Help with police treatment over a boundary dispute please?
Discussion
Hi all,
I have an issue I am unsure how to deal with.
Friday night 1st July I saw on my CCTV camera my neighbour cutting down my gatepost. I called 999 and reported a crime in progress, of course it took them well over an hour to respond (95mins!) by which time the post and 1st fence panel had gone.
The officer was told this is a long standing issue with my neighbour who previously threatened to remove the entire fence. The thing is, I know my boundary to be 'left and rear' which I told the officer. He left to interview my neighbour before returning to tell me the paperwork my neighbour showed him seems to suggest the fence belongs to him. I explained this to be incorrect but at the time could not supply my own paperwork. The officer left intending to contact land registry for a definitive answer.
I subsequently located my original conveyancing documents which do indeed show my boundary to be left and rear which I already knew. The land registry document only shows a general outline of the property, but the local county council document shows the necessary 'T' marks. I notified the police I had located the necessary paperwork to show the fence does indeed belong to me. I was told this is now a civil case and they appear disinterested to do any more for me. So now I have a missing fence post and panel which I consider criminal damage.
What can I do about this as I am not in a position to engage solicitors for a civil action but know I have been wronged.
Thanks for any/all help offered.
Regards,
Graham
I have an issue I am unsure how to deal with.
Friday night 1st July I saw on my CCTV camera my neighbour cutting down my gatepost. I called 999 and reported a crime in progress, of course it took them well over an hour to respond (95mins!) by which time the post and 1st fence panel had gone.
The officer was told this is a long standing issue with my neighbour who previously threatened to remove the entire fence. The thing is, I know my boundary to be 'left and rear' which I told the officer. He left to interview my neighbour before returning to tell me the paperwork my neighbour showed him seems to suggest the fence belongs to him. I explained this to be incorrect but at the time could not supply my own paperwork. The officer left intending to contact land registry for a definitive answer.
I subsequently located my original conveyancing documents which do indeed show my boundary to be left and rear which I already knew. The land registry document only shows a general outline of the property, but the local county council document shows the necessary 'T' marks. I notified the police I had located the necessary paperwork to show the fence does indeed belong to me. I was told this is now a civil case and they appear disinterested to do any more for me. So now I have a missing fence post and panel which I consider criminal damage.
What can I do about this as I am not in a position to engage solicitors for a civil action but know I have been wronged.
Thanks for any/all help offered.
Regards,
Graham
A quick Google produces quite a lot on the significance of T marks on plans and you might want to have a look at this,
Lanfear v Chandler [2013]
"T-marks are frequently seen on conveyancing plans. It is relatively well known that if T-marks are within your land that you are usually responsible for the repair of those boundaries. However, does it also mean (or at least indicate) that you therefore own that boundary feature as well? Some would be forgiven for thinking that it might, but the Court of Appeal have recently confirmed in the case of Lanfear v Chandler [2013], that it does not." - See more at: http://www.fieldfisher.com/publications/2014/06/cl...
So it's possible that your neighbour might actually own the fence or the land on which it stands. You're going to need specialist legal advice to take this matter any further.
Lanfear v Chandler [2013]
"T-marks are frequently seen on conveyancing plans. It is relatively well known that if T-marks are within your land that you are usually responsible for the repair of those boundaries. However, does it also mean (or at least indicate) that you therefore own that boundary feature as well? Some would be forgiven for thinking that it might, but the Court of Appeal have recently confirmed in the case of Lanfear v Chandler [2013], that it does not." - See more at: http://www.fieldfisher.com/publications/2014/06/cl...
So it's possible that your neighbour might actually own the fence or the land on which it stands. You're going to need specialist legal advice to take this matter any further.
Edited by paintman on Wednesday 6th July 01:16
no one can really help you without speaking to a solicitor. Boundary disputes are complicated and need proper legal advice.
Seriously, 999 for a post being cut down, is just a waste of time. You should be pursuing him thru the small claims court for damages to your property, as well as the border dispute.
Seriously, 999 for a post being cut down, is just a waste of time. You should be pursuing him thru the small claims court for damages to your property, as well as the border dispute.
Do you have a 'boundary agreement' making it clear who owns the fencing? If the fence is a structure that separates the two properties then ownership is often unclear which prevents any criminal damage prosecution.
On the face of it it sounds like it is civil matter and specialist advice is required.
On the face of it it sounds like it is civil matter and specialist advice is required.
paintman said:
A quick Google produces quite a lot on the significance of T marks on plans and you might want to have a look at this,
Lanfear v Chandler [2013]
"T-marks are frequently seen on conveyancing plans. It is relatively well known that if T-marks are within your land that you are usually responsible for the repair of those boundaries. However, does it also mean (or at least indicate) that you therefore own that boundary feature as well? Some would be forgiven for thinking that it might, but the Court of Appeal have recently confirmed in the case of Lanfear v Chandler [2013], that it does not." - See more at: http://www.fieldfisher.com/publications/2014/06/cl...
So it's possible that your neighbour might actually own the fence or the land on which it stands. You're going to need specialist legal advice to take this matter any further.
The full judgement - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/1497....Lanfear v Chandler [2013]
"T-marks are frequently seen on conveyancing plans. It is relatively well known that if T-marks are within your land that you are usually responsible for the repair of those boundaries. However, does it also mean (or at least indicate) that you therefore own that boundary feature as well? Some would be forgiven for thinking that it might, but the Court of Appeal have recently confirmed in the case of Lanfear v Chandler [2013], that it does not." - See more at: http://www.fieldfisher.com/publications/2014/06/cl...
So it's possible that your neighbour might actually own the fence or the land on which it stands. You're going to need specialist legal advice to take this matter any further.
This case is a classic demonstration that the developer's plan(s) frequently differ from what the builders actually do on the ground.
I'm no lawyer, it's that distinction between being responsible for a boundary - bearing in mind there is no obligation to build fences anywhere - and owning the fence on a particular boundary.
I paid for a fence to be put up on 'my neigbour's boundary'- on the boundary line - because I wanted privacy and he wasn't bothered either way. It's still his boundary.
If he suddenly decided he wanted no fence again - I guess he still woldn't own the fence I paid for, he'd have to return it to me - I'd build a new one inside the boundary line.
I paid for a fence to be put up on 'my neigbour's boundary'- on the boundary line - because I wanted privacy and he wasn't bothered either way. It's still his boundary.
If he suddenly decided he wanted no fence again - I guess he still woldn't own the fence I paid for, he'd have to return it to me - I'd build a new one inside the boundary line.
Greendubber said:
So you both have papers that could suggest either of you own it and you need to seek proper legal advice, how is it not a civil matter?
You ring 999, bloke cutting the post down has papers saying he can do it, you think he cant, what should the police have done?
Can a matter not be both criminal and civil? I thought the Police might investigate and gather evidence. If a crime appears to have taken place and the thresholds are met then someone can be reported and the court decide their guilt or otherwise. You ring 999, bloke cutting the post down has papers saying he can do it, you think he cant, what should the police have done?
Taking a simplistic view, escaping sanction by waiving a random piece of paper at a Police Officer seems an easy way out. On the other I sympathise with an officer faced with a dispute outside of his or her expertise. Mind you, nobody said being a Police Officer was supposed to be easy!
As for dialling 999, hardly emergency of the century, is it? Unless your collection of Raptors was about to escape I would have thought a non emergency number would suffice.
janesmith1950 said:
Greendubber said:
So you both have papers that could suggest either of you own it and you need to seek proper legal advice, how is it not a civil matter?
You ring 999, bloke cutting the post down has papers saying he can do it, you think he cant, what should the police have done?
Can a matter not be both criminal and civil? I thought the Police might investigate and gather evidence. If a crime appears to have taken place and the thresholds are met then someone can be reported and the court decide their guilt or otherwise. You ring 999, bloke cutting the post down has papers saying he can do it, you think he cant, what should the police have done?
Taking a simplistic view, escaping sanction by waiving a random piece of paper at a Police Officer seems an easy way out. On the other I sympathise with an officer faced with a dispute outside of his or her expertise. Mind you, nobody said being a Police Officer was supposed to be easy!
As for dialling 999, hardly emergency of the century, is it? Unless your collection of Raptors was about to escape I would have thought a non emergency number would suffice.
This is a dispute over ownership of the fence at this stage so it really is a civil matter, one that the OP needs to seek the relevant legal advice for.
janesmith1950 said:
Greendubber said:
So you both have papers that could suggest either of you own it and you need to seek proper legal advice, how is it not a civil matter?
You ring 999, bloke cutting the post down has papers saying he can do it, you think he cant, what should the police have done?
Can a matter not be both criminal and civil? I thought the Police might investigate and gather evidence. If a crime appears to have taken place and the thresholds are met then someone can be reported and the court decide their guilt or otherwise. You ring 999, bloke cutting the post down has papers saying he can do it, you think he cant, what should the police have done?
Taking a simplistic view, escaping sanction by waiving a random piece of paper at a Police Officer seems an easy way out. On the other I sympathise with an officer faced with a dispute outside of his or her expertise. Mind you, nobody said being a Police Officer was supposed to be easy!
As for dialling 999, hardly emergency of the century, is it? Unless your collection of Raptors was about to escape I would have thought a non emergency number would suffice.
Thinking about it a bit more (and the following may not apply to the OP). If I were to pay for a 'boundary feature' e.g. a fence, and someone damaged it, does the fact it's a 'boundary feature' (where there are apparently 'no laws' to govern who owns them (according to this site) prevent it from being property that can be damaged?
The defences to damage are 'protection' (see below) and 'permission'. If I've paid for something and even if I've erected it on someone else's land, can they damage it because it comes within a 'boundary dispute'?
The defences to damage are 'protection' (see below) and 'permission'. If I've paid for something and even if I've erected it on someone else's land, can they damage it because it comes within a 'boundary dispute'?
Criminal damage act lawful excuse said:
(b) if he destroyed or damaged or threatened to destroy or damage the property in question or, in the case of a charge of an offence under section 3, intended to use or cause or permit the use of something to destroy or damage it, in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed -
(i) that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and
(ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.
(i) that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and
(ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.
La Liga said:
Thinking about it a bit more (and the following may not apply to the OP). If I were to pay for a 'boundary feature' e.g. a fence, and someone damaged it, does the fact it's a 'boundary feature' (where there are apparently 'no laws' to govern who owns them (according to this site) prevent it from being property that can be damaged?
The defences to damage are 'protection' (see below) and 'permission'. If I've paid for something and even if I've erected it on someone else's land, can they damage it because it comes within a 'boundary dispute'?
If the neighbour has just simply removed the panel and post and returned them I think you'd struggle meeting a damage TBH. The defences to damage are 'protection' (see below) and 'permission'. If I've paid for something and even if I've erected it on someone else's land, can they damage it because it comes within a 'boundary dispute'?
Criminal damage act lawful excuse said:
(b) if he destroyed or damaged or threatened to destroy or damage the property in question or, in the case of a charge of an offence under section 3, intended to use or cause or permit the use of something to destroy or damage it, in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed -
(i) that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and
(ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.
(i) that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and
(ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.
With regard to the OP we have no idea when the fence was built.
Edited by Greendubber on Wednesday 6th July 09:17
The fence has been in place above 15 years, the problem is not ownership of the fence per se, but one of my gate posts which is also the first fence post and boundary post is what has been removed. The previous occupants of the house next door cut down the original gate post to allow making a drive for vehicle access, the new neighbours have no consideration for others and several times my path was blocked by cars being dumped roughly in the vicinity of their drive. With the gate post replaced, my pathway has remained clear of obstruction. I had the post replaced over 2 years ago which I believe I am within my rights to do as it was put back in exactly the same place as the stump of the original post. The post was reinforced concrete by the way, and replaced with same.
I hope this is clear enough.
Thanks,
Graham
I hope this is clear enough.
Thanks,
Graham
Edited by ghlawrence2000 on Wednesday 6th July 09:42
I have lived here since Sept '93, the new neighbours since 2008. The fence was already in place, the gate post is what has been replaced and subsequently cut down. The long running issue is what the new neighbour thinks he can and can't do. Not long after he moved in he proposed removing the entire fence and tarmacing his and my front, I said that was fine as long there was some sort of indication of the original boundary. Needless to say he didn't pursue that idea.
Greendubber said:
If the neighbour has just simply removed the panel and post and returned them I think you'd struggle meeting a damage TBH.
With regard to the OP we have no idea when the fence was built.
No, the concrete post was cut down by angle grinder and both post and panel disposed of.With regard to the OP we have no idea when the fence was built.
Edited by Greendubber on Wednesday 6th July 09:17
I had a dispute with a neighbour some years ago over a boundary line - and as we were getting nowhere and it was getting more and more heated, I appointed a surveyor to go to see the guy on my behalf, armed with a copy of our deeds and he then agreed an acceptable line which we then fenced.
It took the heat out of the situation and resolved the matter once and for all.
You really don't want to have to declare a dispute if you ever decide to sell.
It took the heat out of the situation and resolved the matter once and for all.
You really don't want to have to declare a dispute if you ever decide to sell.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff