At least they left the fence posts

Re: At least they left the fence posts

Postby COGGY » Thu May 05, 2016 7:16 pm

Hi
How long is the fence? Maybe you could grow things in front of it, therefore hiding a fence that you do not like. I agree that the situation is wrong, but really it should have been sorted immediately the panels were changed.
Sometimes the aggro is just not worth it. Only you can decide which scenario is worse for you.. Coggy
COGGY
 
Posts: 1355
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:58 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: At least they left the fence posts

Postby arborlad » Thu May 05, 2016 7:42 pm

takeafence wrote:..... what’s to stop them simply reinstating their panels again at any point in this process?



These: http://www.ironmongerydirect.co.uk/prod ... sed/956916
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7386
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: At least they left the fence posts

Postby takeafence » Thu May 05, 2016 8:21 pm

Thank you for all of your responses. So much controversy has been raised over these actions. We have had many discussions and viewpoints raised with us on this matter over the last six months.

We did complain the next day, but the old panels had already been destroyed.
Replacing their new fence panels with our own new ones, we had considered. But nothing to stop them removing our new ones and putting theirs back in again.
Owning the posts is an interesting argument. Any case law around that? Might we have been in a worse situation if they had taken the posts as well and instated their own?
The issue around moving house is something that has concerned us. Not that we are planning on moving, but it would resurface if we did.
We couldn’t see any value in sending a solicitor letter. Subsequent legal proceedings could cost far more than the fence.

We have some fantastic news though.
Out of the blue, after six months, we have received a full apology.
We also have an affirmation that the fence belongs to us.
Halleluiah!

For those that think, well, you have a new fence what were you complaining about? The monetary value of what has been done was never the issue for us. We liked what was there before. We just wanted that, and for it to be ours. Now we have been given ownership we are intending making a charitable donation in respect of the value, perhaps just less the cost of some sunglasses to wear in the garden whilst the fence ages.

So, for all your input , positive or negative, we thank you. Anyone wishing to continue to contribute to this “how could David sleigh Goliath without incurring great expense” discussion is of course free to do so.
Thanks

p.s. arborlad – great link. I had been thinking about manufacturing something exactly like that.
takeafence
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 10:04 am

Re: At least they left the fence posts

Postby arborlad » Fri May 06, 2016 12:26 pm

takeafence wrote:Owning the posts is an interesting argument. Any case law around that?



It's a basic tenet of land law: Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit , "whatever is affixed to the soil belongs to the soil"............if you own the fence you own the land - if you own the land you own the fence.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7386
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: At least they left the fence posts

Postby COGGY » Sat May 07, 2016 9:43 am

Hi Aborlad
That is a brilliant quote. I have learnt so much since finding this site. Coggy
COGGY
 
Posts: 1355
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:58 pm

Re: At least they left the fence posts

Postby Collaborate » Fri May 13, 2016 4:31 pm

nothingtodowithme wrote:There is vast case summary relating to "what is attached to the soil belongs to the soil".
It is a complex area of land law regarding chattels fixtures and fittings;relating to the purchase and sale of commercial and residential land and property.
To apply the phrase to a fence or posts for that matter is too simplistic and incorrect.


I agree. This is particularly relevant when the only way of identifying the owner of land is by looking at the boundary features.
Collaborate
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 10:17 am

Re: At least they left the fence posts

Postby arborlad » Fri May 13, 2016 5:19 pm

nothingtodowithme wrote:There is vast case summary relating to "what is attached to the soil belongs to the soil".
It is a complex area of land law regarding chattels fixtures and fittings;relating to the purchase and sale of commercial and residential land and property.
To apply the phrase to a fence or posts for that matter is too simplistic and incorrect.



"simplistic and incorrect."............I like things simple, and it is correct!


Who should I believe, you?...........who doesn't have a very good record on these matters, or Conveyancer - who has an exemplary one.


Conveyancer wrote:It is so old the original is in Latin: Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7386
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: At least they left the fence posts

Postby Collaborate » Fri May 13, 2016 6:18 pm

When the fences and posts define the boundary of land, it is not always evident whose land the structure stands on.
Collaborate
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 10:17 am

Re: At least they left the fence posts

Postby arborlad » Sun May 15, 2016 10:46 am

nothingtodowithme wrote:There is vast case summary relating to "what is attached to the soil belongs to the soil".



On a forum such as this, anything which refutes, or purports to refute this - Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit , "whatever is affixed to the soil belongs to the soil"..............would've been known of before it even happened. There have been no changes - it is as valid as it has always been.

You've had more than enough time to produce something of substance and relevance from the 'vast case summary' - if it existed!
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7386
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: At least they left the fence posts

Postby Collaborate » Sun May 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Have you seen the caselaw?

It all seems to deal with property being sold and the seller removing fixtures or chattels. Fixtures become part of the land, and must be included in the sale. Chattels do not.

It seems out of place, to me, for this principle to be used where the structure erected is a boundary fence where the precise position of the boundary cannot be accurately determined other than by looking at where the physical boundary feature is.
Collaborate
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 10:17 am

Re: At least they left the fence posts

Postby arborlad » Sun May 15, 2016 9:45 pm

Collaborate wrote:It seems out of place, to me, for this principle to be used where the structure erected is a boundary fence where the precise position of the boundary cannot be accurately determined other than by looking at where the physical boundary feature is.




If you own land and there is a fence attached to it, then by virtue of this: Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit , "whatever is affixed to the soil belongs to the soil" - you own the fence. If that same fence is set to the limit of your land, it then becomes a boundary feature - but still your fence - simples....
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7386
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: At least they left the fence posts

Postby mr sheen » Sun May 15, 2016 10:16 pm

And you can prove the position of the extremity of your land how?
mr sheen
 
Posts: 2093
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: At least they left the fence posts

Postby Collaborate » Sun May 15, 2016 10:19 pm

I understand what you're saying, but you're taking the rule to be an absolute one. It isn't. It's a general rule.

That means that you cannot strictly apply it in all situations.

If my neighbour builds a fence 2m beyond his boundary with my land, after 12 years he may claim adverse possession. I won't be able to say that because, assorting to this maxim, I own the fence, so I have continued to occupy the land on which the fence has been built. The fence will belong to the neighbour.
Collaborate
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 10:17 am

Re: At least they left the fence posts

Postby arborlad » Mon May 16, 2016 8:03 am

Collaborate wrote:Have you seen the caselaw?



Not sure who you're asking, not me I hope, I wont be wasting any time searching for something that doesn't exist.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7386
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: At least they left the fence posts

Postby Collaborate » Mon May 16, 2016 2:37 pm

arborlad wrote:
Not sure who you're asking, not me I hope, I wont be wasting any time searching for something that doesn't exist.


That's a no then. It does exist.
Collaborate
 
Posts: 1124
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.
 
PreviousNext

Return to Fences

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests