Did he have the right?

Re: Did he have the right?

Postby Collaborate » Mon May 11, 2015 4:14 pm

I'm not sure the location of the boundary would be in dispute. The existence of the fence makes it pretty darn conclusive, on current information, if you ask me.
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: Did he have the right?

Postby tarren » Mon May 11, 2015 4:41 pm

Collaborate wrote:I'm not sure the location of the boundary would be in dispute. The existence of the fence makes it pretty darn conclusive, on current information, if you ask me.


Hello Collaborate, before my neighbours bungalow was built, it was a farmers field, he, the farmer, never disputed that the fence, as you pointed out,was the boundary. I'm sure he would have had something to say once I planted the hedge. That, incidentally, was some 36 years ago. I have always maintained the hedge, cutting my side and trimming the top when necessary.
Thank you for your input, appreciated.
tarren
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Did he have the right?

Postby tarren » Mon May 11, 2015 4:47 pm

mr sheen wrote:Since there was some encroaching beyond your boundary he had the right to cut back to the boundary...it is now in dispute the % he cut back and any on your side or not. 0% outside your boundary would have meant he had no right to touch it but since it had some encroachment on his side he had a right to cut back and worry about disputing the percentages later.


Mr sheen, I've only mentioned percentages to make the point that, some percentage that he has cut back was in my air space, and that is what I am trying to detirmine, that he has no right whatever to do so.
tarren
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Did he have the right?

Postby MacadamB53 » Mon May 11, 2015 5:21 pm

Hi tarren,

suppose this played out differently then - more like what you would have wanted - and he asked you if he could cut back close to the base of the branches (which is good practice) and you said "no".

as 'mr sheen' keeps trying to tell you, he would then still have been within his rights to cut the branches back to the boundary.

you would then be left with a tree with two foot stumps hanging over the hedge - which would be much more suceptable to disease and decay.

so I guess you could 'confront' him by saying "next time please leave stumps and I'll deal with them" - seems rather petty, though, that you'd prefer to either shell out for work that could've been undertaken by his man for less or let the tree suffer.

alternatively, you could 'confront' him by saying "next time let me know and I'll get the work done at my cost - it's my tree after all" - though this might not sound an appealing option to you.

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Did he have the right?

Postby tarren » Mon May 11, 2015 5:33 pm

..as 'mr sheen' keeps trying to tell you, he would then still have been within his rights to cut the branches back to the boundary. If only he had cut the small % that did overhang, no problem.

you would then be left with a tree with two foot stumps hanging over the hedge - which would be much more suceptable to disease and decay.

...and as I keep banging on, he had to lean 3' into my property to cut them, those lower limbs were nowhere near the boundary even 12\15' higher than what he cut them back to.
tarren
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Did he have the right?

Postby MacadamB53 » Mon May 11, 2015 5:41 pm

Hi tarren,

can you clarify for me what would have been left of those branches had he cut directly above the fence?

Kind regards, Mac
Last edited by MacadamB53 on Mon May 11, 2015 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Did he have the right?

Postby mr sheen » Mon May 11, 2015 5:50 pm

tarren wrote:
mr sheen wrote:Since there was some encroaching beyond your boundary he had the right to cut back to the boundary...it is now in dispute the % he cut back and any on your side or not. 0% outside your boundary would have meant he had no right to touch it but since it had some encroachment on his side he had a right to cut back and worry about disputing the percentages later.


Mr sheen, I've only mentioned percentages to make the point that, some percentage that he has cut back was in my air space, and that is what I am trying to detirmine, that he has no right whatever to do so.



Contributors here are trying to avoid you lurching into a confrontation without being fully aware of your position. Whilst he shouldn't have cut beyond the boundary, the fact that there was some encroachment puts him in a stronger position than you would like. He had a right to cut the tree to the boundary without your permission. Hence there is no criminal damage. If you believe he cut beyond the boundary, and are determined to 'confront' him; if he doesn't hold his hands up to having made a mistake, are you just going to tear him off a strip? Not likely to go down well. Think of the potential outcomes...if he was aware of his right to cut back, and you even accept there is still continued encroachment, he may well exercise that right again.

I reiterate, for last time, a quiet pleasant discussion is probably the way to go to get a positive outcome.
mr sheen
 
Posts: 2093
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Did he have the right?

Postby tarren » Mon May 11, 2015 6:19 pm

...can you clarify for me what would have left of those branches had he cut directly above the fence? almost everything would have been left apart from a few twiggy growths overhanging the boundary about 12\15' up.

... If you believe he cut beyond the boundary, looking at where the fence is, I cannot understand what is so difficult for folk to see he has cut beyond the boundary, ie, the fence, I thought the pic in the OP made that clear.

...are you just going to tear him off a strip, I have a total of 10 neighbours bounding my property, I've had to discuss issues with 4 of them. I've always taken the gentle approach, and I'm happy to say were all still good friends and get along fine.

...I reiterate, for last time, a quiet pleasant discussion is probably the way to go to get a positive outcome. I'm in total agreement.
tarren
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Did he have the right?

Postby tarren » Mon May 11, 2015 7:00 pm

I tell a lie, just had a recount, it's 11.
tarren
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Did he have the right?

Postby MacadamB53 » Mon May 11, 2015 8:13 pm

Hi tarren,

almost everything would have been left apart from a few twiggy growths overhanging the boundary about 12\15' up

try to appreciate I asked the question so that you would provide confirmation of what would have been left - "almost everything" means nothing to me because, since I've no idea what the tree looked like pre-works, I have no idea what that means.

would you mind giving it another go - would it have left you with a few two-foot stumps hanging over the hedge and a few near-intact branches?

Kind regards, Mac
PS where would you assert the boundary to be if he'd removed the fence unbeknownst to you? (rhetorical)
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Did he have the right?

Postby tarren » Tue May 12, 2015 5:50 am

try to appreciate I asked the question so that you would provide confirmation of what would have been left - "almost everything" means nothing to me because, since I've no idea what the tree looked like pre-works, I have no idea what that means. As I indicated in an earlier post, he removed approx 25\30', none of which encroached into his airspace.


would you mind giving it another go - would it have left you with a few two-foot stumps hanging over the hedge and a few near-intact branches? No, if he had cut what was hanging over his air space, ie twiggy bits, I don;t think I'd have noticed he'd cut anything. All the main branches were over my air space, and the tree would have retained it's symmetry.

PS where would you assert the boundary to be if he'd removed the fence unbeknownst to you? (rhetorical) Edge of his lawn. As indicated earlier, when it was grazed, there was no hedge only the fence.
tarren
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Did he have the right?

Postby MacadamB53 » Tue May 12, 2015 8:16 am

Hi tarren,

in that case his man was very gung ho indeed.

whose land does the fence stand on?

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Did he have the right?

Postby tarren » Tue May 12, 2015 9:28 am

in that case his man was very gung ho indeed. Yes, well put.

whose land does the fence stand on? dunno, but I'll concede that to the neighbour.
tarren
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Did he have the right?

Postby arsie » Wed May 13, 2015 12:39 am

+1 the advice to have gentle but firm words with the neighbour not to trespass or commit further damage to my trees (if any more exist?) I would politely ask for my property back - the offcuts.

Most gardeners know the law on overhanging perfectly well. It would be a very gung ho gardener indeed who carried out work like this without asking for permission from the client what he/she wanted - and would probably have advising them of the law. Of course, the neighbour could have fibbed about the exact location of the boundary, in which case cutting back to the main trunk as we see might not have seemed a problem to the gardener.

As to motivation, I am guessing that the OP's house is south of the neighbour? He probably wants more sunlight let in to his side - and has now achieved that objective.
arsie
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: Did he have the right?

Postby tarren » Wed May 13, 2015 5:31 am

As to motivation, I am guessing that the OP's house is south of the neighbour? He probably wants more sunlight let in to his side - and has now achieved that objective. Spot on Arsie, I am South of my neighbour, and if you look at the OP you can see he has newly planted shrubs.
tarren
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:16 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.
 
PreviousNext

Return to Hedges

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest