nasty neighbour building a wall....my rights ?
graham
in this case ?
My arrogant neighbour, has decided to build a dividing wall between
our 2 front gardens and has already begun by ripping down the the old
fencing (which was half mine by the way, but he never consulted me
before going ahead).
Now, I believe he is intending to build it so that the outer edge will
be bang on the dividing line between the two gardens, but if i'm not
mistaken (and i'm not a builder, so i'm not sure), don't the
foundations for the wall have to be significantly wider than the wall
itself ?
In which case, how can the wall be built right to the line without the
foundations being partly in my garden ?
So far, i've not asked him about this (partly because he is a builder
and i'm not, and i might get my facts wrong and he WILL DEFINATELY run
rings around me if i'm not sure because he doesn't care much for other
peoples rights), but nor have I agreed to anything either, i've just
said absolutely nothing.
What i would like to do (sorry if this sounds a little devious), is
let him overstep the mark in such a way that I could force him to
knock it down. I know this may sound bad, but believe me this guy is
VERY disliked in the neighbourhood and VERY arrogant and cocky, so
perhaps it's about time someone pissed him off for a change.
So, what are my rights here, what are his rights ?
I look forward to help from anyone experienced in these matters.
GT
The3rd Earl Of Derby
> What i would like to do (sorry if this sounds a little devious), is
> let him overstep the mark in such a way that I could force him to
> knock it down. I know this may sound bad, but believe me this guy is
> VERY disliked in the neighbourhood and VERY arrogant and cocky, so
> perhaps it's about time someone pissed him off for a change.
>
> So, what are my rights here, what are his rights ?
>
> I look forward to help from anyone experienced in these matters.
>
> GT
The subject says "nasty neighbour building a wall", pot calling the kettle.
What are we talking here 1",2" overstepping? tsk I'd let him build it at
least it will get rid of the dilapidated fence.
--
Sir Benjamin Middlethwaite
Colin Wilson
> in this case ?
If its a newish house, there might be something in the deeds (a
restrictive covenant) forbidding walls being built, or anything over a
certain height...
--
Please add the word "newsgroup" in the subject line of personal emails
**** My email address includes "ngspamtrap" and "@btinternet.com" ****
Fentoozler
news:MPG.1e4c82ac5...@news.individual.net...
Try posting this to alt.uk.law and you'll get some sensible answers.
Angus
Weatherlawyer
graham wrote:
> I believe he is intending to build it so that the outer edge will
> be bang on the dividing line between the two gardens, but if i'm not mistaken the
> foundations for the wall have to be significantly wider than the wall itself ?
> In which case, how can the wall be built right to the line without the
> foundations being partly in my garden ?
As a rule of thumb it will need to be about a foot wide and in a trench
at least 18" deep. If he needs to get on your land to dig it -and he
will, even if he cuts it bang on the line, he will need your
permission.
He can not prevent you hosing your garden (bear in mind the current
state of resevoirs though) nor can he move any of your property if it
is up against the boundary.
I rather believe he aught to reimburse you for the lost plants. You'd
have a terrible job getting it. Stake a couple of lengths of
scaffolding planks along the boundary and load it with something he can
not move. Put a caravan, greenhouse, shed or some such there.
John
"graham" <gra...@kwikmall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dmp4u1tf8r4r4ptgk...@4ax.com...
Graham,
Firstly do you object to the wall or do you just want to cause problems for
your neighbour? If the latter I would strongly recommend against it. Most
neighbour disputes start with one neighbour doing something wrong, then the
other using that as an excuse to do the same and so on and so on until it
escalates out of control. Remember that if you come to sell your house you
will have to reveal any dispute and that will be enough to put many buyers
off.
If you are happy with the idea of a wall in principle (that presumably he is
willing to build at his own cost) then go and talk reaonably to him about
it. Is it a problem if the foundations are in your gardne if he makes good
any damage or you could do this easily yourself, thus making a minor
contribution to the new construction. Make sure you know your facts first -
look at your deeds or even better check out the position with your
solicitor.
Unless it says to the contrary in your deeds he should not encroach onto
your garden without your consent. I am not a litigator but believe it would
be very unusual for the court to order him to knock down the wall if there
was a minor encroachment and you had deliberately sat back and let it
happen - the courts don't like that.
Although it can be tempting to score points it is not usually worth it in
the long run.
Hope this helps.
Homer2911
graham wrote:
> Are there any knowledgable people here who can advise me of my rights
> in this case ?
>
> My arrogant neighbour, has decided to build a dividing wall between
> our 2 front gardens and has already begun by ripping down the the old
> fencing (which was half mine by the way, but he never consulted me
> before going ahead).
Have a look at the 'Neighbours from Hell' website at:
bill
> in this case ?
>
> My arrogant neighbour, has decided to build a dividing wall between
I would let him, especially if it looks nicer than the fence. For your
correct legal rights, go and see either the CAB or a solicitor. Do things
the correct way and you will get your own way - but will have to pay quite a
bit taking him to court. You're probably just as bad as him by the sound of
it.
wblakesx
drafting you. Perhaps you should get into on of the "background check"
websites or some other unexpected and more "devious" ( fire with fire)
instead of playing a game that he is probably well prepared for even if
it is within your rights to sledge down the wall the day after he
finishes, or on xmas eve or when he's got company etc. I've been in
similar circumstances. Or you could drag him into court for what he's
already done. Or you could use it as pressure to do things you want to
do.
good luck
George
news:dmp4u1tf8r4r4ptgk...@4ax.com:
Go to www.gardenlaw.co.uk - they will give you everything you need to
know - they are quite superb and very expert.
George
john2
If its more than 2m high he needs planning permission. Otherwise
there's nothing much to stop him, apart from local covenants.
However the fence belongs to the side with the posts normally, so he
can't just knock it down if it's yours. If you wanted to keep the fence
he would have to build the wall all on his land, and keep the fence too,
but that is getting ridiculous.
I have searched previously for advice on foundations, but failed to find
anything. Probably if you are adverse he would somehow have to
construct founds which didn't encroach on your land, but that is an
extreme case that shouldn't normally happen in a reasonable world.
john2
dg
Its just a technical consideration.
The Party Wall Act (PWA) will allow him to project foundations to your
side of the boundary
If you try to take action after the wall is built, then in the slim
chance that a court agrees with you, then all that will happen is that
he cuts off the projection foundation.
Your best chance of annoying him would be to insist that he follows the
PWA (if he is errecting a party fence wall as defined under the Act)
and he will occur additional costs of a surveyor, and you can appoint a
surveyor to at his cost too.
Or get an injunction now and sort out boundary issues, and compensation
for your fence.
But, legal action is going to cost you big time.
dg
Weatherlawyer
dg wrote:
> The Party Wall Act (PWA) will allow him to project foundations to your
> side of the boundary
It is not a party wall if one part of the party didn't get an invite
and disagrees with the venue.
> Your best chance of annoying him would be to insist that he follows the
> PWA (if he is errecting a party fence wall as defined under the Act)
> and he will occur additional costs of a surveyor, and you can appoint a
> surveyor to at his cost too.
If he insists that the Part Wall Act is followed (whatever the rules
are for that) then it shows he has reached an agreement of sorts. He'd
be better making sure he tells his neighbour in front of witnesses
exactly what it is that has got up his nose.
Peter Crosland
apply so do a search on that. If he is not amenable to discussing it
verbally then write a polite letter and send it by Special Delivery pointing
out the facts. Even if it does not stop him no it may well be useful as
evidence if things escalate.
--
Peter Crosland
Cicero
=================
The most sensible approach would be to accept the new wall as an enhancement
to your property. The neighbour is a builder so it's unlikely that he will
do a bad job and there will be no cost to you. You might be able to insist
that he repairs any damage caused by the intruding footings but this might
only be the cost of a few plants if the new wall is in a flowerbed rather
than a drive or footpath.
My neighbours were in a similar situation about a year ago. Their neighbour
(on the other side) built a dividing wall without consulting them. They're
actually quite pleased with the appearance of the wall and they're no longer
overlooked by the 'bad' neighbours.
Cic.
Sponix
<Weathe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>As a rule of thumb it will need to be about a foot wide and in a trench
>at least 18" deep. If he needs to get on your land to dig it -and he
>will, even if he cuts it bang on the line, he will need your
>permission.
However, permission to access the OPs property cannot reasonably be
refused.
>
Tony Hogarty
> My neighbours were in a similar situation about a year ago. Their
> neighbour (on the other side) built a dividing wall without consulting
> them. They're actually quite pleased with the appearance of the wall and
> they're no longer overlooked by the 'bad' neighbours.
We were in a similar situation a few years ago where the neighbours
installed a new fence down the drive. I thought he was going to explode
with rage when I thanked him for installing it as I had been planning to
do the same myself. No pleasing some people.
--
Regards
Tony
(Take out the garbage to reply)
Steve Walker
> graham <gra...@kwikmall.co.uk> wrote in
> news:dmp4u1tf8r4r4ptgk...@4ax.com:
>
>> Are there any knowledgable people here who can advise me of my
>> rights in this case ?
>
> Go to www.gardenlaw.co.uk - they will give you everything you
> need to know - they are quite superb and very expert.
seconded - especially the forum, quite amazing to read the difficulties some
people find themselves in
Dave Plowman (News)
graham <gra...@kwikmall.co.uk> wrote:
> My arrogant neighbour, has decided to build a dividing wall between
> our 2 front gardens and has already begun by ripping down the the old
> fencing (which was half mine by the way, but he never consulted me
> before going ahead).
It's unusual to have jointly owned fences. Mostly the ones to the right of
the property are yours, but the house deeds should show this. A clue would
be the fence posts - these should be on 'your' side of the fence which you
own - ie the best side faces your neighbour.
If it is a jointly owned one and he's replacing it with a nicely designed
and built brick wall I'd offer to pay toward it. And then maybe have an
input to its design. Being on bad terms with a neighbour is the path to
hell.
--
*Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things? *
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
John Anderton
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
> It's unusual to have jointly owned fences. Mostly the ones to the right of
> the property are yours, but the house deeds should show this. A clue would
> be the fence posts - these should be on 'your' side of the fence which you
> own - ie the best side faces your neighbour.
This is certainly the convention but it is by no means definitive.
There is nothing in law which states that fence posts have to be on a
particular side of the fence, it's up to the owner of the fence
(assuming the fence is on their land, of course) which way round things
are.
For example, one fence in my garden has the posts on my side but it's
not only not my fence but, at one end, it's about two feet inside my
neighbour's garden so there's a two foot wide strip of land which looks
like it could be mine but isn't.
This could cause problems in future so I'm growing a holly hedge on my
side of the boundary which should last longer than the fence, to avoid
problems for anybody who buys my house in the future
>
> If it is a jointly owned one and he's replacing it with a nicely designed
> and built brick wall I'd offer to pay toward it.
The replacement wall sounds like it's entirely on the neighbour's
land(apart from the foundations) so it wouldn't be a shared wall,
unlike the fence (if that was shared)
>And then maybe have an
> input to its design. Being on bad terms with a neighbour is the path to
> hell.
Very true.
Cheers,
John
Steve Walker
> What i would like to do (sorry if this sounds a little devious),
> is let him overstep the mark in such a way that I could force him
> to knock it down.
Very bad idea. Firstly, no-none needs this kind of stress, but secondly
you'll find it's very hard to compel demolition unless you're prepared to
spend a lot of money on lawyers. Go to gardenlaw, do not pass go....
zym...@technologist.com
John Anderton wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> >
> > It's unusual to have jointly owned fences. Mostly the ones to the right of
> > the property are yours, but the house deeds should show this. A clue would
> > be the fence posts - these should be on 'your' side of the fence which you
> > own - ie the best side faces your neighbour.
>
> This is certainly the convention but it is by no means definitive.
> There is nothing in law which states that fence posts have to be on a
> particular side of the fence, it's up to the owner of the fence
> (assuming the fence is on their land, of course) which way round things
> are.
>
> For example, one fence in my garden has the posts on my side but it's
> not only not my fence but, at one end, it's about two feet inside my
> neighbour's garden so there's a two foot wide strip of land which looks
> like it could be mine but isn't.
I have a similar issue, in that the old, original concrete posts that
mark the property boundary, are about 1 ft inside my neigbours garden.
Therefore, (I think) the fence dividing us has been built 1 ft into my
garden. That would be quite a bit of real estate i've lost on a 25ft
long garden.
I think the fence is long established, therefore the land may well have
fallen into his ownership now over time.
Cheers
Paul.
Weatherlawyer
> graham wrote:
> > What i would like to do (sorry if this sounds a little devious), is let him
> > overstep the mark in such a way that I could force him to knock it down.
> You'll find it's very hard to compel demolition unless you're prepared to
> spend a lot of money on lawyers.
But there is nothing to stop you inviting several local yobs for a
barbie and a game of footie within 2 days of it's completion. Just the
once of course, as they are likely to be so boisterous again that they
might knock the replacement down.
Weatherlawyer
zym...@technologist.com wrote:
> I have a similar issue, in that the old, original concrete posts that
> mark the property boundary, are about 1 ft inside my neigbours garden.
> Therefore, (I think) the fence dividing us has been built 1 ft into my
> garden. That would be quite a bit of real estate I've lost on a 25ft
> long garden.
> I think the fence is long established, therefore the land may well have
> fallen into his ownership now over time.
And I think you either have a very wide wall, or trouble with spatial
recognition.
Care to have another go at it?
Whatever you have for a fence it is not a legal definition of bounaries
as these disputes are the oldest reason for feuds, skirmishes and
outright warfare. Most modern jurisprudence seek better demarkation for
the deeds of a property.
Can you view yours? Expect fur and feathers to fly if you tackle the
situation.
zym...@technologist.com
Weatherlawyer wrote:
> zym...@technologist.com wrote:
>
> > I have a similar issue, in that the old, original concrete posts that
> > mark the property boundary, are about 1 ft inside my neigbours garden.
> > Therefore, (I think) the fence dividing us has been built 1 ft into my
> > garden. That would be quite a bit of real estate I've lost on a 25ft
> > long garden.
>
> > I think the fence is long established, therefore the land may well have
> > fallen into his ownership now over time.
>
> And I think you either have a very wide wall, or trouble with spatial
> recognition.
>
> Care to have another go at it?
Ok, the posts are part of the original concrete post & chainlink fence
when the houses were built. I have them on both sides of the garden.
On one side, the posts are sticking up in the neigbours garden, but the
existing fence (and to all intents and purposes, the current property
line), is 1 ft within this.
Maybe i'll dig out the deeds again, but I thought there was some sort
of statute in that if I never used the land (i..e was fenced off for n
number of years) then I could lose title to it.
P.
Weatherlawyer
zym...@technologist.com wrote:
> I thought there was some sort of statute in that if I never used the land (i..e was fenced off
> for n number of years) then I could lose title to it.
I should doubt very much that people who write title deeds would be so
negligent to leave such a large loophole.
I do believe there used to be some such about land bordering waterways.
But even those I doubt still hold true if they ever did. Prior to a
land being "triangulated" all that was left were natural borders such
as those or setting up marker stones which were so liable to frud that
annual ceremonis marked such bounds.
But for several centuries now, what has become the Ordnance Survey made
it possible to identify from a map the smallest line.
"Vacant possesion" on the other hand is slightly different law. Failing
to close a gate at least one day an year might have the effect of
declaring a commonly used short cut a "right of way". And I have heard
of people annexing unused land in order to increase their garden sizes.
But I believe they have to apply for full title if it is neglected
public land. Not at all sure.
John Anderton
>
>Maybe i'll dig out the deeds again, but I thought there was some sort
>of statute in that if I never used the land (i..e was fenced off for n
>number of years) then I could lose title to it.
I think "adverse possession" is probably what you're thinking of. It
used to be the case that if I fenced off a bit of your land and used
it for 20(?) years without you asserting your claim to it I could gain
possession.
Usually this only worked because the original owner wasn't aware of
what was going on until the 20 years was up when it was too late.
Happily (for you) the law was changed a couple of years ago so, if I
apply for adverse possession on your land, you will be given the
opportunity to oppose my claim before the land becomes mine. Since
opposing my claim is effectively as simple as telling me to get off
your land, the opportunity for legalised land theft by this method is
greatly reduced.
That's the legal situation but, practically, it may well be better to
write off the lost bit of garden for the sake of neighbour relations,
one thing you do *not* want is to fall out with your neighbours :-)
Cheers,
John
wblakesx
owner and by someone other than descendants ( reliance on natural
affections ). If you allow it it is not adverse. As to burden of proof,
it could well be that the moving party has to prove adversity, I'm not
sure... but complaints might come back to haunt one. Then again seeing
USA court decisions might lead one to think the USA is an anarchy or at
least lawless or goes to highest bidder.
I'm a conservative, I'd like the repeal of loan gaurantees and
fractional reserve banking...: )
manat...@hotmail.com
As confirmed by my solicitor during most recent house purchase, the
plans held with deeds are very poor indicators of the actual boundary
line on the ground. All they really show are a rough outline and who
has responsibility for which boundary.
MBQ
manat...@hotmail.com
> Not at all sure.
It shows.
MBQ
zym...@technologist.com
> zymurgy wrote:
>
> >Maybe i'll dig out the deeds again, but I thought there was some sort
> >of statute in that if I never used the land (i..e was fenced off for n
> >number of years) then I could lose title to it.
>
> I think "adverse possession" is probably what you're thinking of.
>
> what was going on until the 20 years was up when it was too late.
> Happily (for you) the law was changed a couple of years ago so, if I
> apply for adverse possession on your land, you will be given the
> opportunity to oppose my claim before the land becomes mine.
Cool. Nice to know.
> That's the legal situation but, practically, it may well be better to
> write off the lost bit of garden for the sake of neighbour relations,
> one thing you do *not* want is to fall out with your neighbours :-)
Oh, no, of course. I'm not that bothered, but I went next door to fix
the fence when it blew down (he's an old dodderer) and I spotted the
old 'boundary line'
At least it'll give me a better case when he whinges that i've built up
to the fence with a wooden outbuilding.
I'll just say 'well, it's a foot away from the proper boundary' :-p)
P.
Roger
from John Anderton <John1_anderto...@hotmail.com> contains
these words:
> >Maybe i'll dig out the deeds again, but I thought there was some sort
> >of statute in that if I never used the land (i..e was fenced off for n
> >number of years) then I could lose title to it.
> I think "adverse possession" is probably what you're thinking of. It
> used to be the case that if I fenced off a bit of your land and used
> it for 20(?) years without you asserting your claim to it I could gain
> possession.
12 years I believe. 20 years for establishing a right of way.
> Usually this only worked because the original owner wasn't aware of
> what was going on until the 20 years was up when it was too late.
> Happily (for you) the law was changed a couple of years ago so, if I
> apply for adverse possession on your land, you will be given the
> opportunity to oppose my claim before the land becomes mine. Since
> opposing my claim is effectively as simple as telling me to get off
> your land, the opportunity for legalised land theft by this method is
> greatly reduced.
IIRC that only applies if the title to the land has been registered.
IANAL.
--
Roger Chapman
jhi...@hotmail.com
see him build against that.
If he goes ahead anyway, then at least you'll have a rather lovely
plunge pool for the coming summer.
penny
--
For full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy/nasty-neighbour-building-a-wall-my-rights-239082-.htm
Tim+
> I am Having the same issue he has built the wall and i am In the process
> of getting him to take it down as he has left me a metre of his garden..
> he complains about the weeds and they are actually his..
> you are well within your rights to sort this out.. my neighbour is a
> bully and like you i want This sorted as it’s not right and might bring
> him down a peg or two.. good luck
your reply. If you want advice, reiterating your issue clearly in an
appropriate group (e.g. uk.legal.moderated) would be a good start.
Tim
--
Please don't feed the trolls
Rod Speed
> I am Having the same issue he has built the wall and i am In the process
> of getting him to take it down as he has left me a metre of his garden..
> he complains about the weeds and they are actually his.. you are well
> within your rights to sort this out..
a wall anywhere he likes on his own property as long as it is safe.
> my neighbour is a bully and like you i want This sorted as it’s not
> right and might bring him down a peg or two.. good luck
Peeler
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:
<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 88-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
harry
> Are there any knowledgable people here who can advise me of my rights
> in this case ?
> our 2 front gardens and has already begun by ripping down the the old
> fencing (which was half mine by the way, but he never consulted me
> before going ahead).
> be bang on the dividing line between the two gardens, but if i'm not
> mistaken (and i'm not a builder, so i'm not sure), don't the
> foundations for the wall have to be significantly wider than the wall
> itself ?
> In which case, how can the wall be built right to the line without the
> foundations being partly in my garden ?
> So far, i've not asked him about this (partly because he is a builder
> and i'm not, and i might get my facts wrong and he WILL DEFINATELY run
> rings around me if i'm not sure because he doesn't care much for other
> peoples rights), but nor have I agreed to anything either, i've just
> said absolutely nothing.
> let him overstep the mark in such a way that I could force him to
> VERY disliked in the neighbourhood and VERY arrogant and cocky, so
> perhaps it's about time someone pissed him off for a change.
> So, what are my rights here, what are his rights ?
> I look forward to help from anyone experienced in these matters.
> GT
2m between neighbours and 1M against a public highway.
Any higher and planning has to be applied for.
NY
news:97f71c37-8a62-49aa...@googlegroups.com...
nothing, rather than shared. Typically each person owns the wall on one side
and their neighbour owns the one on the other side of the garden. But your
case may be different.
There's nothing (apart from common decency and planning restrictions) to
stop a neighbour building an additional wall/fence next to one that they
don't own, as long as it is on their own land.
The difficulty comes with "party walls" - eg between one house and the next
of a semi or terrace. We used to live in the middle house of a terrace of
three. Because the middle house of each block didn't have access to our
garden from a driveway to the side, the builders had made a passageway/alley
through the middle house: our lounge was a few feet less wide than the
bedroom above it. The houses had been council houses; one resident still
rented from the housing association that had replaced the council as owner,
whereas the other two (us and the neighbours on the other side) owned our
houses via the right-to-buy legislation.
The renting owner was an awkward sod. He had a habit of leaning over the
fence and saying "you can't do that - I'll tell the council". On one
occasion I painted the parts of our alley wall that bordered his house, and
he said "That wall belongs to the council: only they can repaint it. And
what are all those nails that are being used to hang things up: they'll have
to go." I very politely told him about the Party Wall rules which say that
you can do what you like with your side of a wall as long as you don't
damage it as seen by the other side". The person who drove big 6" nails into
the wall *may* have been taking a risk of damaging the plaster in the
neighbour's living room - but it had been like that for about 30 years, long
before we bought the house.
He also didn't understand about ownership of shared fences/hedges: he had a
habit of cutting the beech hedge between us to an absurdly low height, and
our deeds clearly showed that we owned that boundary: I even made a
photocopy of the page and gave it to the housing association rep to show
him. Sadly their reps had all the ferocity of toothless puppies, so he just
ignored them and claimed that he didn't know or understand, but was adamant
that he should be allowed to do what he liked with "the council's hedge". I
think part of the problem was that he liked the top of a hedge to be
glass-smooth, so every time a few twigs grew above the regulation height, he
was out there shaving them off. When we did cut the hedge, inevitably a few
twigs fell onto his lawn, but he refused my offer to come round and pick
them up for him: "you're not coming onto my land - that belongs to the
council". Funny bugger. I think it all stemmed from a resentment that he
hadn't been in a financial position to buy the house that he had rented for
many years, once Maggie did the right-to-buy, and had a chip on his shoulder
because most of his neighbours had bought their houses when this was
offered. He also suffered from little-man syndrome ;-)