Boundary Issue
Author
Discussion

ln1234

Original Poster:

848 posts

216 months

Wednesday 10th February 2010
quotequote all
Need some help from the PH collective.

We live next to a property that is rented out and the landlord has decided to replace the fence between our driveways with a brick wall. To enable this wall to be constructed, the builders have had to take up a line of bricks in our driveway and put the footings in for the wall. Our driveway is a bit smaller as a result as the width of the bricks is bigger than the fence it replaced, and parts of our driveway have not been put back properly. Is he allowed to do this?

What can I do about this? I don't have much contact with the landlord, but have is home address available. I'm really annoyed that no one has spoken to me about the changes, and i'm not sure if the party wall act applies in this case.

Any help appreciated.

Spudler

3,985 posts

214 months

Wednesday 10th February 2010
quotequote all
Only the concrete foundations can butt up to the existing boundary, the wall should be approx 4" inside of the concrete edge, if built properly. Basically nothing is allowed to encroach your land.

V8mate

45,899 posts

207 months

Wednesday 10th February 2010
quotequote all
The fence would have had posts? They are usually as wide as a brick, so replacement walls run along the line of the existing fence posts.

Simpo Two

89,687 posts

283 months

Wednesday 10th February 2010
quotequote all
V8mate said:
The fence would have had posts? They are usually as wide as a brick, so replacement walls run along the line of the existing fence posts.
Good point, and any buttressing would be on their side.

Spudler

3,985 posts

214 months

Wednesday 10th February 2010
quotequote all
V8mate said:
The fence would have had posts? They are usually as wide as a brick, so replacement walls run along the line of the existing fence posts.
Still got to dig a foundation tho...which can only start on the boundary line, and the brickwork sits in the middle of said foundation, ie: 4" inside of OP neighbours drive.

ln1234

Original Poster:

848 posts

216 months

Wednesday 10th February 2010
quotequote all
Spudler said:
V8mate said:
The fence would have had posts? They are usually as wide as a brick, so replacement walls run along the line of the existing fence posts.
Still got to dig a foundation tho...which can only start on the boundary line, and the brickwork sits in the middle of said foundation, ie: 4" inside of OP neighbours drive.
The existing fence was quite small and the fence posts were quite narrow. What they have done is made the middle of the wall where they think the boundary line is, which is a encroaching on our drive and have messed up part of it.

Called the council and they said it's a civil matter so nothing they can do.

SJobson

13,455 posts

282 months

Wednesday 10th February 2010
quotequote all
Do you have legal expenses cover on your home insurance? They may pursue this for you.

Sam_68

9,939 posts

263 months

Wednesday 10th February 2010
quotequote all
You may wish to read the Party Wall Act and the Access to Neighbouring land Act.

It may also be relevant who 'owns' the boundary. There should be 'T' marks on the conveyance plan for the property that shows who owns and is responsible for each boundary (the 'T' marks should be on the side of the 'owner'). If there are no 'T' marks, the boundary is shared responsibility and any work to it will need to be by mutual agreement. If you own it, your neighbour is not allowed to touch it, period.

SJobson

13,455 posts

282 months

Wednesday 10th February 2010
quotequote all
Sam_68 said:
There should be 'T' marks on the conveyance plan for the property that shows who owns and is responsible for each boundary (the 'T' marks should be on the side of the 'owner'). If there are no 'T' marks, the boundary is shared responsibility and any work to it will need to be by mutual agreement. If you own it, your neighbour is not allowed to touch it, period.
The absence of T marks does not imply a shared responsibility - that is a matter of evidence.

Sam_68

9,939 posts

263 months

Wednesday 10th February 2010
quotequote all
SJobson said:
The absence of T marks does not imply a shared responsibility - that is a matter of evidence.
Fair comment. I should perhaps have said 'in the absence of evidence to the contrary...'.

But you will normally find that there is no evidence to the contrary (or at least not enough to stand up in a court of law)...

blueg33

42,481 posts

242 months

Wednesday 10th February 2010
quotequote all
On the face of it, it sounds like a breach of the Party Wall Act. You shou7ld have been served a Line of Conjunction notice.

If necessary you can employ a party wall surveyor at the other party's costs. It is a fairly complicated bit of legislation so professional advice is recommended.

I am not a professional advisor but a developer so this is often a problem. I employ party wall surveyors on a regular basis to deal with this stuff

SJobson

13,455 posts

282 months

Wednesday 10th February 2010
quotequote all
Sam_68 said:
SJobson said:
The absence of T marks does not imply a shared responsibility - that is a matter of evidence.
Fair comment. I should perhaps have said 'in the absence of evidence to the contrary...'.

But you will normally find that there is no evidence to the contrary (or at least not enough to stand up in a court of law)...
Normally I find that there are no T marks... However, there is often some factual evidence, such as the previous owner paying the sole cost of replacing a fence, which would stand up. Simply looking at where a fence attaches to a pair of semis can provide evidence that it belongs to one of them.

ln1234

Original Poster:

848 posts

216 months

Wednesday 10th February 2010
quotequote all
SJobson said:
Do you have legal expenses cover on your home insurance? They may pursue this for you.
That was great advice! I called up my insurance company and they put me in touch with a legal bod who has knowledge of these kind of issues.

He said that if it's a jointly managed fence (which it sounds like there is since there are no markings on the title plan), the owner has a duty to discuss any changes before they happen. Also, as my driveway has been damaged I should be able to get this fixed alongside any alterations I think would be needed on the new wall.

He suggests writing a letter asking for these things and giving them 14 days notice. Failing that, the legal cover I have with my insurance may help me take them to court.

Cheers Guys

Sam_68

9,939 posts

263 months

Wednesday 10th February 2010
quotequote all
SJobson said:
Normally I find that there are no T marks... However, there is often some factual evidence, such as the previous owner paying the sole cost of replacing a fence, which would stand up. Simply looking at where a fence attaches to a pair of semis can provide evidence that it belongs to one of them.
My experience differs from yours: we normally find that in the abscence of T-marks or any written description in the title deeds, the Land Registry will simply say 'shared boundary', whether you like it or not. You can offer them as many invoices and sworn affadavits as you like, and they won't give a toss, 'cos they simply don't want to get involved in the conflict.

Perhaps regional variations in the Land Registry's approach, if you find otherwise? We tend to be dealing with the LR at Coventry and Gloucester... which patch do you have experience with?

ln1234

Original Poster:

848 posts

216 months

Wednesday 10th February 2010
quotequote all
Also, the party wall act states that if a 'Party Fence Wall' straddles the boundary then there has to be written consent from neighbours.

Mandat

4,316 posts

256 months

Wednesday 10th February 2010
quotequote all
ln1234 said:
Also, the party wall act states that if a 'Party Fence Wall' straddles the boundary then there has to be written consent from neighbours.
The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 does indeed cover this type of situation.

If your neighbour wanted to build a wall on the boundary with your property, he should have first served a Line of Junction Notice under section 1 of the Act. The Notice should have stated whether it was proposed to build a wall astride the boundary or wholly on their own land (ie. the outside face of the wall being on the boundary.) The former would be considered a new Party Fence Wall and would require your consent. If you do not consent to the construction of a Party Fence Wall, the neighbour has no choice but to build it wholly on their own land (which would make it their own wall rather than a Party Fence wall).

In any case, your neighbour would be entitled under the Act to place the projecting foundations of the new wall on your land but subject to the agreement of the actual line of boundary and the making good any damage to your property.

It seems from your post that the new wall sits astride the boundary therfore you are now the proud joint owner of a Party Fence Wall, which comes with it a joint responsibility for its future maintenance and repair. If you do not want a Party Fence Wall, I suggest that you seek legal advice to enforce it's removal & re-building in the correct position.

HTH.


Mandat

4,316 posts

256 months

Wednesday 10th February 2010
quotequote all
Spudler said:
V8mate said:
The fence would have had posts? They are usually as wide as a brick, so replacement walls run along the line of the existing fence posts.
Still got to dig a foundation tho...which can only start on the boundary line, and the brickwork sits in the middle of said foundation, ie: 4" inside of OP neighbours drive.
Wrong! Under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, you can place projecting foundations onto a neighbours land in order to construct a wall at the boundary line.

Mandat

4,316 posts

256 months

Wednesday 10th February 2010
quotequote all
blueg33 said:
On the face of it, it sounds like a breach of the Party Wall Act. You shou7ld have been served a Line of Conjunction notice.

If necessary you can employ a party wall surveyor at the other party's costs. It is a fairly complicated bit of legislation so professional advice is recommended.

I am not a professional advisor but a developer so this is often a problem. I employ party wall surveyors on a regular basis to deal with this stuff
Nick. YHM

silverthorn2151

6,341 posts

197 months

Wednesday 10th February 2010
quotequote all
What Mandat said. It's a popular cry that foundations etc can't be on your land....they can under certain circumstances. The Party Wall Act is actually a very good bit of legislation and works very well. If it has a failing it's that it's a bit toothless when it comes to remedy where someone has ignored it.


ln1234

Original Poster:

848 posts

216 months

Thursday 11th February 2010
quotequote all
Mandat said:
Spudler said:
V8mate said:
The fence would have had posts? They are usually as wide as a brick, so replacement walls run along the line of the existing fence posts.
Still got to dig a foundation tho...which can only start on the boundary line, and the brickwork sits in the middle of said foundation, ie: 4" inside of OP neighbours drive.
Wrong! Under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, you can place projecting foundations onto a neighbours land in order to construct a wall at the boundary line.
From what I read in the Party Wall Act Handbook..

How long in advance do I have to serve the notice?

At least one month before the planned starting date for building the wall. The notice is only valid for a year, so do not serve it too long before you wish to start.

What happens after I serve notice about building astride the boundary line?

If the Adjoining Owner agrees within 14 days to the building of a new wall astride the boundary line, the work (as agreed) may go ahead. The expense of building the wall may be shared between the owners where the benefits and use of that wall will be shared.

The agreement must be in writing and should record details of the location of the wall, the allocation of costs and any other agreed conditions.

If the Adjoining Owner does not agree, in writing, within 14 days, to the proposed new wall astride the boundary line, you must build the wall wholly on your own land, and wholly at your own expense. However, you have a right to place necessary footings for the new wall under your neighbour’s land – see paragraph 23 - subject to compensating for any damage caused by building the wall or laying the foundations.
There is no right to place reinforced concrete under your neighbour’s land without their express written consent. You may start work one month after your notice was served.