Problem with neighbours boundary wall

[Ovaltine]

The initial message was deleted from this topic on 14 November 2015 at 19:56

[Chr1sch]

I must confess i typically find these threads a bit daft and pedantic but i whole heartedly agree with you that is not acceptable, that is a huge amount of concrete.

Alternatively if it has been done properly could they angle grind the excess off to sit level with the bricks? (we had to do something similar around the edge of a patio to allow grass to grow up against the slabs...)

[Tom_C76]

That's a kerb for paving isn't it? Kerb beams always have concrete up the back of them, often to ground level, though it should taper away below ground. I would imaging that unless you have a wall at the front of your garden the kerb beam for the back of the footpath is very similar.

[paulrockliffe]

Tom_C76 said:

That's a kerb for paving isn't it? Kerb beams always have concrete up the back of them, often to ground level, though it should taper away below ground. I would imaging that unless you have a wall at the front of your garden the kerb beam for the back of the footpath is very similar.

That being the case, the kerbing should have been placed further onto the neighbours property so that all of the above ground 'structure' is on the correct side of the boundary.

[Troubleatmill]

What is it with people who want their garden/ boundary to look nice - but it means stting all over yours?

I'd be politely asking "Why is your concrete on my garden?"

If they refuse - I'd be taking a sledgehammer to it pronto; on the basis that you need a level surface to plant your thorn bushes.

[hornetrider]

Jesus wept, that is hideous. I'd be embarrassed if I had work done and it ended up like that for a neighbour. What did the neighbours say when you showed them?

[stuart313]

I dont even agree with the footings being on your land. Suppose you wish to build an extension, you cant even get your footings up to the edge of your land never mind your wall, it seems your neighbour has more of a right to your land than you do.

[TA14]

stuart313 said:

I dont even agree with the footings being on your land. Suppose you wish to build an extension, you cant even get your footings up to the edge of your land never mind your wall, it seems your neighbour has more of a right to your land than you do.

That's not correct, you can cut his footing back to the boundary.

OP, I think you need to go with the line that the offending concrete is
a) not below ground level and
b) not a footing but lateral support
so must be removed.

[Matt_N]

That is bloody horrendous!

Looks like a giant pigeon has st all over the place.

I'd be straight round there and that didn't sort it id be out there wit a bolster and a lump hammer chipping it back.

How can people think that's acceptable?

[t400ble]

Are you sure they have finished the work yet?

Has the contractor now left site?

[Roo]

Does look a mess.

Out of interest, what surface are they putting down on their side of it?

[BigTom85]

Any before pics?

Was there a history of spoil from your side falling onto their 'path'?

[stuart313]

Maybe once the path has set it can be removed, it might just be a temporary brace which in my opinion is acceptable.

[Mandat]

stuart313 said:

I dont even agree with the footings being on your land. Suppose you wish to build an extension, you cant even get your footings up to the edge of your land never mind your wall, it seems your neighbour has more of a right to your land than you do.

The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 gives the right to place projecting footings on neighbouring land, if necessary.

Conversely, if the neighbour then wants to build up to the boundary line as well, they can cut back the projecting footings, or there are other foundation designs that can be used to work around the projecting footings. It is all relatively straightforward and which shouldn't deprive the neighbour of any rights to their own land.

[All that jazz]

Am I missing something? The "wall" appears to be about 6" tall. What is its purpose?

[gaz1234]

Hmmm....

[jules_s]

That just looks lazy tbh

The bricks look like they are laid too high which is why the haunching is so prevalent

I would imagine there will be some more head scratching/bodging when they realise the airbricks are being breached

[dickymint]

Mandat said:

stuart313 said:

I dont even agree with the footings being on your land. Suppose you wish to build an extension, you cant even get your footings up to the edge of your land never mind your wall, it seems your neighbour has more of a right to your land than you do.

The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 gives the right to place projecting footings on neighbouring land, if necessary.

Conversely, if the neighbour then wants to build up to the boundary line as well, they can cut back the projecting footings, or there are other foundation designs that can be used to work around the projecting footings. It is all relatively straightforward and which shouldn't deprive the neighbour of any rights to their own land.

Irrelevant as it's not a party wall.

[bigdom]

jules_s said:

That just looks lazy tbh

The bricks look like they are laid too high which is why the haunching is so prevalent

I would imagine there will be some more head scratching/bodging when they realise the airbricks are being breached

Finished level vs dpc could also be an issue, albeit for your neighbour.

[Roo]

bigdom said:

Finished level vs dpc could also be an issue, albeit for your neighbour.

Which is why I asked what surface finish they're putting down on their side of it.