3 not wise men

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby SJC14 » Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:19 am

liveinpeace wrote:we have viewed the plans and yes it is the same as the land registry and our plans,the extension does come to the boundary on the plans, yet they say that our plans and the land registry are wrong!


They are nuts then! Any reasonable person would see that this is evidence of the extent of their land as published by themselves to an authority. Frankly I cannot see a court even entertaining their claim to your land as unfounded. I would do a last letter to their solicitor stating this and to give unquestionable evidence of the boundary being incorrect and stating any further communication will be held as harassment and stalking and taken to the police.
SJC14
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2017 3:23 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: 3 not wise men

Postby liveinpeace » Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:32 am

thanks, the whole case is nuts, they are so desperate to get access round the back, they are just hell bent on trying to crush us into giving up. they are all rather wealthy and live near by. they are not used to not getting their own way, when we tried to mediate at the beginning, they just talked over the top of us and had this sort of, run along now plebs and behave attitude towards us. they have the attitude of if they throw enough money at something you will get what you want. which sadly in life often works.
their father even built the original wall at the front that they allege is in the wrong place.
we have a good solicitor, but he is following the calderbank offer, by trying to show that we have mediated and been reasonable as possible and he is also trying to keep our costs down, as they keep mentioning court.
liveinpeace
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:29 pm

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby arborlad » Sat Dec 30, 2017 12:20 pm

liveinpeace wrote:thanks arborlad. I did post an answer when you asked before,hope this makes sense.




I think we may have our wires crossed :) if I was standing in your front garden or on your drive, what would prevent me from reaching your back garden?
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7442
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby liveinpeace » Sat Dec 30, 2017 12:30 pm

an angry redhead with a rolling pin!

when we moved in we put large, 6ft high double gates at the side(in a free standing wooden frame thunder bolted to the floor (so not attached to their extension) but at the side of the wall of the start of their extension on the boundary.

you would then have to wander about 30ft into and along my garden and then into the gate they put in the fence on the left.
liveinpeace
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:29 pm

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby arborlad » Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:20 pm

liveinpeace wrote:the drive at the front is separated by a low level wall,built by their father in the early 70s,
their drive is a good 2ft higher than our drive. this then stops and their extension continues along the line,then now (since they took down the brick wall that was there previously since the 60s) there are fence posts and wooden fence panels(which they placed a gate in). our garden now tapers gradually as they have taken over 2ft of our gardens land at the end.
their house is twice the size of ours and so is their garden.




The law presumes you will develop to the fullest extent of your land, that wall is now the established boundary feature - no amount of plan waving will change that, the solicitor* must know that it is what's on the ground that matters - not what's on paper. If the brothers claim of an extra two feet at the front had any merit that's where thy would have continued the rear fence and completely negated any need for a gate.


*I know it's said that solicitors will say whatever their client is paying them to say, but at what point does the brothers fantasies catch up with the solicitors realities?
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7442
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby arborlad » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:24 pm

liveinpeace wrote:...........regarding the options mentioned.
there has never been any access or right of way over the our drive.




I don't think there are any options available other than an outright repudiation of their claims. I know you are mortgage free, but if you did have a lender they would have to agree - which they wouldn't.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7442
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby liveinpeace » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:39 pm

yes arborlad your points are exactly what we have thought.
One of the brothers is the principal of a private school, so I think thats where his connections come from.

the wording of thh correspondence from his solicitor and the surveyor friend are all full of, prehaps ,at best,thereabouts, it may be seen that possibly therefore!
his solicitor must know it is madness
and yes why did he not build the fence in the position he wants it now.

I have heard from a neighbour that they are considering selling the house,so what about the boundary dispute and all the money we have already spent then?
liveinpeace
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:29 pm

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby despair » Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:21 pm

Then you have them cornered because now you can ensure the dispute over their stealing of your back garden

Comes to the fore ...when you know the house is being marketed your solicitor needs to write to them and the estate agent
And they will have to declare the dispute to potential buyers

In fact i would even get mates in and move the fence back to its correct posistion and throw the gate into their garden in the process
despair
 
Posts: 16081
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby MacadamB53 » Sat Dec 30, 2017 10:01 pm

Hi liveinpeace?

best just batten down the hatches until they sell and deny access in the meantime.

I’d be sorely tempted to write the their sols when the “for sale” sign goes up to remind them that the sellers are legally obliged to inform potential buyers of their claim/boundary dispute.

kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6095
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby liveinpeace » Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:14 am

thank you despair and macadam.
when we first went to our solicitor about this,after several letters from theirs,which kept saying we need to jointly instruct a solicitor to put the boundary back to how it was in the 1950s,which we said we did not want to pay for or do(we said get your own boundary surveyed and get back to us with your evidence)which they did not do.
Our solicitor said their reasoning,lack of evidence and demands wrere ludicrous and he thought he would be able to quash it in just a few letters.
he offered them to keep the back they had already taken(with the gate remaining blocked) and this would overly compensate them against the alleged front discrepancy.

they came back with a counter offer which was, to keep the land at the back,have the gate reinstated and a meter wide runway along our drive for their lawnmower.

our solicitor wrote back saying this was our only( and very reasonable offer) and to affirm if they accepted it or not.

their response was my favourite bit of madness so far.
they sent my solicitor a computer generated image that I can only describe as;
you know when the local council want you to agree to have a giant asda built in the town center, and they create a futuristic Utopian dream scape as their plans.
well they did that with pictures of our house.
liveinpeace
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:29 pm

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby despair » Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:51 pm

What was the boundary in 1950s ?

There must be ariel photos in library or local history society archives to prove it
despair
 
Posts: 16081
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby arborlad » Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:54 pm

liveinpeace wrote:thank you despair and macadam.
when we first went to our solicitor about this,after several letters from theirs,which kept saying we need to jointly instruct a solicitor to put the boundary back to how it was in the 1950s,which we said we did not want to pay for or do(we said get your own boundary surveyed and get back to us with your evidence)which




That is a ludicrous but somewhat novel approach - they could eventually own land into the next county! You may have missed the opportunity but you could reply that you will accede to their demands if accompanied by a drawing to Determined Boundary standards, certified and dated 1950s..............and as a reciprocal arrangement you expect the access arrangements from front to back be reinstated to the same period!
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7442
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby liveinpeace » Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:39 pm

I am at present working on a lovely oil painting of how the land looked in the 1920s

we have an aerial photo from the early 80s showing the front as it is now and the back as it was before they moved it.
In the 1950s the back was the same as before they moved the fence, but at the front was a privet, when this was removed sometime in the late 50s early 60s somehow about a foot of next doors was taken by our drive. They have measured from the plans (ancient blue prints) and decided that this foot at the side means that they were justified in wanting access along our drive,as it is probably more than a foot or thereabouts.
we have spoken to neighbours and everyone's plot is wrong, a neighbour in his 90s said he remembers it being pegged out with wooden blocks and string when he moved in so that is the degree of accuracy you can expect.

they have tried to justify moving the back fence because their plot is too small when measured from their plans, but not taken into account that the wall on the other side at number 41s is wrong.you can see it is on the aerial photos.
heaven help us.
liveinpeace
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:29 pm

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby arborlad » Sun Dec 31, 2017 5:18 pm

liveinpeace wrote:just a though,can anyone answer this query

as their house is unregistered and ours is registered( and has been for 50 years), will there be a problem for them if they need to sell it and register it with land registry.
As the bit they have taken at the back is on our land registry plot, and the bit they are now trying to get at the front is also on our plot.
the moved fence has been up less than 2 years.
I am not trying to get it back directly.i just like the thought of them having some of the stress given back to them.
will the land registry have to contact us about the discrepancy. surely they cannot sell the house containing the back bit,if it is already registered to us.

we have a quite small garden(even smaller now) so 1ft widening to 2/6ft at the end of the garden over 60ft in length should show op on the plans. they have a garden over twice the size of ours.




The house being unregistered may be to your advantage, I think there is a device called Caution Against First Registration, whether it is suitable or even appropriate for your situation, others will know better but with a boundary dispute, false claims of easements and no rear access - that wont be a quick sale.

A notice on your gates stating: NO ACCESS TO THE REAR OF 39 might help also.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7442
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: 3 not wise men

Postby arborlad » Mon Jan 01, 2018 9:54 am

liveinpeace wrote:Our solicitor said their reasoning,lack of evidence and demands wrere ludicrous and he thought he would be able to quash it in just a few letters.
he offered them to keep the back they had already taken(with the gate remaining blocked) and this would overly compensate them against the alleged front discrepancy.

they came back with a counter offer which was, to keep the land at the back,have the gate reinstated and a meter wide runway along our drive for their lawnmower.




There is no discrepancy at the front - alleged or otherwise. There are only two ways they can legitimately be on that land, they own it or have an easement, either by grant or prescription, to use it. If by grant, they will be waving it under your nose, if by prescription, they would have to have used it openly, without force or secrecy for a minimum of 20 years.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7442
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.
 
PreviousNext

Return to Boundaries

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests