Another boundary dispute

[RizzoTheRat]

Don't you need planning permission to build within a certain distance of a boundary, or does the fact that it's a temporary wooden structure negate that?

[AyBee]

Rude-boy said:

AyBee said:

Rude-boy said:

5 years, no complaints from dad's Tenants, I am thinking (on the basis of the very scant information here) that the best way forward is come to an agreement with the neighbour that involves them paying a nominal sum for the land and all the fees for sorting the transfer to them.

It's not up to his dad's tenants to complain, they have no idea where the boundary is and no idea whose land is whose.

Agree that the best way forward is probably to get the bloke to pay for the land unless your dad desperately wants it back. I suspect you'll need to go legal before he entertains paying anything though unfortunately.

Sorry but you miss the point here a little.

The father has entered into a lease to let to the tenants an area of land with a building upon it and pay a rent according to the specifications of what they are renting.

The neighbour has encroached onto the land which the father is letting to the tenant. They tenant therefore has less than they have contracted to let through the lease but is still paying the original agreed rent.

Whilst the tenant could not care less there is no "OMG must deal with today" issue. As soon as the tenant starts to mention that they are not getting exclusive full and undisturbed occupation of all of the land which they have contracted through the tenancy to let then OP's dad has a problem he can't just ignore or deal with softly, softly. To protect their own position in terms of the lease they would need to get onto it asap.

Likewise if the tenants have been moaning for the last 5 years about the loss of land and the additional maintenance costs caused by the property owner not enforcing their ownership and rights on the neighbour and 'acquiescing' to the encroachment then the Landlord is going to have two battles to fight...

I understand your point, but my point was that, unless it's clear to the tenant where the boundary was (i.e. maybe the concrete on the ground doesn't go all the way to the actual boundary), then they are unlikely to know how much land specifically they were renting (i.e. won't know the exact location of the boundary) and therefore won't have even been aware that the neighbour was encroaching on the OP's dad's land and their space and therefore wouldn't have said anything/stopped it from happening in the first place. I don't know how their rental contract would be drafted, but it doesn't look like the tenant has been concerned over the lost space.

[rigga]

RizzoTheRat said:

Don't you need planning permission to build within a certain distance of a boundary, or does the fact that it's a temporary wooden structure negate that?

Within 2 meters of a boundry, structure must be under 2.5 meters in height, then no planning permission needed, there's other criteria, but that's the main one.

[Chrisgr31]

Whilst it might be expensive to fight this dispute all the way the neighbour will know that as well. Therefore isn't the solution to appoint very expensive lawyers to deal with it. The advice the neighbour gets will be thet it will be expensive if he loses so he might back down.

Might be worth taking the approach of offering to rent him the land, that will mean needing to redraw the lease plan for the existing tenant, but will retain the OPs rights etc.

[vanordinaire]

If you are 100% sure of the boundary no need for expensive legal fees, just knock down the extension and reinstate the boundary (give the other party notification first and that might provoke a response and save you the trouble). If the other party want to take this further, they are the ones who have to fork out for legal costs to pursue this and they'll lose anyway as it is your own land.

[anonymous-user]

vanordinaire said:

If you are 100% sure of the boundary no need for expensive legal fees, just knock down the extension and reinstate the boundary (give the other party notification first and that might provoke a response and save you the trouble). If the other party want to take this further, they are the ones who have to fork out for legal costs to pursue this and they'll lose anyway as it is your own land.

You can't just destroy other people's property, even if they are taking the piss.

[spikeyhead]

desolate said:

vanordinaire said:

If you are 100% sure of the boundary no need for expensive legal fees, just knock down the extension and reinstate the boundary (give the other party notification first and that might provoke a response and save you the trouble). If the other party want to take this further, they are the ones who have to fork out for legal costs to pursue this and they'll lose anyway as it is your own land.

You can't just destroy other people's property, even if they are taking the piss.

Yes you can. It may be illegal, but it's certainly possible.

[Mr GrimNasty]

spikeyhead said:

desolate said:

vanordinaire said:

If you are 100% sure of the boundary no need for expensive legal fees, just knock down the extension and reinstate the boundary (give the other party notification first and that might provoke a response and save you the trouble). If the other party want to take this further, they are the ones who have to fork out for legal costs to pursue this and they'll lose anyway as it is your own land.

You can't just destroy other people's property, even if they are taking the piss.

Yes you can. It may be illegal, but it's certainly possible.

Indeed, with the building established like that, you will just get charged with criminal damage, the police won't care about the boundary, the garage is still another person's property, try deliberately taking a sledge hammer to a car that cheekily parks on your drive, and see what happens!

Although you have the right to self-abatement in law, courts also take a dim view of people taking the law into their own hands.

The cheapest solution would be to offer to sell the land with the neighbour meeting all legal costs.

If that is refused, just update the land boundary yourself (the incursion doesn't really affect the value or usefulness of the plot), it's a simple process and fairly cheap, then you can sell without issue.

[surveyor]

Mr GrimNasty said:

spikeyhead said:

desolate said:

vanordinaire said:

If you are 100% sure of the boundary no need for expensive legal fees, just knock down the extension and reinstate the boundary (give the other party notification first and that might provoke a response and save you the trouble). If the other party want to take this further, they are the ones who have to fork out for legal costs to pursue this and they'll lose anyway as it is your own land.

You can't just destroy other people's property, even if they are taking the piss.

Yes you can. It may be illegal, but it's certainly possible.

Indeed, with the building established like that, you will just get charged with criminal damage, the police won't care about the boundary, the garage is still another person's property, try deliberately taking a sledge hammer to a car that cheekily parks on your drive, and see what happens!

Although you have the right to self-abatement in law, courts also take a dim view of people taking the law into their own hands.

The cheapest solution would be to offer to sell the land with the neighbour meeting all legal costs.

If that is refused, just update the land boundary yourself (the incursion doesn't really affect the value or usefulness of the plot), it's a simple process and fairly cheap, then you can sell without issue.

Having said all that - I would not be afraid to use the threat to get the attention of the neighbour. EG If I've not heard by 7th December I will remove the trespassing structure and return it to you. Would not do it, or want to do it, but would hopefully start some conversation - although not a productive one in the very first instant.

[essayer]

I seem to be interpreting this thread as: if I steal some land from a neighbour, they'll be hesitant to start legal action, provided they don't consider it a point of principle, or be a large enough company to have deep pockets..?

[surveyor]

essayer said:

I seem to be interpreting this thread as: if I steal some land from a neighbour, they'll be hesitant to start legal action, provided they don't consider it a point of principle, or be a large enough company to have deep pockets..?

I think if you do something straightaway its less of a problem. If you wait 5 years it's gonna be a bigger more expensive problem, and it might be cheaper to get some cash and not deal with it.

[PorkInsider]

There's no way I'd let him get away with this.

Give him fair warning that his shack must be promptly removed from your property. If he doesn't remove it, either annexe part of his property or buy a st heap (taxed, tested and insured) van/car and park it on the cock's drive.

I know this sort if thing is a legal ball ache and potentially costly, but surely no one sincerely advocates appeasing pricks like this?

ETA: what's the betting that if no action is taken, a few years down the line this wooden shack becomes a brick-built garage?

Edited by PorkInsider on Wednesday 25th November 11:56

[surveyor]

PorkInsider said:

There's no way I'd let him get away with this.

Give him fair warning that his shack must be promptly removed from your property. If he doesn't remove it, either annexe part of his property or buy a st heap (taxed, tested and insured) van/car and park it on the cock's drive.

I know this sort if thing is a legal ball ache and potentially costly, but surely no one sincerely advocates appeasing pricks like this?

I'd always advocate taking a long hard look at what the OP's dad wants to achieve. If he needs the land back then go for it. If he wants to sort the situation out then either the option of doing a deal or fighting exists. Doing a deal is likely to be far cheaper, once he's got the chaps attention.

It's really easy to get caught up in the He's not getting away with it. It's then that costs become stupid and positions entrenched and all ability to come to a cool and calculated decision leaves the area.

[anonymous-user]

spikeyhead said:

Yes you can. It may be illegal, but it's certainly possible.

I'll rephrase then.

It's difficult to destroy someone's property in aa manner that doesn't risk consequences should said person choose to pursue the matter.

[Chrisgr31]

Mr GrimNasty said:

If that is refused, just update the land boundary yourself (the incursion doesn't really affect the value or usefulness of the plot), it's a simple process and fairly cheap, then you can sell without issue.

It may not have much value in relation to the current use value, however it may have significant development value, if it affects the number of residential units that can be built on the site.

[16v stretch]

Get planning permission to build a nice 2m high wall along the boundary instead... And naturally you should make him aware of the planning, and see if he objects because his illegal lean-to is there instead.

[Mr GrimNasty]

Chrisgr31 said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

If that is refused, just update the land boundary yourself (the incursion doesn't really affect the value or usefulness of the plot), it's a simple process and fairly cheap, then you can sell without issue.

It may not have much value in relation to the current use value, however it may have significant development value, if it affects the number of residential units that can be built on the site.

It clearly doesn't, it's a tiny intrusion going from nothing up to about a foot on an angle, and the land registry plan is crappy/looks very inaccurate anyway.

It's not about appeasing people who annexe slithers of land, it's recognition of the fact that you need to manage your loss.

It's happened, if you are dealing with a dishonest person, you can't undo it without immense stress and cost - that's the problem with civil disputes, the aggressor can just take what he wants or do what he wants (noise nuisance etc.) and play for time without consequence, the injured party suffers all the stress and expense and wasted years of their life, the aggressor will call the police, cry harassment, force you to use a solicitor to communicate, keep replying crap to your solicitor's letters running you up a massive bill for every letter received and sent and every consultation/phone call/email, and then just back down at 1 second to midnight if you have the stamina/stupidity to see it through.

You might eventually win, but you will have lost a lot more.

Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Wednesday 25th November 17:40

[PhilboSE]

Necro-thread resurrection to give an update.

Long story short: my father tried many attempts at engagement and to reach a mutually workable outcome but they were completely ignored. He engaged surveyors and took the other party all the way to court, retaining a good solicitor and a barrister for the court appearance, with all the usual tricks and tactics tried by the defendant and their solicitor - although they never filed a defence.

Last week judgement was made and my dad was awarded all of his costs to date and the other party has been given until May to remove the building and restore the original boundary. The other party is probably looking at £30,000+ of costs (my dad's plus his own) and has yet to bear the building costs.

The right result in the end, but it has taken 20 months and a significant outlay "at risk" on my dad's behalf just to get there.

[InitialDave]

PhilboSE said:

The other party is probably looking at £30,000+ of costs (my dad's plus his own)

Will your dad actually get his money?

[hornetrider]

Good result.