Neighbour wants to replace 6ft fence with 3ft wall

MacadamB53
Posts: 8638
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:13 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 100
Number of topics per page: 50

Re: Neighbour wants to replace 6ft fence with 3ft wall

Post by MacadamB53 »

Chunga wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:52 pm If the existing wooden fence has a continuous line of planks, nailed to wooden posts that should determine to whom it belongs and also on whose land it is. The general rule, accepted by most judges, is that the fence belongs to the garden that has the post side and not the plank side.

If that turns out not to mean you, you would be well advised to build a higher fence on your own land, given the current state of dog laws and the size and agility of yours dogs.

If it turns out to be your fence, the owner has no right to replace it , whether weith a lower or a higher wall.
there is no such “general” rule accepted by judges - where do you get this from?!?
Collaborate
Posts: 3636
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:17 am
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20

Re: Neighbour wants to replace 6ft fence with 3ft wall

Post by Collaborate »

MacadamB53 wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:07 pm
Chunga wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:52 pm If the existing wooden fence has a continuous line of planks, nailed to wooden posts that should determine to whom it belongs and also on whose land it is. The general rule, accepted by most judges, is that the fence belongs to the garden that has the post side and not the plank side.

If that turns out not to mean you, you would be well advised to build a higher fence on your own land, given the current state of dog laws and the size and agility of yours dogs.

If it turns out to be your fence, the owner has no right to replace it , whether weith a lower or a higher wall.
there is no such “general” rule accepted by judges - where do you get this from?!?
It is a legal presumption that is easily rebutted. A legal presumption is something that, in the absence of any other evidence, is presumed to be the case.
MacadamB53
Posts: 8638
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:13 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 100
Number of topics per page: 50

Re: Neighbour wants to replace 6ft fence with 3ft wall

Post by MacadamB53 »

Collaborate wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 5:30 pm
MacadamB53 wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:07 pm
Chunga wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:52 pm If the existing wooden fence has a continuous line of planks, nailed to wooden posts that should determine to whom it belongs and also on whose land it is. The general rule, accepted by most judges, is that the fence belongs to the garden that has the post side and not the plank side.

If that turns out not to mean you, you would be well advised to build a higher fence on your own land, given the current state of dog laws and the size and agility of yours dogs.

If it turns out to be your fence, the owner has no right to replace it , whether weith a lower or a higher wall.
there is no such “general” rule accepted by judges - where do you get this from?!?
It is a legal presumption that is easily rebutted. A legal presumption is something that, in the absence of any other evidence, is presumed to be the case.
there isn’t such a legal presumption about fences, though?!?
Collaborate
Posts: 3636
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:17 am
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20

Re: Neighbour wants to replace 6ft fence with 3ft wall

Post by Collaborate »

Yes there is.

I saw it in Halsburys Laws not too long ago.

In the absence of interest in firing up my work computer and logging on right now, here are some nuggets found on google:
If the fence is supported by upright posts on one side, there is a presumption that it belongs to the owner on that side.
https://www.landregistry-titledeeds.co. ... ptions.asp
Where a fence has struts on one of its sides the owner will usually place the struts on his side of the boundary and the fence itself to an inch or so from the boundary, because he will be careful not to encroach on the neighbouring property. Where a fence is supported by upright posts on one side the same convention is likely to follow, with the posts on the owner's side.
though this says it is not a legal presumption.

https://www.land-search-online.co.uk/in ... asp#fences
The convention is to place the side of the fence having the struts showing, facing into the owner's garden, with the main fence just inwards from the boundary. The reasoning for this follows a good citizen's care not to infringe on the understood boundary position at the time of the fence erection.
https://www.boundarydisputes.org/bounda ... ry-fences/

OK - I'm a nerd. I have fired up my work computer and Halsburys Laws says (under the heading of "Boundaries fixed by legal presumptions".:
In the case of wooden fences, it is likely to be inferred that, in the absence of freeboard Footnote 1, the owner of land will use his land to the fullest extent so that the fence will be deemed to belong to the person on whose side the rails and posts are placed, the palings being placed on his neighbour's side Footnote 2, but where there is a dispute it would be necessary to show acts of ownership; that is, an owner may establish acts of ownership by himself to show that the fence is his or acts of ownership by his neighbour to show that the fence is the latter's responsibility Footnote 3. Alternatively, the owners may have agreed to share responsibility Footnote 4. However, where a fenced close adjoins a piece of waste land, there is a presumption that the fence belongs to the owner of the close Footnote 5.
footnotes bear no relevance to this discussion.


Personally, I'd always prefer to look at the side that doesn't have the posts and rails, so I think this presumption is old fashioned and in any event is easily rebuttable. The likelihood is that whoever can produce a receipt for its construction is likely to be the owner on the basis that only the owner will pay to replace a fence.
MacadamB53
Posts: 8638
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:13 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 100
Number of topics per page: 50

Re: Neighbour wants to replace 6ft fence with 3ft wall

Post by MacadamB53 »

Collaborate wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 9:41 pm Yes there is.

I saw it in Halsburys Laws not too long ago.

In the absence of interest in firing up my work computer and logging on right now, here are some nuggets found on google:
If the fence is supported by upright posts on one side, there is a presumption that it belongs to the owner on that side.
https://www.landregistry-titledeeds.co. ... ptions.asp
Where a fence has struts on one of its sides the owner will usually place the struts on his side of the boundary and the fence itself to an inch or so from the boundary, because he will be careful not to encroach on the neighbouring property. Where a fence is supported by upright posts on one side the same convention is likely to follow, with the posts on the owner's side.
though this says it is not a legal presumption.

https://www.land-search-online.co.uk/in ... asp#fences
The convention is to place the side of the fence having the struts showing, facing into the owner's garden, with the main fence just inwards from the boundary. The reasoning for this follows a good citizen's care not to infringe on the understood boundary position at the time of the fence erection.
https://www.boundarydisputes.org/bounda ... ry-fences/

OK - I'm a nerd. I have fired up my work computer and Halsburys Laws says (under the heading of "Boundaries fixed by legal presumptions".:
In the case of wooden fences, it is likely to be inferred that, in the absence of freeboard Footnote 1, the owner of land will use his land to the fullest extent so that the fence will be deemed to belong to the person on whose side the rails and posts are placed, the palings being placed on his neighbour's side Footnote 2, but where there is a dispute it would be necessary to show acts of ownership; that is, an owner may establish acts of ownership by himself to show that the fence is his or acts of ownership by his neighbour to show that the fence is the latter's responsibility Footnote 3. Alternatively, the owners may have agreed to share responsibility Footnote 4. However, where a fenced close adjoins a piece of waste land, there is a presumption that the fence belongs to the owner of the close Footnote 5.
footnotes bear no relevance to this discussion.


Personally, I'd always prefer to look at the side that doesn't have the posts and rails, so I think this presumption is old fashioned and in any event is easily rebuttable. The likelihood is that whoever can produce a receipt for its construction is likely to be the owner on the basis that only the owner will pay to replace a fence.
excellent - thanks Collaborate
MacadamB53
Posts: 8638
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:13 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 100
Number of topics per page: 50

Re: Neighbour wants to replace 6ft fence with 3ft wall

Post by MacadamB53 »

MacadamB53 wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:07 pm
Chunga wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:52 pm If the existing wooden fence has a continuous line of planks, nailed to wooden posts that should determine to whom it belongs and also on whose land it is. The general rule, accepted by most judges, is that the fence belongs to the garden that has the post side and not the plank side.

If that turns out not to mean you, you would be well advised to build a higher fence on your own land, given the current state of dog laws and the size and agility of yours dogs.

If it turns out to be your fence, the owner has no right to replace it , whether weith a lower or a higher wall.
there is no such “general” rule accepted by judges - where do you get this from?!?
apologies Chunga
Collaborate
Posts: 3636
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:17 am
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20

Re: Neighbour wants to replace 6ft fence with 3ft wall

Post by Collaborate »

No need to apologise to Chunga. Chunga got it wrong. It is not a rule. It is a legal presumption. That means in the absence of any scrap of evidence to the contrary the court will fall back on the legal presumption.

A rule is something entirely different.
Post Reply