Neighbours claims after building work unreasonable?

This forum is for Garden Law problems that don't fit into the other categories. Please treat it with respect.

Moderator: Angelisle

despair
Posts: 16486
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 7:07 am

Re: Neighbours claims after building work unreasonable?

Post by despair » Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:55 pm

Totally agree UKMicky

The neighbours caused their own problems
They were consulted all down the line
Reasons for the killing of wisteria etc given ...
Offers to remove wisteria etc have been made

The neighbours are quite literally trying it on

arborlad
Posts: 8654
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Neighbours claims after building work unreasonable?

Post by arborlad » Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:30 am

ukmicky wrote:Coming into this late.




The law sees the natural growth of plant into a neighbours land differently to a trespass where something is deliberately taken onto a neighbours land . Normally the growth of the wisteria would be no more than a legal nuisance but as its spread was encourage by the neighbour its spread could not even be deemed a nuisance .

Once it was killed off by the OP why would it status suddenly change to an actionable nuisance requiring the owner of the wisteria to remove it . The fact that its spread was actively encouraged by the neighbour the OP would be under no obligation to remove anything even if damage was being caused .


I can't agree - all of the wisteria is owned by the OP, irrespective of whose land it is on, whether attached or not. No action - or inaction - by either party will change the ownership.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people

Collaborate
Posts: 2045
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:17 am
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20

Re: Neighbours claims after building work unreasonable?

Post by Collaborate » Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:14 am

arborlad wrote:
ukmicky wrote:Coming into this late.




The law sees the natural growth of plant into a neighbours land differently to a trespass where something is deliberately taken onto a neighbours land . Normally the growth of the wisteria would be no more than a legal nuisance but as its spread was encourage by the neighbour its spread could not even be deemed a nuisance .

Once it was killed off by the OP why would it status suddenly change to an actionable nuisance requiring the owner of the wisteria to remove it . The fact that its spread was actively encouraged by the neighbour the OP would be under no obligation to remove anything even if damage was being caused .


I can't agree - all of the wisteria is owned by the OP, irrespective of whose land it is on, whether attached or not. No action - or inaction - by either party will change the ownership.
The issue commented on here isn't about ownership. The plant belongs to OP. The question is whether it is an actionable nuisance. As the neighbour has trained the plant themselves, it cannot possibly amount to "causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a [claimant]'s land or his/her use or enjoyment of that land".

Post Reply