Annoying Boundary Dispute

Re: Annoying Boundary Dispute

Postby cleo5 » Thu Apr 28, 2016 5:49 pm

Just read this thread.
The shrubs on the quarry will have bound the rocks together. Remove them and as has been said will destabilize the quarry side. I have a small quarry at bottom of my garden and removal of one tree brought rocks down and made edge there unsafe.
Leave your shrubs to grow to a reasonable height. Their view or your privacy? Which is more important?
There is no legal entitlement to a view.
Your land, your shrubs.
If they once had permission to use the path you can now rescind/ revoke? that permission.
Put up a 2 metre fence and more shrubs if you have not yet done so. Keep this second row of shrubs at the 2m mark. Bamboo perhaps/ No legal height for bamboo.

Remove their wooden path edging and return it to them.
I see they have a row of Leylandii or other fir in front of their chain link and will eventually keep them at whatever height they choose so what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

They are simply bullying you.
The strip of land beside your quarry was purchased and added to your title. There will surely be proof of this in your deeds. If they use it without your permission it's tresspass.
He had no business turfing your path.
Those are the facts.
How can any judge or whatever suggest you come to any compromise. Why should you? As you say they bought their house knowing the view was compromised.
You have already lost about 4 ins of your land by erecting a fence alongside their chain link.
That is compromise enough.
Or have I got things all wrong?
cleo5
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 12:33 pm

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 

Re: Annoying Boundary Dispute

Postby bristolmatt » Fri Apr 29, 2016 8:33 am

Long story made short...

Neighbour claimed a strip of land while house was vacant between death of previous owner and us moving in. We wrote letter stating that land was ours as indicated on our deeds and requested they cease using the land. They took us to court claiming the land was theirs. We agreed to a joint expert survery to determine boundary position. Survey agrees 100% with our position. Neighbours try to discredit survey and ask court to dismiss findings. Court refuses. We agree to meet neighbours to agree a mutually agreeable boundary position. We conceed some land to neigbours in attempt to reach agreement and avoid going to court. Neighbours then try to include all kinds of clauses into the agreement to commit us to maintain shrubs within our land close the the boundary as they don't want them growing too high to impact on their view. We refuse as these shrubs are crucial to our privacy from being overlooked by neighbours.
bristolmatt
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:06 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: Annoying Boundary Dispute

Postby arborlad » Fri Apr 29, 2016 9:44 am

bristolmatt wrote:Any ideas what the next move should be? Would be happy to go to court to get a final ruling so long as we can be confident of winning. There is no issue I can see in regard to the boundary position now, so it just comes down to the issue about the shrubs but have no idea how any judge may look at this should it go all the way. Don't want to be seen as being the obstructive party in failing to make an agreement, but also don't want to make unecessay concessions to our neighbour.



The reason your predecessor retained an amount of land beyond the cliff edge was to ensure the stability of it by preventing unauthorised works or access, how certain are you that all parties - especially the judge, are aware of this. If there are any doubters - you need to be much more forceful in reinforcing that point.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7382
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Annoying Boundary Dispute

Postby bristolmatt » Fri Apr 29, 2016 9:59 am

arborlad wrote:
bristolmatt wrote:The reason your predecessor retained an amount of land beyond the cliff edge was to ensure the stability of it by preventing unauthorised works or access, how certain are you that all parties - especially the judge, are aware of this. If there are any doubters - you need to be much more forceful in reinforcing that point.


Of course if it comes to court, we will make this point again.

In general terms we have an agreement on boundary position that both parties are happy with. The only issue preventing this being signed is the clause in regard to the shrubs that are well within our curtilage and that are not subject to any legal height restrictions. As such, we don't think it is unreasonable to remove any mention of these entirely from the agreement. We have already made a concession to erect only a 4ft fence on the boundary, so we need to retain the right to let the shrubs grow as tall as we want in order to maintain our privacy.

I can't see that any judge would look unfavourably on our position here (there is certainly no legal issue with them), but we are not prepared to make any more concessions to our neighbours, so I guess we'll just have to risk it. I have asked our solicitor to write again to theirs stating that we are ready to sign the agreement (without the shrubs clause) and end the dispute now. That way I guess any judge can see that we have done all we can to avoid escalation and we just make our case clear in court as to why the shrubs are an important issue from our perspective in regard to our privacy.
bristolmatt
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:06 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: Annoying Boundary Dispute

Postby Roblewis » Fri Apr 29, 2016 10:04 am

arborlad wrote:
bristolmatt wrote:Any ideas what the next move should be? Would be happy to go to court to get a final ruling so long as we can be confident of winning. There is no issue I can see in regard to the boundary position now, so it just comes down to the issue about the shrubs but have no idea how any judge may look at this should it go all the way. Don't want to be seen as being the obstructive party in failing to make an agreement, but also don't want to make unecessay concessions to our neighbour.



The reason your predecessor retained an amount of land beyond the cliff edge was to ensure the stability of it by preventing unauthorised works or access, how certain are you that all parties - especially the judge, are aware of this. If there are any doubters - you need to be much more forceful in reinforcing that point.



I am totally with arborlad here. In fact your solicitor should make this clear to their sols asap before court hearing in WRITING and to any judge he appears before. With an agreed boundary, which the other side have conceded in the agreement, I would go ahead now with a fence erection to your specification. I suspect planning would agree to a 2m palisade fence if you wished. The boundary dispute is resolved and the fuss about shrubs is entirely separate and this is the approach your sols need to take in any further hearings. INSTRUCT him this is what must happen. The court has approved the boundary so use that judgement. There are times I am afraid when some sols are a bit prissy and gentlewith opponents
Roblewis
 
Posts: 1763
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:41 pm

Re: Annoying Boundary Dispute

Postby bristolmatt » Fri Apr 29, 2016 10:55 am

Thanks for the advice.

Have been firm with our solicitor and stated that we will not entertain ANY clauses in regard to the shrubs and to make that crystal clear to our neighbours.

Ball in their court now - they can either sign the agreement or let it come to court. Would hope that the advice they get is to sign the agreement as I can't see any way a judge would rule in their favour on this. Their stubbornness to date has been legendary though, so you never know...
bristolmatt
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:06 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: Annoying Boundary Dispute

Postby Roblewis » Fri Apr 29, 2016 1:25 pm

Yes there is little more stubborn than a losing party. Your dispute was the boundary though and you have won this. The advice to then negotiate an agreement was faulty at best. The court ruled the surveyors report and you were prepared to be a little generous in victory. Hindsight suggests that you would have been best to put a fence up IMMEDIATELY the court ruled in your favour and not enter into further negotiations that have enabled the neighbour to create further mayhem. You have a court order on boundary location and the offers/concessions offered to the neighbour have now been rejected as they are still trying to add further matters. Do the hard face and tell them that the agreement has fallen and you will now act strictly in accordance with the boundary location determined by the court and erect a fence of your own specification.
Roblewis
 
Posts: 1763
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:41 pm

Re: Annoying Boundary Dispute

Postby arborlad » Fri Apr 29, 2016 1:59 pm

Roblewis wrote: I would go ahead now with a fence erection to your specification. I suspect planning would agree to a 2m palisade fence if you wished.



Although 2m might be a preferred height, I think it will already be permitted development as not abutting a highway, notwithstanding the agreement for a 1.2m fence, negotiating downwards from 2m to around 1.5m might work.

From memory, part of the boundary is the gable end of the house, with any windows, gutters, soffits etc., that will need maintenance. As a gesture of goodwill, adding a gate to the fence could be to the OPs advantage, the gate to be kept permanently locked with the only keys held by the OP and its use strictly limited to work on the neighbours property. Where there is a chance that something might be taken, offering it beforehand is usually advantageous.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7382
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Annoying Boundary Dispute

Postby Roblewis » Fri Apr 29, 2016 7:16 pm

I think arborlad and myself are both saying that the erection of the fence at whatever height is a must without further discussion. Its installation has been agreed and as long as the agreement does not say anything about maintaining the fence then you could technically install a higher fence at a later date without having infringed the agreement.
Roblewis
 
Posts: 1763
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:41 pm

Re: Annoying Boundary Dispute

Postby arborlad » Sat Apr 30, 2016 8:51 am

Roblewis wrote:I think arborlad and myself are both saying that the erection of the fence at whatever height is a must without further discussion.



We are..................for the OP, do you have a contractor ready to go?
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7382
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 
Previous

Return to Boundaries

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests