A tricky boundary discussion

Re: A tricky boundary discussion

Postby Collaborate » Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:16 am

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi Sophieg,

My evidence is a plan that shows the concrete fence that was in place before the new fence was put in place showing dilapidated concrete post & wire fence.

that's not what you've posted an image of, though?

this evidence - the plan - does it confirm the concrete posts stood on your land, rather than just that they pre-date your fence?

Kind regards, Mac


Mac

The existence of a fence is prima facie evidence that the boundary once stood there. That is OP's evidence. the boundary feature has been removed by the developers. Don't take playing Devil's advocate too far, eh?
Collaborate
 
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 10:17 am

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: A tricky boundary discussion

Postby MacadamB53 » Thu Sep 22, 2016 8:49 am

Collaborate wrote:
MacadamB53 wrote:Hi Sophieg,

My evidence is a plan that shows the concrete fence that was in place before the new fence was put in place showing dilapidated concrete post & wire fence.

that's not what you've posted an image of, though?

this evidence - the plan - does it confirm the concrete posts stood on your land, rather than just that they pre-date your fence?

Kind regards, Mac


Mac

The existence of a fence is prima facie evidence that the boundary once stood there. That is OP's evidence. the boundary feature has been removed by the developers. Don't take playing Devil's advocate too far, eh?
Hi Collaborate,

except the OP has told us that when their property was built in 1999 the fence was an original feature.

just trying to understand where the OP is coming from with this older plan...

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6032
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: A tricky boundary discussion

Postby arborlad » Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:42 am

Sophieg wrote: Tried to upload a picture to show marking on plan. Is it legible?



Mostly :) ..............it appears to show that repairs of a brick feature on your land must be approved by the conservation officer :?

I think the plan has been produced by the developers for planning purposes?

What is the date of the plan, how long have you had sight of it?
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7385
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: A tricky boundary discussion

Postby arborlad » Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:15 pm

arborlad wrote:
Sophieg wrote:We have also realised when looking at plans that the fence did not actually mark our boundary as when our estate was developed in 1999 the fence was erected a few feet within the original boundary.
There were concrete posts along the original boundary which the developers have removed and dug beyond.
Advice please.
What are our rights?



The original developer was greatly at fault for not doing things correctly (assuming your assumption is correct) in 1999 and the subsequent purchasers for not rectifying the mistake in a timely manner.




I still hold the above to be true - duplication of boundary features always causes problems!

"Dilapidated conc. post & wire boundary fence" does seem to be at least tacitly accepted by the developer.

"2m high + barbed wire top security fence" developers are obligated to prevent unauthorised access to a building site, could this be the fence they used in 1999 to achieve that?............it does seem to follow the route of a path which I suspect is original to the large house when it had a six acre garden.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7385
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: A tricky boundary discussion

Postby MacadamB53 » Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:23 pm

Hi arborlad,

the "dilapidated" fence marks the boundary of the highway - that does not mean the land beyond belongs to the OP.

Kind regards, Mac (still playing devil's advocate)
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6032
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: A tricky boundary discussion

Postby Sophieg » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:31 pm

It is the boundary fence that was in place. It goes around the entire 6 acre property which you can't see from the images.
Sophieg
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: A tricky boundary discussion

Postby MacadamB53 » Thu Sep 22, 2016 3:25 pm

Sophieg wrote:It is the boundary fence that was in place. It goes around the entire 6 acre property which you can't see from the images.
gotcha - and this marries up with what you bought? (ie the title plan) or could it be the developer of your property retained ownership of a strip which encircles your estate? (quite commonplace whether premeditated or not)

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6032
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: A tricky boundary discussion

Postby arborlad » Thu Sep 22, 2016 4:03 pm

arborlad wrote:
Sophieg wrote: Tried to upload a picture to show marking on plan. Is it legible?



Mostly :) ..............it appears to show that repairs of a brick feature on your land must be approved by the conservation officer :?

I think the plan has been produced by the developers (of the new houses) for planning purposes?

What is the date of the plan, how long have you had sight of it?




New information makes this less likely..............
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7385
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: A tricky boundary discussion

Postby arborlad » Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:42 am

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi arborlad,

the "dilapidated" fence marks the boundary of the highway - that does not mean the land beyond belongs to the OP.

Kind regards, Mac (still playing devil's advocate)




.............that would mean there is an intervening landowner who is registered and known.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7385
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: A tricky boundary discussion

Postby MacadamB53 » Fri Sep 23, 2016 1:35 pm

Hi arborlad,

how so?

the OP's developer transferred part of his property back in 1999 - this would have triggered a compulsory registration of the transferred land only.

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6032
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: A tricky boundary discussion

Postby Sophieg » Sun Oct 23, 2016 4:20 pm

Update:
Developers made an initial offer to plant some grass and pot plants. What a cheek. It took them over 6 weeks to come up with this proposal.

We told them that it is not what we were looking for.

They have now offered to plant a full height defensive hedge and repair any damaged sections of fence.

However, we have realised we need the expertise of a boundary surveyor as we are sure they have dug on land that is ours.
Sophieg
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 10:55 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.
 
Previous

Return to Boundaries

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests