Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
neighbour painting fence without permission?
11,343 views
Skip to first unread message
Bob
May 4, 2013, 5:50:02 PM5/4/13
to
Bit of a petty issue, our neighbour has painted his side of the fence we
paid for and erected, the stain has come through our side and run down
and now looks a mess.
Once we realised what he was doing I suggested he could have asked if he
wished to paint it. He seemed fine at the time but since my son has
received several texts bordering on abusive, stressing his side of the
fence is his and he will do what he wants with it when he wants.
Hes a young lad and we had a few issues with all night party's (till
5am) last year so we don't really want this to escalate.
I have read a fence on the boundary belongs to the person who erected it
and the other neighbour may not paint or hang anything from it without
permission and this may be criminal damage.
Is this correct or is he free to do what he wants with his side of our
fence on the boundary?
paid for and erected, the stain has come through our side and run down
and now looks a mess.
Once we realised what he was doing I suggested he could have asked if he
wished to paint it. He seemed fine at the time but since my son has
received several texts bordering on abusive, stressing his side of the
fence is his and he will do what he wants with it when he wants.
Hes a young lad and we had a few issues with all night party's (till
5am) last year so we don't really want this to escalate.
I have read a fence on the boundary belongs to the person who erected it
and the other neighbour may not paint or hang anything from it without
permission and this may be criminal damage.
Is this correct or is he free to do what he wants with his side of our
fence on the boundary?
j...@joe.org.uk
May 4, 2013, 7:15:02 PM5/4/13
to
On Saturday, 4 May 2013 22:50:02 UTC+1, Bob wrote:
> Is this correct or is he free to do what he wants with his side of our
> fence on the boundary?
For the sake of peace, sometimes it's just easier to paint your side the same colour.
> Is this correct or is he free to do what he wants with his side of our
> fence on the boundary?
Being legally right and enforcing that right while keeping the peace sometimes isn't worth the stress.
Percy Picacity
May 4, 2013, 7:15:02 PM5/4/13
to
solution is to forgive him and paint your side. Preferably the same
colour if the fence is that leaky!
--
Percy Picacity
Robin Bignall
May 4, 2013, 7:50:01 PM5/4/13
to
and the fence to the right is your right-hand neighbour's
responsibility.
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England
Peter Crosland
May 5, 2013, 2:50:02 AM5/5/13
to
no rights over it whatsoever. In which case it is criminal damage. On
the other hand if you erected it overhanging his land then you have
trespassed on his land. The exact position of boundaries can be very
difficulkt to determine even by professionals. Whilst it is never wise
to fall out with neighbours it does seems as if a dispute already
exists. I would report it to the police since criminal damage and
threatening behaviour are criminal offences.
--
Peter Crosland g6...@yahoo.co.uk
steve robinson
May 5, 2013, 3:10:02 AM5/5/13
to
which fence you are responsible for , some will go as far as stating
type and style of fence possibly even how the fence costs should be met
As long as the fence is within your boundaries ad no other agreement
exists then he is not allowed to paint the fence, or attach any item
to it.
If the fence is his responsiblity and you replaced it on the boundary
line as apposed to within your own boundaries its not so clear cut.
Whats he painted it with
Mark Goodge
May 5, 2013, 4:45:02 AM5/5/13
to
On Sat, 04 May 2013 22:50:02 +0100, Bob put finger to keyboard and typed:
You are correct: it's your fence and you are entitled to control the colour
of it on both sides. Your neighbour doesn't have the right to paint it, or
attach anything to it, without your permission.
Having said that, I also agree with your first comment that it's a bit of a
petty issue. While, say, screwing massive hanging baskets to it would
definitly be taking the mick, I think most people would accept that it's
reasonable for someone to want to paint the side of the fence facing them
to match the rest of their colour scheme. They are, after all, the ones who
are going to have to look at it.
What's more of an issue in this case is that you seem to have acquired a
neighbour who is not only ignorant of the law on fences (which would be
both understandable and reasonably tolerable) but also the law on causing a
nuisance as well being prepared to be abusive in defence of his ignorance
(which may also be understandable but is certainly not tolerable). That's
the sort of thing which will need to be declared as a dispute should you
ever want to sell your house, so unless you're confident that it will just
fade away if you let it slide then you may want to take firm action now in
order to nip it in the bud.
It might be worth paying for a solicitor's letter setting out the law, but
stating that you have no objection to him painting the fence on his side so
long as he agrees the method and colour with you in advance.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
of it on both sides. Your neighbour doesn't have the right to paint it, or
attach anything to it, without your permission.
Having said that, I also agree with your first comment that it's a bit of a
petty issue. While, say, screwing massive hanging baskets to it would
definitly be taking the mick, I think most people would accept that it's
reasonable for someone to want to paint the side of the fence facing them
to match the rest of their colour scheme. They are, after all, the ones who
are going to have to look at it.
What's more of an issue in this case is that you seem to have acquired a
neighbour who is not only ignorant of the law on fences (which would be
both understandable and reasonably tolerable) but also the law on causing a
nuisance as well being prepared to be abusive in defence of his ignorance
(which may also be understandable but is certainly not tolerable). That's
the sort of thing which will need to be declared as a dispute should you
ever want to sell your house, so unless you're confident that it will just
fade away if you let it slide then you may want to take firm action now in
order to nip it in the bud.
It might be worth paying for a solicitor's letter setting out the law, but
stating that you have no objection to him painting the fence on his side so
long as he agrees the method and colour with you in advance.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Ste
May 5, 2013, 4:50:09 AM5/5/13
to
with *your* side of your fence. Obviously, he isn't. But it's not
unreasonable for him to have painted his own side. Even if I didn't
own my fences, I don't think I'd ever consider asking my neighbours if
I could paint my own side. Your neighbours problem is that he failed
to foresee the effect of painting each side of the fence differently.
Perhaps the best way out is to get him, if possible, to repaint your
side in the colour of your choice.
Roland Perry
May 5, 2013, 6:20:02 AM5/5/13
to
In message <NaKdnU-ZFNwMnRvM...@brightview.co.uk>, at
07:50:02 on Sun, 5 May 2013, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
remarked:
posts are in the land of the person whose responsibility it is, and the
boards are along the boundary. This has the side effect of the neighbour
having the "pretty front side", and the owner having the "back side",
although the latter is much easier to attach various gubbins for
supporting plants etc.
Where there's a row of similar houses, they will usually all point the
same way, and you can check the situation by peering out of an upstairs
window.
When the house is on the end of a row, then one of them have two
boundaries.
What I'm not so clear about is what happens in the front garden where
there's more likely to be a hedge, but my assumption is that if the back
garden fence is between (say) numbers 10 and 12, and belongs to number
12, that the front hedge between 10 and 12 will belong to them as well.
--
Roland Perry
07:50:02 on Sun, 5 May 2013, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
remarked:
>if you erected it overhanging his land then you have trespassed on his
>land. The exact position of boundaries can be very difficulkt to
>determine even by professionals.
It's my understanding that fences are usually erected such that the
>land. The exact position of boundaries can be very difficulkt to
>determine even by professionals.
posts are in the land of the person whose responsibility it is, and the
boards are along the boundary. This has the side effect of the neighbour
having the "pretty front side", and the owner having the "back side",
although the latter is much easier to attach various gubbins for
supporting plants etc.
Where there's a row of similar houses, they will usually all point the
same way, and you can check the situation by peering out of an upstairs
window.
When the house is on the end of a row, then one of them have two
boundaries.
What I'm not so clear about is what happens in the front garden where
there's more likely to be a hedge, but my assumption is that if the back
garden fence is between (say) numbers 10 and 12, and belongs to number
12, that the front hedge between 10 and 12 will belong to them as well.
--
Roland Perry
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Bob
May 5, 2013, 7:30:01 AM5/5/13
to
texts arrived.
He also has ignored planing rules and has built a large elevated decking
area overlooking our bedrooms and summer house in which he hosts his
party's. We have turned a blind eye in the hope he would realise and
keep his head down as he is aware of the planning rules. There has been
little noise since last summer but Im sure thats to change as the
weather improves.
We would prefer to lead a quiet life but how far can you let it go.
Norman Wells
May 5, 2013, 8:55:02 AM5/5/13
to
Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> neighbour's side and his land, and in consequence that half of the
> fence will belong to him.
No it won't. It belongs to the person who paid for it and erected it.
If any part of it lies on the neighbour's land, it's a trespass, and
action can be taken to have it removed, but its ownership is not in
question.
> On Sat, 04 May 2013 22:50:02 +0100, Bob <b...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> I have read a fence on the boundary belongs to the person who
>> erected it and the other neighbour may not paint or hang anything
>> from it without permission and this may be criminal damage.
>
> If the fence is exactly ON the boundary then half will lie on your
>
>> I have read a fence on the boundary belongs to the person who
>> erected it and the other neighbour may not paint or hang anything
>> from it without permission and this may be criminal damage.
>
> neighbour's side and his land, and in consequence that half of the
> fence will belong to him.
No it won't. It belongs to the person who paid for it and erected it.
If any part of it lies on the neighbour's land, it's a trespass, and
action can be taken to have it removed, but its ownership is not in
question.
steve robinson
May 5, 2013, 9:05:01 AM5/5/13
to
Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> On Sun, 05 May 2013 09:45:02 +0100, Mark Goodge
> <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 04 May 2013 22:50:02 +0100, Bob put finger to keyboard and
> > typed:
> >
> >> Bit of a petty issue, our neighbour has painted his side of the
> fence we >> paid for and erected, the stain has come through our side
> and run down >> and now looks a mess.
> > >
> >> Once we realised what he was doing I suggested he could have asked
> if he >> wished to paint it. He seemed fine at the time but since my
> son has >> received several texts bordering on abusive, stressing his
> side of the >> fence is his and he will do what he wants with it when
> he wants.
> > >
> >> Hes a young lad and we had a few issues with all night party's
> (till >> 5am) last year so we don't really want this to escalate.
> > >
> >> I have read a fence on the boundary belongs to the person who
> erected it >> and the other neighbour may not paint or hang anything
> from it without >> permission and this may be criminal damage.
> > >
> >> Is this correct or is he free to do what he wants with his side of
> our >> fence on the boundary?
> >
> > You are correct: it's your fence and you are entitled to control
> > the colour of it on both sides. Your neighbour doesn't have the
> > right to paint it, or attach anything to it, without your
> > permission.
>
> Accepting that this is not really a property issue but a getting
> along one, I still disagree with your position that the part of the
> fence the OP has placed onto his neighbour's land remains the
> property of the OP.
Isnt it the case that you attach , fix or install anything onto the
property it becomes part of the property
> On Sun, 05 May 2013 09:45:02 +0100, Mark Goodge
> <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 04 May 2013 22:50:02 +0100, Bob put finger to keyboard and
> > typed:
> >
> >> Bit of a petty issue, our neighbour has painted his side of the
> fence we >> paid for and erected, the stain has come through our side
> and run down >> and now looks a mess.
> > >
> >> Once we realised what he was doing I suggested he could have asked
> if he >> wished to paint it. He seemed fine at the time but since my
> son has >> received several texts bordering on abusive, stressing his
> side of the >> fence is his and he will do what he wants with it when
> he wants.
> > >
> >> Hes a young lad and we had a few issues with all night party's
> (till >> 5am) last year so we don't really want this to escalate.
> > >
> >> I have read a fence on the boundary belongs to the person who
> erected it >> and the other neighbour may not paint or hang anything
> from it without >> permission and this may be criminal damage.
> > >
> >> Is this correct or is he free to do what he wants with his side of
> our >> fence on the boundary?
> >
> > You are correct: it's your fence and you are entitled to control
> > the colour of it on both sides. Your neighbour doesn't have the
> > right to paint it, or attach anything to it, without your
> > permission.
>
> along one, I still disagree with your position that the part of the
> fence the OP has placed onto his neighbour's land remains the
> property of the OP.
Isnt it the case that you attach , fix or install anything onto the
property it becomes part of the property
AC
May 5, 2013, 9:40:01 AM5/5/13
to
or just disrespect. You neighbour seems a bit selfish and will keep
getting more and more selfish if something doesn't stop it. So, where
people are saying just paint it the same colour for the sake of peace, I
would worry that that is another nail in the you becoming your
neighbours bitch coffin. So, at some point you need to draw a line in
the sand.
Now, ideally you knock on his door and ask, hope, pray for a decent
conversation about the 3 problems you have posted here and any others
you might not have mentioned. But, I would go armed with all the
relevant legal positions. I would hope that explaining that he is being
a problem and that you *could* used the law to resolve it would be
enough to encourage him to be more considerate. Some might suggest a
letter, but in my experience, people faced with calm reasoned eye to eye
discussion concede easier than a letter, which they can rant at in
private, working themselves up in to an unreasonable defensive rage.
Also, writing doesn't convey emotion. So it can be read as angry
neighbour or nice neighbour depending on the individual reading it.
If you cant even get a conversation going, I would absolutely go the
legal route, as my fear would be that leaving it and being accommodating
and over reasonable will only result in you neighbour thinking he is
getting away with it and can keep upping the annoyance.
Oh, is there a wife or girlfriend you could talk to on the side as it
were? Often the partner can be more reasonable, understand your
position, and be able to explain the situation better.
--
AC
Message has been deleted
Simon Finnigan
May 5, 2013, 12:45:02 PM5/5/13
to
and leave him with the streaks on the other side of the fence.
Lordgnome
May 5, 2013, 1:15:01 PM5/5/13
to
On 05/05/2013 13:55, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> If the fence is exactly ON the boundary then half will lie on your
>> neighbour's side and his land, and in consequence that half of the
>> fence will belong to him.
>
> No it won't. It belongs to the person who paid for it and erected it.
> If any part of it lies on the neighbour's land, it's a trespass, and
> action can be taken to have it removed, but its ownership is not in
> question.
Interesting. I can with authority, state that the case in Australia is
>
>> If the fence is exactly ON the boundary then half will lie on your
>> neighbour's side and his land, and in consequence that half of the
>> fence will belong to him.
>
> No it won't. It belongs to the person who paid for it and erected it.
> If any part of it lies on the neighbour's land, it's a trespass, and
> action can be taken to have it removed, but its ownership is not in
> question.
that if you erect a fence across the boundary on to your neighbour's
patch, it becomes his "To take down or do with as he will". Given that
most Australian law is a slightly more logical version of English law, I
suspect that Mr. Gold could possibly be right?
Les.
Bob
May 5, 2013, 1:20:01 PM5/5/13
to
On 05/05/2013 16:55, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> That would be true of chattel sitting on the neighbour's land or a fixture
> to the OP's land that overhangs the neighbour's land. It could also be true
> if the deeds mentioned that a fence in that location remained the property
> of the OP. But in general, if the OP adds a fixture to his neighbour's land
> then the neighbour is free to accept it as a donation to his property.
>
So what if a fence happened to be already possibly over the boundary, or
if that boundary line defined by a fence became disputed following
change of ownership of the neighbours property but the boundary and
sighting of the fence was previously agreed with the former neighbour.
Would the 12 year rule come in to play if it could be proved the fence
had existed for at least that time?
> to the OP's land that overhangs the neighbour's land. It could also be true
> if the deeds mentioned that a fence in that location remained the property
> of the OP. But in general, if the OP adds a fixture to his neighbour's land
> then the neighbour is free to accept it as a donation to his property.
>
So what if a fence happened to be already possibly over the boundary, or
if that boundary line defined by a fence became disputed following
change of ownership of the neighbours property but the boundary and
sighting of the fence was previously agreed with the former neighbour.
Would the 12 year rule come in to play if it could be proved the fence
had existed for at least that time?
Norman Wells
May 5, 2013, 1:40:02 PM5/5/13
to
Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> On Sun, 05 May 2013 13:55:02 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 05 May 2013 13:55:02 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
> That would be true of chattel sitting on the neighbour's land or a
> fixture to the OP's land that overhangs the neighbour's land. It
> could also be true if the deeds mentioned that a fence in that
> location remained the property of the OP. But in general, if the OP
> adds a fixture to his neighbour's land then the neighbour is free to
> accept it as a donation to his property.
Is he? Who says?
> fixture to the OP's land that overhangs the neighbour's land. It
> could also be true if the deeds mentioned that a fence in that
> location remained the property of the OP. But in general, if the OP
> adds a fixture to his neighbour's land then the neighbour is free to
> accept it as a donation to his property.
Anyway, if the fence is exactly on the boundary as we were told, it is
actually a fixture on the owner's land since the posts supporting it
will be on his land.
Peter Crosland
May 5, 2013, 1:45:01 PM5/5/13
to
take the strain!
--
Peter Crosland g6...@yahoo.co.uk
John Dean
May 5, 2013, 6:20:01 PM5/5/13
to
"Bob" <b...@invalid.com> wrote in message news:km3vav$9ln$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> I have read a fence on the boundary belongs to the person who erected it
> and the other neighbour may not paint or hang anything from it without
> permission and this may be criminal damage.
>
The situation should be covered in the title deeds though since you've
> I have read a fence on the boundary belongs to the person who erected it
> and the other neighbour may not paint or hang anything from it without
> permission and this may be criminal damage.
>
already erected the fence yourself without, I assume, input from your
neighbour then I'd say that if the deeds don't cover it the fence is yours.
Using my own situation as an example the fence on my north side belongs to
the neighbours whose houses back on to it and the fence on the south side is
the joint responsibility of that neighbour and us. So when the former got
blown down, the other guys had to replace it and when the latter needed
replacement my neighbour and I paid half each. I also have a fence at the
west end of the garden between us and a school playground. That one belongs
entirely to the school so they keep it in fettle.
--
John Dean
Ste
May 5, 2013, 6:55:02 PM5/5/13
to
On May 5, 2:40 pm, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> > Bit of a petty issue, our neighbour has painted his side of the fence we
> > paid for and erected, the stain has come through our side and run down
> > and now looks a mess.
>
> > Once we realised what he was doing I suggested he could have asked if he
> > wished to paint it. He seemed fine at the time but since my son has
> > received several texts bordering on abusive, stressing his side of the
> > fence is his and he will do what he wants with it when he wants.
>
> > Hes a young lad and we had a few issues with all night party's (till
> > 5am) last year so we don't really want this to escalate.
>
> > I have read a fence on the boundary belongs to the person who erected it
> > and the other neighbour may not paint or hang anything from it without
> > permission and this may be criminal damage.
>
> > Is this correct or is he free to do what he wants with his side of our
> > fence on the boundary?
>
> No comment on the law, but my worry would be creeping advantage taking
> or just disrespect. You neighbour seems a bit selfish and will keep
> getting more and more selfish if something doesn't stop it. So, where
> people are saying just paint it the same colour for the sake of peace, I
> would worry that that is another nail in the you becoming your
> neighbours bitch coffin. So, at some point you need to draw a line in
> the sand.
A more reasonable analysis is that the neighbour just didn't
> Bob wrote:
> > Bit of a petty issue, our neighbour has painted his side of the fence we
> > paid for and erected, the stain has come through our side and run down
> > and now looks a mess.
>
> > Once we realised what he was doing I suggested he could have asked if he
> > wished to paint it. He seemed fine at the time but since my son has
> > received several texts bordering on abusive, stressing his side of the
> > fence is his and he will do what he wants with it when he wants.
>
> > Hes a young lad and we had a few issues with all night party's (till
> > 5am) last year so we don't really want this to escalate.
>
> > I have read a fence on the boundary belongs to the person who erected it
> > and the other neighbour may not paint or hang anything from it without
> > permission and this may be criminal damage.
>
> > Is this correct or is he free to do what he wants with his side of our
> > fence on the boundary?
>
> No comment on the law, but my worry would be creeping advantage taking
> or just disrespect. You neighbour seems a bit selfish and will keep
> getting more and more selfish if something doesn't stop it. So, where
> people are saying just paint it the same colour for the sake of peace, I
> would worry that that is another nail in the you becoming your
> neighbours bitch coffin. So, at some point you need to draw a line in
> the sand.
anticipate the soak-through of the paint.
> Now, ideally you knock on his door and ask, hope, pray for a decent
> conversation about the 3 problems you have posted here and any others
> you might not have mentioned. But, I would go armed with all the
> relevant legal positions. I would hope that explaining that he is being
> a problem and that you *could* used the law to resolve it would be
> enough to encourage him to be more considerate. Some might suggest a
> letter, but in my experience, people faced with calm reasoned eye to eye
> discussion concede easier than a letter, which they can rant at in
> private, working themselves up in to an unreasonable defensive rage.
> Also, writing doesn't convey emotion. So it can be read as angry
> neighbour or nice neighbour depending on the individual reading it.
>
> If you cant even get a conversation going, I would absolutely go the
> legal route, as my fear would be that leaving it and being accommodating
> and over reasonable will only result in you neighbour thinking he is
> getting away with it and can keep upping the annoyance.
painting *his* side of the fence, is doing so just in order to annoy
his neighbours on the other side of the fence?
Ste
May 5, 2013, 7:00:04 PM5/5/13
to
omen. I gather he and your son have some sort of personal
relationship, since he has his phone number - presumably what happened
is that your son remonstrated with him further on your behalf.
I can say that if my neighours attempted to tell me otherwise, I think
I'd be quite inclined to assert my freedom to paint my side of the
fence in whatever way I choose. Quite apart from the legal position,
I'd think my neighbours highly unreasonable for suggesting that they
should dictate the colour of the fence even on my side - although of
course, you're perfectly right to be annoyed at the damage to your own
side that he has caused in the process of painting his.
> He also has ignored planing rules and has built a large elevated decking
> area overlooking our bedrooms and summer house in which he hosts his
> party's.
extending it upwards! I gather you live in a bungalow then? Are you
absolutely sure he is violating planning rules btw? Not all
development requires planning permission.
> We have turned a blind eye in the hope he would realise and
> keep his head down as he is aware of the planning rules. There has been
> little noise since last summer but Im sure thats to change as the
> weather improves.
occasionally host a garden party in the summer.
> We would prefer to lead a quiet life but how far can you let it go.
property, I dare say you could have worse neighbours.
Zapp Brannigan
May 5, 2013, 8:40:02 PM5/5/13
to
"Ste" <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f84586d-97bd-40c1...@y5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
> A more reasonable analysis is that the neighbour just didn't
> anticipate the soak-through of the paint.
easily absorbed lower down, but it's much more tricky on the other side.
Treatment can ooze through the gaps (unless you remove the panel and turn it
upside down while painting).
\
\
\
\
\ \ <--------------
\ \
\
\
\
\
It's a common problem, and it doesn't necessarily result from neglect or
spite. The only realistic answer is to stain/paint both sides in a similar
shade. Getting the dried paint off now will be next to impossible.
Norman Wells
May 6, 2013, 4:55:02 AM5/6/13
to
Ste wrote:
> On May 5, 12:30 pm, Bob <b...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 05/05/2013 09:50, Ste wrote:
> I can say that if my neighours attempted to tell me otherwise, I think
> I'd be quite inclined to assert my freedom to paint my side of the
> fence in whatever way I choose.
What freedom is that then? It's criminal damage.
> On May 5, 12:30 pm, Bob <b...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 05/05/2013 09:50, Ste wrote:
> I can say that if my neighours attempted to tell me otherwise, I think
> I'd be quite inclined to assert my freedom to paint my side of the
> fence in whatever way I choose.
> Quite apart from the legal position,
> I'd think my neighbours highly unreasonable for suggesting that they
> should dictate the colour of the fence even on my side - although of
> course, you're perfectly right to be annoyed at the damage to your own
> side that he has caused in the process of painting his.
to erect one on his own land and paint it however he likes. If he wants
to paint the original fence, however, he has to get permission from its
owner.
Percy Picacity
May 6, 2013, 10:05:03 AM5/6/13
to
practice in towns and suburbia is almost invariably to erect a fence
with the posts on the fence owner's side but the panels of the fence
vertically over the boundary, and thus, for practical purposes defining
it. Unless it is one of those special infinitesimally thin fences this
means that the far surface of the fence is on the neighbour's land.
The practical problem with doing otherwise is that either both
neighbours have to build their own fence or some other method has been
used to mark the boundary. Otherwise the boundary is going to move
over time towards the person who has built the fence on his own land,
and he is going to have keep moving it back. If he asserts the
boundary is a certain distance beyond the far side of his fence he is
going to have a hard job proving it unless there are remnants of a
previous fence or some other boundary marker. And the situation is
complicated by house deeds giving a particular neighbour the
responsibility for putting up a boundary fence, which will then be
taken to be on the boundary in the absence of good evidence otherwise.
So, generally, people will not agree with you. I have no idea what a
court would say, but anyone who has put themselves in a position to
find out has already failed!
--
Percy Picacity
Ian Jackson
May 6, 2013, 10:55:01 AM5/6/13
to
In message <auo3nh...@mid.individual.net>, John Dean
<john...@FRAGmsn.com> writes
Deeds don't normally indicate the ownership of a fence. They only
indicate whose boundary it is - as marked with a 'T' symbol.
Also, the 'way round' a fence does not necessarily indicate ownership.
One of my fences on what is my neighbour's boundary is the 'interweave'
type (not sure of the correct name, but it's not the 'larch lap' type) -
so both sides look the same. The panels are mounted between wooden
posts, and the wooden posts are in turn bolted to shorter concrete posts
(which are further into my property). All the indications are that it is
well and truly my fence, but my neighbour seems to believe it is hers.
As it was there before either of us moved in, it will interesting to
sort out one day who it really belongs to.
However, regardless of the which way round a fence is, all of it
(panels, posts - and, I guess, foundations) should be on the owner's
property, and none should overhanging the neighbour's land.
--
Ian
<john...@FRAGmsn.com> writes
indicate whose boundary it is - as marked with a 'T' symbol.
Also, the 'way round' a fence does not necessarily indicate ownership.
One of my fences on what is my neighbour's boundary is the 'interweave'
type (not sure of the correct name, but it's not the 'larch lap' type) -
so both sides look the same. The panels are mounted between wooden
posts, and the wooden posts are in turn bolted to shorter concrete posts
(which are further into my property). All the indications are that it is
well and truly my fence, but my neighbour seems to believe it is hers.
As it was there before either of us moved in, it will interesting to
sort out one day who it really belongs to.
However, regardless of the which way round a fence is, all of it
(panels, posts - and, I guess, foundations) should be on the owner's
property, and none should overhanging the neighbour's land.
--
Ian
Message has been deleted
Percy Picacity
May 6, 2013, 1:05:01 PM5/6/13
to
On 2013-05-06 14:55:01 +0000, Ian Jackson said:
In message <auo3nh...@mid.individual.net>, John Dean <john...@FRAGmsn.com> writes
"Bob" <b...@invalid.com> wrote in message news:km3vav$9ln$1...@dont-email.me...
I have read a fence on the boundary belongs to the person who erected it and the other neighbour may not paint or hang anything from it without permission and this may be criminal damage.
The situation should be covered in the title deeds though since you've already erected the fence yourself without, I assume, input from your neighbour then I'd say that if the deeds don't cover it the fence is yours.
Using my own situation as an example the fence on my north side belongs to the neighbours whose houses back on to it and the fence on the south side is the joint responsibility of that neighbour and us. So when the former got blown down, the other guys had to replace it and when the latter needed replacement my neighbour and I paid half each. I also have a fence at the west end of the garden between us and a school playground. That one belongs entirely to the school so they keep it in fettle.
Deeds don't normally indicate the ownership of a fence. They only indicate whose boundary it is - as marked with a 'T' symbol.
snip
I am having real difficulty with the concept of "whose boundary it is" - or indeed with a unilateral boundary at all. On land, at least.
--
Percy Picacity
Ian Jackson
May 6, 2013, 2:20:02 PM5/6/13
to
In message <6i5d4t....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity
<k...@under.the.invalid> writes
responsibility to erect and maintain something which marks that boundary
- which usually ends up in being a fence or a hedge - so positively
assigning a boundary to one party will help to share out the costs.
While there seems to be no legal requirement to erect a fence, a hedge,
or other such boundary marker, I guess it's a case of 'be it on your own
head' if you don't.
--
Ian
<k...@under.the.invalid> writes
>
>
>I am having real difficulty with the concept of "whose boundary it is" - or
>indeed with a unilateral boundary at all. On land, at least.
I believe the idea is that if it's your boundary, then it's your
>
>I am having real difficulty with the concept of "whose boundary it is" - or
>indeed with a unilateral boundary at all. On land, at least.
responsibility to erect and maintain something which marks that boundary
- which usually ends up in being a fence or a hedge - so positively
assigning a boundary to one party will help to share out the costs.
While there seems to be no legal requirement to erect a fence, a hedge,
or other such boundary marker, I guess it's a case of 'be it on your own
head' if you don't.
--
Ian
Mark Goodge
May 6, 2013, 3:25:01 PM5/6/13
to
On Mon, 06 May 2013 19:20:02 +0100, Ian Jackson put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>In message <6i5d4t....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity
><k...@under.the.invalid> writes
>>
>
>
>
>>
>>I am having real difficulty with the concept of "whose boundary it is" - or
>>indeed with a unilateral boundary at all. On land, at least.
>
>I believe the idea is that if it's your boundary, then it's your
>responsibility to erect and maintain something which marks that boundary
>- which usually ends up in being a fence or a hedge - so positively
>assigning a boundary to one party will help to share out the costs.
To be slightly more precise, it isn't the boundary which is owned as such,
it's the responsibility for erecting and maintaining a boundary marker. The
person whose responsibility it is must erect the marker wholly within his
own property.
Alternatively, responsibility for a boundary marker may be shared (aka a
party wall), in which case any fence or wall must precisely straddle the
actual boundary.
>While there seems to be no legal requirement to erect a fence, a hedge,
>or other such boundary marker, I guess it's a case of 'be it on your own
>head' if you don't.
There are some cases where a fence is legally required (although most of
them wouldn't apply to a typical domestic residence). What's more likely is
that the responsibility is set out in the deeds.
typed:
>In message <6i5d4t....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity
><k...@under.the.invalid> writes
>>
>
>
>
>>
>>I am having real difficulty with the concept of "whose boundary it is" - or
>>indeed with a unilateral boundary at all. On land, at least.
>
>I believe the idea is that if it's your boundary, then it's your
>responsibility to erect and maintain something which marks that boundary
>- which usually ends up in being a fence or a hedge - so positively
>assigning a boundary to one party will help to share out the costs.
it's the responsibility for erecting and maintaining a boundary marker. The
person whose responsibility it is must erect the marker wholly within his
own property.
Alternatively, responsibility for a boundary marker may be shared (aka a
party wall), in which case any fence or wall must precisely straddle the
actual boundary.
>While there seems to be no legal requirement to erect a fence, a hedge,
>or other such boundary marker, I guess it's a case of 'be it on your own
>head' if you don't.
them wouldn't apply to a typical domestic residence). What's more likely is
that the responsibility is set out in the deeds.
Norman Wells
May 6, 2013, 12:40:01 PM5/6/13
to
Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> who owned each particular part of this fence that was damaged
If you know who erected and paid for it, you know who owns it. And
he'll own all of it. 'Particular parts' won't come into it.
If you don't know who erected and paid for it, evidence will be found
from the T-mark on the deeds and the side of the fence facing each way,
and possibly from the boundaries shown in the deeds.
> and then how much damage, in terms of the reduction in performance or
> value, had occurred.
No. It's _criminal_ damage, and therefore a matter for the police.
> Will you be claiming damage only to the side Ste
> chose to paint or damage through seepage to the other side, which you
> would then need to prove was either deliberate or reckless. Also how
> much additional damage to the value of your property will result from
> the need to declare a neighbour dispute?
Ah well, that's a different matter. First you have to know your rights.
Then you decide whether to exert them.
> On Mon, 06 May 2013 09:55:02 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>> Ste wrote:
>>
>>> I can say that if my neighours attempted to tell me otherwise, I
>>> think I'd be quite inclined to assert my freedom to paint my side
>>> of the fence in whatever way I choose.
>>
>> What freedom is that then? It's criminal damage.
>
> I think that would be really hard to make out. You will need to prove
> wrote:
>> Ste wrote:
>>
>>> I can say that if my neighours attempted to tell me otherwise, I
>>> think I'd be quite inclined to assert my freedom to paint my side
>>> of the fence in whatever way I choose.
>>
>> What freedom is that then? It's criminal damage.
>
> who owned each particular part of this fence that was damaged
If you know who erected and paid for it, you know who owns it. And
he'll own all of it. 'Particular parts' won't come into it.
If you don't know who erected and paid for it, evidence will be found
from the T-mark on the deeds and the side of the fence facing each way,
and possibly from the boundaries shown in the deeds.
> and then how much damage, in terms of the reduction in performance or
> value, had occurred.
No. It's _criminal_ damage, and therefore a matter for the police.
> Will you be claiming damage only to the side Ste
> chose to paint or damage through seepage to the other side, which you
> would then need to prove was either deliberate or reckless. Also how
> much additional damage to the value of your property will result from
> the need to declare a neighbour dispute?
Ah well, that's a different matter. First you have to know your rights.
Then you decide whether to exert them.
Norman Wells
May 6, 2013, 12:50:02 PM5/6/13
to
Percy Picacity wrote:
> On 2013-05-06 08:55:02 +0000, Norman Wells said:
>
>> Ste wrote:
>>> On May 5, 12:30 pm, Bob <b...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> On 05/05/2013 09:50, Ste wrote:
>>
>>> I can say that if my neighours attempted to tell me otherwise, I
>>> think I'd be quite inclined to assert my freedom to paint my side
>>> of the fence in whatever way I choose.
>>
>> What freedom is that then? It's criminal damage.
>>
>>> Quite apart from the legal position,
>>> I'd think my neighbours highly unreasonable for suggesting that they
>>> should dictate the colour of the fence even on my side - although of
>>> course, you're perfectly right to be annoyed at the damage to your
>>> own side that he has caused in the process of painting his.
>>
>> If the neighbour wants a fence of a certain colour, he is perfectly
>> free to erect one on his own land and paint it however he likes. If
>> he wants to paint the original fence, however, he has to get
>> permission from its owner.
>
> That is perfectly true if the fence is on his own land, but the
> practice in towns and suburbia is almost invariably to erect a fence
> with the posts on the fence owner's side but the panels of the fence
> vertically over the boundary, and thus, for practical purposes
> defining it.
I thought on the contrary that accepted practice was to erect the fence
> On 2013-05-06 08:55:02 +0000, Norman Wells said:
>
>> Ste wrote:
>>> On May 5, 12:30 pm, Bob <b...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> On 05/05/2013 09:50, Ste wrote:
>>
>>> I can say that if my neighours attempted to tell me otherwise, I
>>> think I'd be quite inclined to assert my freedom to paint my side
>>> of the fence in whatever way I choose.
>>
>> What freedom is that then? It's criminal damage.
>>
>>> Quite apart from the legal position,
>>> I'd think my neighbours highly unreasonable for suggesting that they
>>> should dictate the colour of the fence even on my side - although of
>>> course, you're perfectly right to be annoyed at the damage to your
>>> own side that he has caused in the process of painting his.
>>
>> If the neighbour wants a fence of a certain colour, he is perfectly
>> free to erect one on his own land and paint it however he likes. If
>> he wants to paint the original fence, however, he has to get
>> permission from its owner.
>
> That is perfectly true if the fence is on his own land, but the
> practice in towns and suburbia is almost invariably to erect a fence
> with the posts on the fence owner's side but the panels of the fence
> vertically over the boundary, and thus, for practical purposes
> defining it.
wholly, if only marginally, on the fence owner's side.
> Unless it is one of those special infinitesimally thin
> fences this means that the far surface of the fence is on the
> neighbour's land. The practical problem with doing otherwise is that
> either both neighbours have to build their own fence or some other
> method has been used to mark the boundary. Otherwise the boundary is
> going to move over time towards the person who has built the fence on
> his own land, and he is going to have keep moving it back. If he
> asserts the boundary is a certain distance beyond the far side of his
> fence he is going to have a hard job proving it unless there are
> remnants of a previous fence or some other boundary marker. And the
> situation is complicated by house deeds giving a particular neighbour
> the responsibility for putting up a boundary fence, which will then be
> taken to be on the boundary in the absence of good evidence otherwise.
>
> So, generally, people will not agree with you. I have no idea what a
> court would say, but anyone who has put themselves in a position to
> find out has already failed!
Simon Finnigan
May 6, 2013, 3:20:03 PM5/6/13
to
post type, with both sides looking very similar if not identical. Certainly
nothing like you describe above m
Humbug
May 6, 2013, 4:40:01 PM5/6/13
to
Wherever you put your property it still ought to be your property,
wherever it's placed.
CF tree branches hanging over a neigbour's land - he may cut them off,
but they are still your property and he must return them to you if you
want them ...
I would expect that the garden law website has guidance about painting
fences :-)
--
Humbug
Message has been deleted
Humbug
May 6, 2013, 4:50:02 PM5/6/13
to
On Sun, 05 May 2013 09:50:09 +0100, Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 4, 10:50 pm, Bob <b...@invalid.com> wrote:
>On May 4, 10:50 pm, Bob <b...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> Bit of a petty issue, our neighbour has painted his side of the fence we
>> paid for and erected, the stain has come through our side and run down
>> and now looks a mess.
>>
>> Once we realised what he was doing I suggested he could have asked if he
>> wished to paint it. He seemed fine at the time but since my son has
>> received several texts bordering on abusive, stressing his side of the
>> fence is his and he will do what he wants with it when he wants.
>>
>> Hes a young lad and we had a few issues with all night party's (till
>> 5am) last year so we don't really want this to escalate.
>>
>> I have read a fence on the boundary belongs to the person who erected it
>> and the other neighbour may not paint or hang anything from it without
>> permission and this may be criminal damage.
>>
>> Is this correct or is he free to do what he wants with his side of our
>> fence on the boundary?
>
>> paid for and erected, the stain has come through our side and run down
>> and now looks a mess.
>>
>> Once we realised what he was doing I suggested he could have asked if he
>> wished to paint it. He seemed fine at the time but since my son has
>> received several texts bordering on abusive, stressing his side of the
>> fence is his and he will do what he wants with it when he wants.
>>
>> Hes a young lad and we had a few issues with all night party's (till
>> 5am) last year so we don't really want this to escalate.
>>
>> I have read a fence on the boundary belongs to the person who erected it
>> and the other neighbour may not paint or hang anything from it without
>> permission and this may be criminal damage.
>>
>> Is this correct or is he free to do what he wants with his side of our
>> fence on the boundary?
>
>Really, what you're asking is whether he is free to do what he wants
>with *your* side of your fence. Obviously, he isn't. But it's not
>unreasonable for him to have painted his own side. Even if I didn't
>own my fences, I don't think I'd ever consider asking my neighbours if
>I could paint my own side. Your neighbours problem is that he failed
>to foresee the effect of painting each side of the fence differently.
>
>Perhaps the best way out is to get him, if possible, to repaint your
>side in the colour of your choice.
My neighbour erected a fence made of plywood with a wooden capping on
>with *your* side of your fence. Obviously, he isn't. But it's not
>unreasonable for him to have painted his own side. Even if I didn't
>own my fences, I don't think I'd ever consider asking my neighbours if
>I could paint my own side. Your neighbours problem is that he failed
>to foresee the effect of painting each side of the fence differently.
>
>Perhaps the best way out is to get him, if possible, to repaint your
>side in the colour of your choice.
his property. He painted his side, and his side of the capping.
I told him that if he didn't paint the other side, it would fall down.
He didn't paint it, and it fell down.
It's not my fence.
Actually, it's not even my boundary, as the path belongs to the
downstairs maisonette.
my downstairs neighbour cares even less.
--
Humbug
Humbug
May 6, 2013, 4:50:02 PM5/6/13
to
On Sun, 05 May 2013 18:15:01 +0100, Lordgnome <l...@nospam.null> wrote:
> a slightly more logical version of English law
Therein lies the problem.
> a slightly more logical version of English law
"I cant see the logic in that" (sic).
--
Humbug
Message has been deleted
Humbug
May 6, 2013, 4:55:01 PM5/6/13
to
On Mon, 06 May 2013 20:25:01 +0100, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 06 May 2013 19:20:02 +0100, Ian Jackson put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>In message <6i5d4t....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity
>><k...@under.the.invalid> writes
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I am having real difficulty with the concept of "whose boundary it is" - or
>>>indeed with a unilateral boundary at all. On land, at least.
>>
>>I believe the idea is that if it's your boundary, then it's your
>>responsibility to erect and maintain something which marks that boundary
>>- which usually ends up in being a fence or a hedge - so positively
>>assigning a boundary to one party will help to share out the costs.
>
>To be slightly more precise, it isn't the boundary which is owned as such,
>it's the responsibility for erecting and maintaining a boundary marker. The
>person whose responsibility it is must erect the marker wholly within his
>own property.
Where does that come from? Whose responsibility is it ever to erect a
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 06 May 2013 19:20:02 +0100, Ian Jackson put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>In message <6i5d4t....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity
>><k...@under.the.invalid> writes
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I am having real difficulty with the concept of "whose boundary it is" - or
>>>indeed with a unilateral boundary at all. On land, at least.
>>
>>I believe the idea is that if it's your boundary, then it's your
>>responsibility to erect and maintain something which marks that boundary
>>- which usually ends up in being a fence or a hedge - so positively
>>assigning a boundary to one party will help to share out the costs.
>
>To be slightly more precise, it isn't the boundary which is owned as such,
>it's the responsibility for erecting and maintaining a boundary marker. The
>person whose responsibility it is must erect the marker wholly within his
>own property.
marker?
Is this like staking a calim in the goldfields of the Pacific North
West?
>Alternatively, responsibility for a boundary marker may be shared (aka a
>party wall), in which case any fence or wall must precisely straddle the
>actual boundary.
>>While there seems to be no legal requirement to erect a fence, a hedge,
>>or other such boundary marker, I guess it's a case of 'be it on your own
>>head' if you don't.
>
>There are some cases where a fence is legally required (although most of
>them wouldn't apply to a typical domestic residence). What's more likely is
>that the responsibility is set out in the deeds.
--
Humbug
Message has been deleted
Zapp Brannigan
May 6, 2013, 6:15:02 PM5/6/13
to
"Anthony R. Gold" <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a5hfo8lntckisevcf...@4ax.com...
>> Ste wrote:
>>
>>> I can say that if my neighours attempted to tell me otherwise, I think
>>> I'd be quite inclined to assert my freedom to paint my side of the
>>> fence in whatever way I choose.
>>
>> What freedom is that then? It's criminal damage.
>
>>
>>> I can say that if my neighours attempted to tell me otherwise, I think
>>> I'd be quite inclined to assert my freedom to paint my side of the
>>> fence in whatever way I choose.
>>
>> What freedom is that then? It's criminal damage.
>
> I think that would be really hard to make out. You will need to prove who
> owned each particular part of this fence that was damaged and then how
> much
> damage, in terms of the reduction in performance or value, had occurred.
> damage, in terms of the reduction in performance or value, had occurred.
> Will you be claiming damage only to the side Ste chose to paint or damage
> through seepage to the other side, which you would then need to prove was
> either deliberate or reckless. Also how much additional damage to the
> value
> of your property will result from the need to declare a neighbour dispute?
Those points would be relevant to a *civil* claim, but criminal damage is a
> through seepage to the other side, which you would then need to prove was
> either deliberate or reckless. Also how much additional damage to the
> value
> of your property will result from the need to declare a neighbour dispute?
criminal offence. The questions there are much simpler - Was deliberate or
reckless damage caused to another's property, without lawful excuse?
Applying paint to someone else's fence or wall would easily meet the test of
'damage', and the fact that the wall abutted your own land would not be a
lawful excuse. Whether the Police would act is probably another matter, but
that wouldn't prevent a private prosecution.
Norman Wells
May 6, 2013, 5:35:02 PM5/6/13
to
Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> On Mon, 06 May 2013 17:40:01 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> value, is a necessary element of criminal damage. And if the owner
> himself can not identify such damage and bear witness to it, how
> would the police be able?
>
> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/criminal_damage/
They can see it. Just as they can see graffitti on a wall, or a key
scratch down the side of a car door. Quantifying the 'damage' is not
important. The fact that it has occurred is enough.
The owner of property is entitled to have it left in its original state.
If that state is altered, then he's entitled to have it restored.
> On Mon, 06 May 2013 17:40:01 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>> On Mon, 06 May 2013 09:55:02 +0100, "Norman Wells"
>>> <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>> Ste wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I can say that if my neighours attempted to tell me otherwise, I
>>>>> think I'd be quite inclined to assert my freedom to paint my side
>>>>> of the fence in whatever way I choose.
>>>>
>>>> What freedom is that then? It's criminal damage.
>>>
>>> I think that would be really hard to make out. You will need to
>>> prove who owned each particular part of this fence that was damaged
>>
>> If you know who erected and paid for it, you know who owns it. And
>> he'll own all of it. 'Particular parts' won't come into it.
>>
>> If you don't know who erected and paid for it, evidence will be found
>> from the T-mark on the deeds and the side of the fence facing each
>> way, and possibly from the boundaries shown in the deeds.
>>
>>> and then how much damage, in terms of the reduction in performance
>>> or value, had occurred.
>>
>> No. It's _criminal_ damage, and therefore a matter for the police.
>
> Why "no"? Damage, as defined by a reduction in performance and/or in
>
>> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>> On Mon, 06 May 2013 09:55:02 +0100, "Norman Wells"
>>> <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>> Ste wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I can say that if my neighours attempted to tell me otherwise, I
>>>>> think I'd be quite inclined to assert my freedom to paint my side
>>>>> of the fence in whatever way I choose.
>>>>
>>>> What freedom is that then? It's criminal damage.
>>>
>>> I think that would be really hard to make out. You will need to
>>> prove who owned each particular part of this fence that was damaged
>>
>> If you know who erected and paid for it, you know who owns it. And
>> he'll own all of it. 'Particular parts' won't come into it.
>>
>> If you don't know who erected and paid for it, evidence will be found
>> from the T-mark on the deeds and the side of the fence facing each
>> way, and possibly from the boundaries shown in the deeds.
>>
>>> and then how much damage, in terms of the reduction in performance
>>> or value, had occurred.
>>
>> No. It's _criminal_ damage, and therefore a matter for the police.
>
> value, is a necessary element of criminal damage. And if the owner
> himself can not identify such damage and bear witness to it, how
> would the police be able?
>
> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/criminal_damage/
They can see it. Just as they can see graffitti on a wall, or a key
scratch down the side of a car door. Quantifying the 'damage' is not
important. The fact that it has occurred is enough.
The owner of property is entitled to have it left in its original state.
If that state is altered, then he's entitled to have it restored.
Mark Goodge
May 7, 2013, 2:55:02 AM5/7/13
to
On Mon, 06 May 2013 21:55:01 +0100, Humbug put finger to keyboard and
the deeds don't specificy, then it's usually recorded by the land registry
as a matter of fact according to how the markers are actually arranged at
the time the land was registered.
>>Alternatively, responsibility for a boundary marker may be shared (aka a
>>party wall), in which case any fence or wall must precisely straddle the
>>actual boundary.
>
>That's an intersting concept.
You say that as though you are surprised to hear of it.
typed:
>On Mon, 06 May 2013 20:25:01 +0100, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 May 2013 19:20:02 +0100, Ian Jackson put finger to keyboard and
>>typed:
>>
>>>In message <6i5d4t....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity
>>><k...@under.the.invalid> writes
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I am having real difficulty with the concept of "whose boundary it is" - or
>>>>indeed with a unilateral boundary at all. On land, at least.
>>>
>>>I believe the idea is that if it's your boundary, then it's your
>>>responsibility to erect and maintain something which marks that boundary
>>>- which usually ends up in being a fence or a hedge - so positively
>>>assigning a boundary to one party will help to share out the costs.
>>
>>To be slightly more precise, it isn't the boundary which is owned as such,
>>it's the responsibility for erecting and maintaining a boundary marker. The
>>person whose responsibility it is must erect the marker wholly within his
>>own property.
>
>Where does that come from? Whose responsibility is it ever to erect a
>marker?
If the responsibility exists, it will usually be set out in the deeds. If
>On Mon, 06 May 2013 20:25:01 +0100, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 May 2013 19:20:02 +0100, Ian Jackson put finger to keyboard and
>>typed:
>>
>>>In message <6i5d4t....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity
>>><k...@under.the.invalid> writes
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I am having real difficulty with the concept of "whose boundary it is" - or
>>>>indeed with a unilateral boundary at all. On land, at least.
>>>
>>>I believe the idea is that if it's your boundary, then it's your
>>>responsibility to erect and maintain something which marks that boundary
>>>- which usually ends up in being a fence or a hedge - so positively
>>>assigning a boundary to one party will help to share out the costs.
>>
>>To be slightly more precise, it isn't the boundary which is owned as such,
>>it's the responsibility for erecting and maintaining a boundary marker. The
>>person whose responsibility it is must erect the marker wholly within his
>>own property.
>
>Where does that come from? Whose responsibility is it ever to erect a
>marker?
the deeds don't specificy, then it's usually recorded by the land registry
as a matter of fact according to how the markers are actually arranged at
the time the land was registered.
>>Alternatively, responsibility for a boundary marker may be shared (aka a
>>party wall), in which case any fence or wall must precisely straddle the
>>actual boundary.
>
>That's an intersting concept.
Roland Perry
May 7, 2013, 9:45:02 AM5/7/13
to
In message
<1986252033389560256.01203...@news.individual.net>
, at 20:20:03 on Mon, 6 May 2013, Simon Finnigan
<simonf...@hotmail.com> remarked:
urban areas, but the vast majority of fences are timber and have two
very dissimilar sides (one with posts, and one without).
--
Roland Perry
<1986252033389560256.01203...@news.individual.net>
, at 20:20:03 on Mon, 6 May 2013, Simon Finnigan
<simonf...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>Every fence I've seen within about 10-15 miles of my home is the concrete
>post type, with both sides looking very similar if not identical. Certainly
>nothing like you describe above
There are certainly a few of these "symmetrical" concrete fences in
>post type, with both sides looking very similar if not identical. Certainly
>nothing like you describe above
urban areas, but the vast majority of fences are timber and have two
very dissimilar sides (one with posts, and one without).
--
Roland Perry
Sara
May 7, 2013, 10:40:02 AM5/7/13
to
In article <aMF$RQXxQQ...@perry.co.uk>,
From what I see around here, I'd disagree with you. The majority are
concrete posts and wood panels that look the same both sides.
Maybe it's an area/fashion thing?
--
Sara
cats cats cats cats cats
concrete posts and wood panels that look the same both sides.
Maybe it's an area/fashion thing?
--
Sara
cats cats cats cats cats
The Todal
May 7, 2013, 11:05:02 AM5/7/13
to
posts with wood panels that fit down a slot on the post, because I
figured that the posts would remain there for fifty years or more and
the fence panels could quite easily be replaced without having to pay
someone to do it.
Six months earlier we paid a young lad to replace a couple of fence
posts. He took most of the day to remove the concrete bases of the
posts, using only a pickaxe, and wanted to be paid more than the agreed
sum to take account of all the extra labour.
You can never have too many DIY tools, and a machine that can break up
lumps of concrete is quite a useful investment.
Message has been deleted
Roland Perry
May 7, 2013, 1:40:02 PM5/7/13
to
In message
<saramerriman-418B...@news.eternal-september.org>, at
15:40:02 on Tue, 7 May 2013, Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk>
I've lived in almost twenty houses built from (approx) 16th Century to
21st Century, and never had any fences that were the slotted concrete
posts.
But if they had been, then I would expect the posts to be entirely on
the land whose fence it was, which means it's their ownership and
responsibility, albeit with a few 6-foot x 1.5 inches of its land that
are marooned on the neighbour's side.
--
Roland Perry
<saramerriman-418B...@news.eternal-september.org>, at
15:40:02 on Tue, 7 May 2013, Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk>
remarked:
>> >Every fence I've seen within about 10-15 miles of my home is the concrete
>> >post type, with both sides looking very similar if not identical. Certainly
>> >nothing like you describe above
>>
>> There are certainly a few of these "symmetrical" concrete fences in
>> urban areas, but the vast majority of fences are timber and have two
>> very dissimilar sides (one with posts, and one without).
>
>From what I see around here, I'd disagree with you. The majority are
>concrete posts and wood panels that look the same both sides.
>
>Maybe it's an area/fashion thing?
Possibly an "era" thing.
>> >Every fence I've seen within about 10-15 miles of my home is the concrete
>> >post type, with both sides looking very similar if not identical. Certainly
>> >nothing like you describe above
>>
>> There are certainly a few of these "symmetrical" concrete fences in
>> urban areas, but the vast majority of fences are timber and have two
>> very dissimilar sides (one with posts, and one without).
>
>From what I see around here, I'd disagree with you. The majority are
>concrete posts and wood panels that look the same both sides.
>
>Maybe it's an area/fashion thing?
I've lived in almost twenty houses built from (approx) 16th Century to
21st Century, and never had any fences that were the slotted concrete
posts.
But if they had been, then I would expect the posts to be entirely on
the land whose fence it was, which means it's their ownership and
responsibility, albeit with a few 6-foot x 1.5 inches of its land that
are marooned on the neighbour's side.
--
Roland Perry
Andrew May
May 7, 2013, 11:50:02 AM5/7/13
to
On 05/05/2013 17:45, Simon Finnigan wrote:
> Bob <b...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> Bit of a petty issue, our neighbour has painted his side of the fence we
>> paid for and erected, the stain has come through our side and run down
>> and now looks a mess.
>>
>> Once we realised what he was doing I suggested he could have asked if he
>> wished to paint it. He seemed fine at the time but since my son has
>> received several texts bordering on abusive, stressing his side of the
>> fence is his and he will do what he wants with it when he wants.
>>
>> Hes a young lad and we had a few issues with all night party's (till 5am)
>> last year so we don't really want this to escalate.
>>
>> I have read a fence on the boundary belongs to the person who erected it
>> and the other neighbour may not paint or hang anything from it without
>> permission and this may be criminal damage.
>>
>> Is this correct or is he free to do what he wants with his side of our
>> fence on the boundary?
>
> I'd be tempted to paint my side of the fence the colour I want it to be,
> Bob <b...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> Bit of a petty issue, our neighbour has painted his side of the fence we
>> paid for and erected, the stain has come through our side and run down
>> and now looks a mess.
>>
>> Once we realised what he was doing I suggested he could have asked if he
>> wished to paint it. He seemed fine at the time but since my son has
>> received several texts bordering on abusive, stressing his side of the
>> fence is his and he will do what he wants with it when he wants.
>>
>> Hes a young lad and we had a few issues with all night party's (till 5am)
>> last year so we don't really want this to escalate.
>>
>> I have read a fence on the boundary belongs to the person who erected it
>> and the other neighbour may not paint or hang anything from it without
>> permission and this may be criminal damage.
>>
>> Is this correct or is he free to do what he wants with his side of our
>> fence on the boundary?
>
> and leave him with the streaks on the other side of the fence.
>
From what the OP has stated it sounds as if this is the type of fence
with overlapping strips where they are generally installed with the
overlap in the 'right' direction on the owners side. If that side is
painted then there is no problem and no drip through. It is only when
the other side is painted that paint runs down and out onto the other side.
polygonum
May 7, 2013, 11:50:02 AM5/7/13
to
symmetrical panels in line with posts, and used fence clips so that the
panels can easily be removed/replaced. I also ensured that every bit of
every fence was entirely on our land. Indeed, I left an old, low
concrete posted fence, which probably does mark the true boundary, in
place to ensure their could be no disagreement in future.
However, I did not use concrete posts as so many in this area are well
off-true now due to the nature of the soil/subsoil. Somehow, concrete
posts look even worse when skew with each other than do timber posts.
--
Rod
Stuart Bronstein
May 7, 2013, 2:35:02 PM5/7/13
to
Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
neighbour. It's all in wood, with both sides looking the same - and
pretty good looking at that. If you google "good neighbour fence"
you will see some examples.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> Simon Finnigan <simonf...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>> >Every fence I've seen within about 10-15 miles of my home is
>> >the concrete post type, with both sides looking very similar
>> >if not identical. Certainly nothing like you describe above
>>
>> There are certainly a few of these "symmetrical" concrete
>> fences in urban areas, but the vast majority of fences are
>> timber and have two very dissimilar sides (one with posts, and
>> one without).
>
> From what I see around here, I'd disagree with you. The majority
> are concrete posts and wood panels that look the same both
> sides.
>
> Maybe it's an area/fashion thing?
We recently had to get a new fence, with the cost split with the
>> Simon Finnigan <simonf...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>> >Every fence I've seen within about 10-15 miles of my home is
>> >the concrete post type, with both sides looking very similar
>> >if not identical. Certainly nothing like you describe above
>>
>> There are certainly a few of these "symmetrical" concrete
>> fences in urban areas, but the vast majority of fences are
>> timber and have two very dissimilar sides (one with posts, and
>> one without).
>
> From what I see around here, I'd disagree with you. The majority
> are concrete posts and wood panels that look the same both
> sides.
>
> Maybe it's an area/fashion thing?
neighbour. It's all in wood, with both sides looking the same - and
pretty good looking at that. If you google "good neighbour fence"
you will see some examples.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Simon Finnigan
May 7, 2013, 5:20:01 PM5/7/13
to
wooden fences that have distinct sides, but most fences are the concrete
type, especially when between houses (even pairs of houses a long way away
from other residential areas).
Andy Champ
May 8, 2013, 4:35:09 AM5/8/13
to
ours with a symmetrical concrete post fence - and a good job they have
done of it. The deeds make it clear that it is his fence.
Andy
Message has been deleted
Ian Jackson
May 8, 2013, 5:55:09 AM5/8/13
to
In message <jUoit.9917$jP....@fx12.fr7>, Jethro_uk
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> writes
>One of our neighbours had a couple of large willow trees which whilst
>being on his property (they were against the boundary) leaned almost
>entirely over our drive. A right royal nuisance. Eventually, we had saved
>enough money and called round to offer to pay to have them cut back. To
>our surprise our neighbour agreed to go halves on having them completely
>cut down.
>
>It always pays to keep on good terms with your neighbours ;)
I think you were extremely generous in going halves with your neighbour,
and that it was rather mean for him to accept your payment.
Legally, any cutting-back or cutting-down would be his the
responsibility. If you wanted to, and without informing him, you could
have simply got it cut back yourself (as far as your boundary and at
your expense). You would also have had to offer the cut branches to your
neighbour (as they were his property) - although whether he would have
wanted them is debatable! However, I don't think you could have then
sent the bill to your neighbour.
On the other hand, you probably did the right thing. Not only did you
'keep in' with your neighbour, it would probably have cost more to trim
the tree than to completely remove it. Also, trimming it would probably
have left the tree looking an awful eyesore - and as it would have grown
back again, in a few years time the problem would only have repeated
itself.
--
Ian
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> writes
>being on his property (they were against the boundary) leaned almost
>entirely over our drive. A right royal nuisance. Eventually, we had saved
>enough money and called round to offer to pay to have them cut back. To
>our surprise our neighbour agreed to go halves on having them completely
>cut down.
>
>It always pays to keep on good terms with your neighbours ;)
I think you were extremely generous in going halves with your neighbour,
and that it was rather mean for him to accept your payment.
Legally, any cutting-back or cutting-down would be his the
responsibility. If you wanted to, and without informing him, you could
have simply got it cut back yourself (as far as your boundary and at
your expense). You would also have had to offer the cut branches to your
neighbour (as they were his property) - although whether he would have
wanted them is debatable! However, I don't think you could have then
sent the bill to your neighbour.
On the other hand, you probably did the right thing. Not only did you
'keep in' with your neighbour, it would probably have cost more to trim
the tree than to completely remove it. Also, trimming it would probably
have left the tree looking an awful eyesore - and as it would have grown
back again, in a few years time the problem would only have repeated
itself.
--
Ian
Roland Perry
May 8, 2013, 6:20:02 AM5/8/13
to
In message
<541581448389653770.536596...@news.individual.net>,
at 22:20:01 on Tue, 7 May 2013, Simon Finnigan
difference at play. I've lived in around twenty places since I was a
child, and almost all of them (and certainly the first and current) had
the "thick-posts-then-horizontals-with-boards-nailed-one-side sort.
The most common "other" kind of boundary has been either walls or
mass-produced timber panel fencing with rather thin posts which are
symmetrical when viewed from either side.
I won't upload any pictures specially, but here's one example (on a
1910's house in Cambridge) where the rear fence construction is just
visible in the gap between the sheds. There's a vertical post, the end
of two of the horizontals (top and middle), and the vertical boards
nailed from the other (out-)side.
The reason for the picture was another interesting legal issue - there
was no fence between the properties at the bottom of the garden, just
two sheds backing onto each other. because the site was at a slight
angle, the corrugated iron roof of next-door's shed "flew" over my land.
The string which is just visible in the pictures shows where the actual
boundary would be. I'm standing in the thin triangle of land in my
garden alongside the end of my shed (the one on the right).
http://www.perry.co.uk/images/flying-shed.jpg
--
Roland Perry
<541581448389653770.536596...@news.individual.net>,
at 22:20:01 on Tue, 7 May 2013, Simon Finnigan
<simonf...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>> Every fence I've seen within about 10-15 miles of my home is the concrete
>>> post type, with both sides looking very similar if not identical. Certainly
>>> nothing like you describe above
>>
>> There are certainly a few of these "symmetrical" concrete fences in urban
>> areas, but the vast majority of fences are timber and have two very
>> dissimilar sides (one with posts, and one without).
>
>My experience is exactly the opposite of yours - a very few people have the
>wooden fences that have distinct sides, but most fences are the concrete
>type, especially when between houses (even pairs of houses a long way away
>from other residential areas).
That just shows that there must be some significant regional or other
>>> Every fence I've seen within about 10-15 miles of my home is the concrete
>>> post type, with both sides looking very similar if not identical. Certainly
>>> nothing like you describe above
>>
>> There are certainly a few of these "symmetrical" concrete fences in urban
>> areas, but the vast majority of fences are timber and have two very
>> dissimilar sides (one with posts, and one without).
>
>My experience is exactly the opposite of yours - a very few people have the
>wooden fences that have distinct sides, but most fences are the concrete
>type, especially when between houses (even pairs of houses a long way away
>from other residential areas).
difference at play. I've lived in around twenty places since I was a
child, and almost all of them (and certainly the first and current) had
the "thick-posts-then-horizontals-with-boards-nailed-one-side sort.
The most common "other" kind of boundary has been either walls or
mass-produced timber panel fencing with rather thin posts which are
symmetrical when viewed from either side.
I won't upload any pictures specially, but here's one example (on a
1910's house in Cambridge) where the rear fence construction is just
visible in the gap between the sheds. There's a vertical post, the end
of two of the horizontals (top and middle), and the vertical boards
nailed from the other (out-)side.
The reason for the picture was another interesting legal issue - there
was no fence between the properties at the bottom of the garden, just
two sheds backing onto each other. because the site was at a slight
angle, the corrugated iron roof of next-door's shed "flew" over my land.
The string which is just visible in the pictures shows where the actual
boundary would be. I'm standing in the thin triangle of land in my
garden alongside the end of my shed (the one on the right).
http://www.perry.co.uk/images/flying-shed.jpg
--
Roland Perry
Message has been deleted
Lordgnome
May 8, 2013, 6:50:01 AM5/8/13
to
On 08/05/2013 10:30, Jethro_uk wrote:
> One of our neighbours had a couple of large willow trees which whilst
> being on his property (they were against the boundary) leaned almost
> entirely over our drive. A right royal nuisance. Eventually, we had
> saved enough money and called round to offer to pay to have them cut
> back. To our surprise our neighbour agreed to go halves on having them
> completely cut down. It always pays to keep on good terms with your
> neighbours ;)
Wot, no TPO?
> One of our neighbours had a couple of large willow trees which whilst
> being on his property (they were against the boundary) leaned almost
> entirely over our drive. A right royal nuisance. Eventually, we had
> saved enough money and called round to offer to pay to have them cut
> back. To our surprise our neighbour agreed to go halves on having them
> completely cut down. It always pays to keep on good terms with your
> neighbours ;)
Les
Simon Finnigan
May 8, 2013, 2:25:02 PM5/8/13
to
Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 May 2013 19:35:02 +0100, Stuart Bronstein wrote:
>
> On Tue, 07 May 2013 19:35:02 +0100, Stuart Bronstein wrote:
>
> One of our neighbours had a couple of large willow trees which whilst
> being on his property (they were against the boundary) leaned almost
> entirely over our drive. A right royal nuisance. Eventually, we had saved
> enough money and called round to offer to pay to have them cut back. To
> our surprise our neighbour agreed to go halves on having them completely
> cut down.
>
> It always pays to keep on good terms with your neighbours ;)
Absolutely - my neighbour recently redid the guttering and soffits of both
> being on his property (they were against the boundary) leaned almost
> entirely over our drive. A right royal nuisance. Eventually, we had saved
> enough money and called round to offer to pay to have them cut back. To
> our surprise our neighbour agreed to go halves on having them completely
> cut down.
>
> It always pays to keep on good terms with your neighbours ;)
houses for the cost of materials, the limited DIY help I could offer and as
repayment for a lot of IT support I've given him. :-)
Message has been deleted
lime2...@gmail.com
Jun 21, 2016, 5:29:29 PM6/21/16
to
Matey. It is an offence. .criminal damage.call 101 and speak to the police.if you let him carry on it wont stop.teach him a lesson so he wont overstep the mark again.your well within your legal rights & also he has to foot the bill for costs/remedial works or new panels.you cant loose.
Peter Parry
Jun 21, 2016, 5:36:16 PM6/21/16
to
event :-
Subject: neighbour painting fence without permission?
X-Posted-Date: Sat, 04 May 2013 22:45:21 +0100
clair...@live.co.uk
Aug 10, 2020, 3:23:27 PM8/10/20
to
On Saturday, 4 May 2013 22:50:02 UTC+1, Bob wrote:
> Bit of a petty issue, our neighbour has painted his side of the fence we
> paid for and erected, the stain has come through our side and run down
> and now looks a mess.
>
> Once we realised what he was doing I suggested he could have asked if he
> wished to paint it. He seemed fine at the time but since my son has
> received several texts bordering on abusive, stressing his side of the
> fence is his and he will do what he wants with it when he wants.
>
> Hes a young lad and we had a few issues with all night party's (till
> 5am) last year so we don't really want this to escalate.
>
> I have read a fence on the boundary belongs to the person who erected it
> and the other neighbour may not paint or hang anything from it without
> permission and this may be criminal damage.
>
> Is this correct or is he free to do what he wants with his side of our
> fence on the boundary?
The other party, must get your permission, writern or verbal. They are not allowed to do it without.
> Bit of a petty issue, our neighbour has painted his side of the fence we
> paid for and erected, the stain has come through our side and run down
> and now looks a mess.
>
> Once we realised what he was doing I suggested he could have asked if he
> wished to paint it. He seemed fine at the time but since my son has
> received several texts bordering on abusive, stressing his side of the
> fence is his and he will do what he wants with it when he wants.
>
> Hes a young lad and we had a few issues with all night party's (till
> 5am) last year so we don't really want this to escalate.
>
> I have read a fence on the boundary belongs to the person who erected it
> and the other neighbour may not paint or hang anything from it without
> permission and this may be criminal damage.
>
> Is this correct or is he free to do what he wants with his side of our
> fence on the boundary?
Max Demian
Aug 10, 2020, 4:10:03 PM8/10/20
to
through. Perhaps it needed painting. Perhaps he hated the colour, or it
was so dark that it made his rooms dark. Who would be responsible for
paint/Cuprinol maintenance of a fence? If you, would he be obliged to
allow you onto his property to do so?
--
Max Demian
Mark Goodge
Aug 10, 2020, 5:03:47 PM8/10/20
to
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 21:09:39 +0100, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
>I expect the neighbour didn't realise that paint on his side would come
>through. Perhaps it needed painting. Perhaps he hated the colour, or it
>was so dark that it made his rooms dark. Who would be responsible for
>paint/Cuprinol maintenance of a fence? If you, would he be obliged to
>allow you onto his property to do so?
Disregarding the re-opened seven-year-old thread about whether the
neighbour has the right to paint the fence (answer: no, not without
permission from the fence's owner), the answer to your question is that
the owner of the fence has no automatic right to enter his neighbour's
property in order to carry out work to his own fence, but, if it is
reasonably necessary for him to do so and the neighbour will not grant
permission voluntarily, he can get a court order under the Access to
Neighbouring Land Act 1992 which permits him to do so.
Mark
wrote:
>I expect the neighbour didn't realise that paint on his side would come
>through. Perhaps it needed painting. Perhaps he hated the colour, or it
>was so dark that it made his rooms dark. Who would be responsible for
>paint/Cuprinol maintenance of a fence? If you, would he be obliged to
>allow you onto his property to do so?
neighbour has the right to paint the fence (answer: no, not without
permission from the fence's owner), the answer to your question is that
the owner of the fence has no automatic right to enter his neighbour's
property in order to carry out work to his own fence, but, if it is
reasonably necessary for him to do so and the neighbour will not grant
permission voluntarily, he can get a court order under the Access to
Neighbouring Land Act 1992 which permits him to do so.
Mark
Flop
Aug 11, 2020, 5:34:13 AM8/11/20
to
On 10/08/2020 19:44, clair...@live.co.uk wrote:
1) Is there an agreed boundary? (LR map may help). If 'yes',
go to 2); if 'no' go to 3)
2) Is the fence wholly on his or your side of the boundary?*
If 'yes' then whoever has the fence owns both sides of the fence and
can do what he likes with it. If 'no' go to 3)
3) If the fence goes along the boundary, is it asymmetrical? That is
does it have a front (all panels) and back (crossbeams)? If 'yes' then
it can be argued that the face defines the boundary and so the fence is
owned by the neighbour with the back of the fence on their side. If 'no'
then the fence is jointly owned and requires permission from both
neighbours to work/attach items on it**.
* it is not unusual for someone to erect a fence wholly on their side of
the boundary if they do not like the defined fence. Eg it may be chain
link, may allow animals through or may not be high enough for privacy.
** You may have paid for it and its erection, but if you did so and
located it on the boundary, and kept the prettier face on your side, it
could be argued that the fence is your neighbours as the face now
defines the boundary.
Remember - what you currently see may have had a history. And when you
haved moved or your neighbour has, how will future owners decide the
ownership?
--
Flop
Truly the Good Lord gave us computers that we might learn patience
AnthonyL
Aug 11, 2020, 8:01:09 AM8/11/20
to
On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:33:59 +0100, Flop <Fl...@flop.knot.me.uk> wrote:
>
>Fences are never that simple.
>
>1) Is there an agreed boundary? (LR map may help). If 'yes',
> go to 2); if 'no' go to 3)
>
>2) Is the fence wholly on his or your side of the boundary?*
> If 'yes' then whoever has the fence owns both sides of the fence and
>can do what he likes with it. If 'no' go to 3)
>
>3) If the fence goes along the boundary, is it asymmetrical? That is
>does it have a front (all panels) and back (crossbeams)? If 'yes' then
>it can be argued that the face defines the boundary and so the fence is
>owned by the neighbour with the back of the fence on their side. If 'no'
>then the fence is jointly owned and requires permission from both
>neighbours to work/attach items on it**.
>
>* it is not unusual for someone to erect a fence wholly on their side of
>the boundary if they do not like the defined fence. Eg it may be chain
>link, may allow animals through or may not be high enough for privacy.
>
>** You may have paid for it and its erection, but if you did so and
>located it on the boundary, and kept the prettier face on your side, it
>could be argued that the fence is your neighbours as the face now
>defines the boundary.
>
>Remember - what you currently see may have had a history. And when you
>haved moved or your neighbour has, how will future owners decide the
>ownership?
>
Interesting. I have the "pretty side" facing us on both sides of our
>
>Fences are never that simple.
>
>1) Is there an agreed boundary? (LR map may help). If 'yes',
> go to 2); if 'no' go to 3)
>
>2) Is the fence wholly on his or your side of the boundary?*
> If 'yes' then whoever has the fence owns both sides of the fence and
>can do what he likes with it. If 'no' go to 3)
>
>3) If the fence goes along the boundary, is it asymmetrical? That is
>does it have a front (all panels) and back (crossbeams)? If 'yes' then
>it can be argued that the face defines the boundary and so the fence is
>owned by the neighbour with the back of the fence on their side. If 'no'
>then the fence is jointly owned and requires permission from both
>neighbours to work/attach items on it**.
>
>* it is not unusual for someone to erect a fence wholly on their side of
>the boundary if they do not like the defined fence. Eg it may be chain
>link, may allow animals through or may not be high enough for privacy.
>
>** You may have paid for it and its erection, but if you did so and
>located it on the boundary, and kept the prettier face on your side, it
>could be argued that the fence is your neighbours as the face now
>defines the boundary.
>
>Remember - what you currently see may have had a history. And when you
>haved moved or your neighbour has, how will future owners decide the
>ownership?
>
garden.
The deeds show we are responsible for the fence on the east side but
that looks like the original fence c1957.
--
AnthonyL
Why do scientists need to BELIEVE in anything?
Flop
Aug 11, 2020, 12:06:42 PM8/11/20
to
the question of boundaries.
As an example, our neighbour on our west has deeds that say his
responsibility are the fences to (the south and ) east of his garden.
That is, the fence between us.
Our deeds say (south and) west.
That is, the fence between us.
Rosie Lee
Aug 11, 2020, 2:57:19 PM8/11/20
to
What would stop the owner of a fence painting the fence that they own in bright shocking pink or some other colour of their choosing on both sides?
Assuming it is a fence that is in a rear garden and not visible from the road so not changing the look of the frontage.
Assuming it is a fence that is in a rear garden and not visible from the road so not changing the look of the frontage.
Flop
Aug 11, 2020, 4:35:08 PM8/11/20
to
On 11/08/2020 19:57, Rosie Lee wrote:
> What would stop the owner of a fence painting the fence that they own in bright shocking pink or some other colour of their choosing on both sides?
>
> Assuming it is a fence that is in a rear garden and not visible from the road so not changing the look of the frontage.
>
Nothing.
> What would stop the owner of a fence painting the fence that they own in bright shocking pink or some other colour of their choosing on both sides?
>
> Assuming it is a fence that is in a rear garden and not visible from the road so not changing the look of the frontage.
>
Not easy to stop because it would involve a legal battle and you would
have to sell the house first.
maymcke...@gmail.com
Aug 13, 2020, 12:32:31 PM8/13/20
to
If my neighbours fence is in a dispicable state and doesn't want me painting my side of it. Can I errect a fence at the back of it in my own side?
Flop
Aug 13, 2020, 1:13:38 PM8/13/20
to
On 13/08/2020 14:33, maymcke...@gmail.com wrote:
> If my neighbours fence is in a dispicable state and doesn't want me painting my side of it. Can I errect a fence at the back of it in my own side?
>
Of course.
> If my neighbours fence is in a dispicable state and doesn't want me painting my side of it. Can I errect a fence at the back of it in my own side?
>
But....
...you may have to have the 'pretty' face on his side to retain
boundary ownership
...if it is close to his fence, nailing the panels may be problematical
...if you are going to wood preserve (or paint) the fence then do both
sides before assembly
Mark Goodge
Aug 13, 2020, 1:16:33 PM8/13/20
to
On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 06:33:40 -0700 (PDT), maymcke...@gmail.com
wrote:
>If my neighbours fence is in a dispicable state and doesn't want
>me painting my side of it. Can I errect a fence at the back of
>it in my own side?
Yes. Provided that your fence is entirely on your own property.
Mark
wrote:
>If my neighbours fence is in a dispicable state and doesn't want
>me painting my side of it. Can I errect a fence at the back of
>it in my own side?
Mark
Robert Paige
Sep 11, 2020, 12:22:30 PM9/11/20
to
So they paid for all this. Our original fence was destroyed. The fence, after 6 weeks needed painting which I have done now but neighbour now says we need their permission to paint the fence they had erected.
so if the fence is still ours they will actually need our permission to paint. They can't have a right as they purchased the fence as they did this whilst we were on holiday and we came back to a new fence in the front garden, but we did not complain as we had a new fence on the boundary which is ours to maintain .
Your thoughts please.
Pancho
Sep 11, 2020, 1:04:30 PM9/11/20
to
would be establish whose fence it actually is.
I don't understand why a 6 week old fence "needs" painting. Painting one
side of a fence often leaks through to the other side and can cause the
wood to warp. Even if it is legally "your" fence, given the expense the
neighbour put into erecting it, it would have been polite to discuss the
mater with him first.
steve robinson
Sep 11, 2020, 1:23:56 PM9/11/20
to
they removed was your property.
Spike
Sep 12, 2020, 4:01:30 AM9/12/20
to
On 11/09/2020 16:12, Robert Paige wrote:
> our boundary fence was replaced by neighbour when they had all their front garden fences replaced.
> So they paid for all this. Our original fence was destroyed. The fence, after 6 weeks needed painting which I have done now but neighbour now says we need their permission to paint the fence they had erected.
> so if the fence is still ours they will actually need our permission to paint. They can't have a right as they purchased the fence as they did this whilst we were on holiday and we came back to a new fence in the front garden, but we did not complain as we had a new fence on the boundary which is ours to maintain .
> Your thoughts please.
My understanding of the fence-replacement situation is that if your
> our boundary fence was replaced by neighbour when they had all their front garden fences replaced.
> So they paid for all this. Our original fence was destroyed. The fence, after 6 weeks needed painting which I have done now but neighbour now says we need their permission to paint the fence they had erected.
> so if the fence is still ours they will actually need our permission to paint. They can't have a right as they purchased the fence as they did this whilst we were on holiday and we came back to a new fence in the front garden, but we did not complain as we had a new fence on the boundary which is ours to maintain .
> Your thoughts please.
neighbour did so voluntarily, and the fence is along the line of the
original, then they gain no rights to it; it is your fence. If the new
fence is actually on his side of the original line, then it's his fence.
You might need first to establish the exact lines of the new and old
fences before doing anything else. Photos might help to establish where
the original line was. A surveyor's report might help, but that will
cost you.
--
Spike
Flop
Sep 12, 2020, 7:31:40 AM9/12/20
to
The first question is 'where is the boundary?'. Ignore fences and define
the line. Land registry is the first step and the deeds for both
properties. (Do not rely on just one neighbour's as the two sets may not
be consistent).
Get agreement with your neighbour as to where the piece of string goes.
Now look at the fence. Does it have a 'good' face and a 'bad' face?
If so, the 'good' face should be along the line of the boundary and the
rest of the fence will be on the owners side.
If not, the fence should straddle the boundary with both parties as
joint owners. Any changes (including replacement, painting and use of
preservatives) by agreement.
Frequently, the fence is bought and erected with the 'good' side on the
purchasers side. ("I paid for it - so I should get the better side").
Which will lead to all sorts of trouble for future purchasers of the
properties as he has effectively given the fence to his neighbour.
A bit like buying a birthday present - ownership is yours until you give
it away.
For serious disagreements the only way out is to employ a chartered
surveyor acting as mediator with his decision binding.
Roland Perry
Sep 12, 2020, 8:57:08 AM9/12/20
to
In message <DsWdnbFZ5PAWLMHC...@brightview.co.uk>, at
12:31:22 on Sat, 12 Sep 2020, Flop <Fl...@flop.knot.me.uk> remarked:
>Does it have a 'good' face and a 'bad' face?
>
>If so, the 'good' face should be along the line of the boundary and the
>rest of the fence will be on the owners side.
>If not, the fence should straddle the boundary with both parties as
>joint owners. Any changes (including replacement, painting and use of
>preservatives) by agreement.
>
>Frequently, the fence is bought and erected with the 'good' side on the
>purchasers side. ("I paid for it - so I should get the better side").
>Which will lead to all sorts of trouble for future purchasers of the
>properties as he has effectively given the fence to his neighbour.
One house I've owned, the previous householder erected a fence with the
good side facing him, but the posts also on his (our) land. However it
was quite clear from looking at the rear wall of the house what had
happened, including him in effect sacrificing a six inch wide strip of
the back garden. But then we did get to see the pretty side of the
fence!
--
Roland Perry
12:31:22 on Sat, 12 Sep 2020, Flop <Fl...@flop.knot.me.uk> remarked:
>Does it have a 'good' face and a 'bad' face?
>
>If so, the 'good' face should be along the line of the boundary and the
>rest of the fence will be on the owners side.
>If not, the fence should straddle the boundary with both parties as
>joint owners. Any changes (including replacement, painting and use of
>preservatives) by agreement.
>
>Frequently, the fence is bought and erected with the 'good' side on the
>purchasers side. ("I paid for it - so I should get the better side").
>Which will lead to all sorts of trouble for future purchasers of the
>properties as he has effectively given the fence to his neighbour.
good side facing him, but the posts also on his (our) land. However it
was quite clear from looking at the rear wall of the house what had
happened, including him in effect sacrificing a six inch wide strip of
the back garden. But then we did get to see the pretty side of the
fence!
--
Roland Perry
0 new messages