A misinterpretation of a covenant leading to dispute

Re: A misinterpretation of a covenant leading to dispute

Postby timeonmyhands » Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:06 pm

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi timeonmyhands,

I've tried to help you grasp that deeds have nothing to do with the PWA but it seems I've failed.

hopefully future readers of this thread will understand, though.

All the best, Mac


Okay, we're at cross-purposes. Perhaps my initial post was not clear. The deeds do not specifically mention fences. Why then are you persisting that there is a split responsibility for maintaining them!
timeonmyhands
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2016 12:00 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: A misinterpretation of a covenant leading to dispute

Postby timeonmyhands » Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:07 pm

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi timeonmyhands,

I've tried to help you grasp that deeds have nothing to do with the PWA but it seems I've failed.

hopefully future readers of this thread will understand, though.

All the best, Mac


For goodness sake, I have grasped that. The covenant - the deeds - did NOT NOT NOT NOT say that the fences were party fences!
timeonmyhands
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2016 12:00 pm

Re: A misinterpretation of a covenant leading to dispute

Postby timeonmyhands » Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:10 pm

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi timeonmyhands,

the agreement that the walls and fences are party walls and fences means just that - the walls and fences straddle the boundary - and has nothing whatsoever to do with the PWA.

your neighbour who paid 50/50 was correct.

Kind regards, Mac



I've just re-read this post. I did not make a statement to this effect (bold highlighted section).

Or perhaps you can define what a 'party wall fence' is?
timeonmyhands
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2016 12:00 pm

Re: A misinterpretation of a covenant leading to dispute

Postby MacadamB53 » Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:29 pm

Hi timeonmyhands,

before we go any further you need to grasp that we will not refer to or consult the PWA because it is a piece of legislation which has absolutely nothing to do with the scenario being discussed (ie who owns a fence).

so, who owns a fence? if, as is the case here, both neighbours have declared all walls and fences to be "party" this means they agree that the walls and fences straddle the boundary and are part-owned by both neighbour.

which means that if a fence were to be replaced the new fence would be standing in both gardens, so it would be reasonable to expect both parties to contribute towards the cost.

the PWA uses similar wording to wording used in deeds but this does not mean there is any relationship - there isn't.

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6034
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: A misinterpretation of a covenant leading to dispute

Postby timeonmyhands » Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:40 pm

Boundary features (Land Registry website)
"A boundary feature is any structure that separates your property from your neighbour’s, eg a fence, wall or hedge. There are no laws about who owns these or which side of the boundary feature you’re responsible for - you can decide this in your boundary agreement."

My point was that although the boundary is shared - responsibility for the fence is not specified at all, and besides, there is no law stating that there's an obligation to put up a fence (unless stated in deeds, for example).

Now, I could make an agreement with a neighbour to split the cost, but there would be no legal obligation at all.

My point was that one party miss-read the deeds and thought that the reference to a "party wall fence" meant wooden fence. The reason I referred to the PWA originally was because it defines the term "party wall fence". They then went about stating that there was a legal obligation - under threat of being taken to court - to pay equal sums to the upkeep of the fence.

But without turning to the PWA, how then would you define what "party wall fence" in the deed means?
timeonmyhands
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2016 12:00 pm

Re: A misinterpretation of a covenant leading to dispute

Postby MacadamB53 » Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:59 pm

Hi timeonmyhands,

the definition of a 'party fencewall' in the PWA is only relevant to the PWA.

the wording from your deed states, as I keep repeating, that both parties declared all walls and fences on the mutual boundary were considered "party" which means they considered them to be straddling the boundary.

if a fence straddles a boundary, as in the case being discussed, it must be part-owned by the landowners on either side (because it stands on both's land).

if one party (Mr A) wants to replace the fence - remember it's not wholly theirs to replace - then it is reasonable to expect them to consult the co-owner (Mr B)

if Mr B doesn't want to contribute then Mr A has 4 options:

don't replace the fence
replace the fence and therefore gift half to Mr B
build a new fence wholly on his own land
persuade Mr B to contribute

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6034
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: A misinterpretation of a covenant leading to dispute

Postby timeonmyhands » Tue Oct 11, 2016 6:28 pm

trouble is, until B threatened A with the law, everyone was happy to look after the fence to the left. the 50/50 agreement was only entered into after B started declaring that there was a legal obligation to pay.

it's also a problem that the covenant is opent to interpretation as to what boundary structures are covered.
timeonmyhands
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2016 12:00 pm

Re: A misinterpretation of a covenant leading to dispute

Postby MacadamB53 » Tue Oct 11, 2016 6:35 pm

Hi timeonmyhands,

how was B threatened with the law?!?

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6034
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: A misinterpretation of a covenant leading to dispute

Postby timeonmyhands » Tue Oct 11, 2016 6:41 pm

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi timeonmyhands,

how was B threatened with the law?!?

Kind regards, Mac


he was told that he was under legal obligation to split the cost.
timeonmyhands
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2016 12:00 pm

Re: A misinterpretation of a covenant leading to dispute

Postby MacadamB53 » Tue Oct 11, 2016 6:55 pm

timeonmyhands wrote:
MacadamB53 wrote:Hi timeonmyhands,

how was B threatened with the law?!?

Kind regards, Mac


he was told that he was under legal obligation to split the cost.
so no threats then
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6034
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: A misinterpretation of a covenant leading to dispute

Postby timeonmyhands » Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:29 pm

MacadamB53 wrote:
timeonmyhands wrote:
MacadamB53 wrote:Hi timeonmyhands,

how was B threatened with the law?!?

Kind regards, Mac


he was told that he was under legal obligation to split the cost.
so no threats then


that's subjective.
timeonmyhands
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2016 12:00 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 Fences

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 6 guests