence.0
-
That's the fence (or wall, or hedge that replaces it)...
It's not the boundary, which is a concept!0 -
Well, no because my plans show the boundary line that each person is responsible for... the plans don't show if that is a wall, fence, hedge. That "boundary" maintenance is down to whoever owns that. So in the OPs instance if the neighbour owned the boundary between him and her then it is his full responsibility to pay - not shared!0
-
Now you are saying what I said, but leaving out the word 'marking.'SavvySaver24 wrote: »..... my plans show the boundary line that each person is responsible for marking.... the plans don't show if that is a wall, fence, hedge.
It's a line on the plan, but in the real world it's a shared concept, as Dafty says. i.e. the place where two parties agree their properties end.
One may use a wall, fence, hedge etc to show where the boundary is, but it is not the boundary itself, especially as it may sit to one side of the imaginary line.0 -
Boundaries are shown on plans as belonging to a certain house. The physical structure on that boundary line is therefore owned by that house. You couldn't tear down someones fence if it was on their boundary (i.e. marked on the plans as theirs).0
-
Responsibility for maintaining a boundary feature, like a fence, may be shown on a title plan, but more often than not, it isn't.SavvySaver24 wrote: »Boundaries are shown on plans as belonging to a certain house. The physical structure on that boundary line is therefore owned by that house. You couldn't tear down someones fence if it was on their boundary (i.e. marked on the plans as theirs).
Just because your title plan is like that, doesn't mean everyone else sees a similar thing on theirs. Usually, deeds are silent on this.
I agree one can't tear down a fence that someone else has erected, if it's in the right place.
None of that changes the fact that a boundary isn't a physical thing, just a place where two parties agree their land ends, which may be marked by a physical thing like a wall, fence or hedge, either on it, or maybe on one side of it.
It's like county boundaries etc etc.
Edit: this is my last word on this fairly uncontroversial topic.0 -
SavvySaver24 wrote: »Boundaries are shown on plans as belonging to a certain house. The physical structure on that boundary line is therefore owned by that house. You couldn't tear down someones fence if it was on their boundary (i.e. marked on the plans as theirs).
This is not correct.
A boundary is an imaginary line of no thickness. It is therefore not possible for one property to “own” it. You own the land up to this line on your side and your neighbour owns the land up to the line on their side. The boundary is therefore simply the point where the two properties meet.
Deeds may specify who has the responsibility to maintain a boundary, not who owns it. It may also contain covenants stipulating the maintenance of a specific boundary feature along the boundary (eg a fence or hedge). It may also specify nothing whatsoever.
Unless the deeds explicitly mention a boundary feature there is usually no requirement to maintain one. There’s also nothing stopping either party from putting up a fence along their side of the boundary.
It is generally accepted that the owner of the fence is the person who pays for it but that the fence should be placed on their side of the boundary.
Some parties may treat a fence as a “party fence” and share the cost and consider the fence to be on/astride the boundary line rather than either side of it.
It’s very hard to prove ownership of old fences and it’s also very difficult to prove the precise location of a boundary to within a small margin which is why these disputes often arise. Therefore it’s often best that neighbours come to an agreement before any work is done on a boundary feature where there is some doubt over the ownership.
IMO the neighbour has no grounds for claiming any money from OP without formal agreement and I hope they win their case.0 -
scrappy_doo1 wrote: »After you first spoke to him ,he should have came back to you with a figure of how much it will cost before going ahead .
The first time the neighbour spoke to me was the day before the fence was replaced. There was no discussion about costs involved.SavvySaver24 wrote: »Surely it comes down to whose boundary it is? If my neighbour to the right (the fence is his) wanted to replace it, I certainly wouldn't pay any cost towards that.
Equally, the fence to the left of me (mine) would be replaced at my cost nut only when or if I wanted it to be.
It is perfectly legal to have a boundary with no fence whatsoever. If the neighbour chose to purchase a fence and put in on the boundary, regardless of who owns the boundary, that's his issue, not mine.0 -
It seems that the OP has lost the court case because they got they dates wrong for their day in court and their defence was struck out for a no show.
The OP also had 14 days to pay but only got the letter today and the letter was dated 1/04/2019.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards