New boundary fence

New neighbours have large dogs - great danes I think and have removed the existing large and tatty boundary hedge with my agreement to be replace at their expense by a 6 ft high wooden fence. This is to be timber planks on 4" square timbers set in concrete.

They want the planks to be all on their side of the fence posts which would leave me looking at the posts. I would prefer the planks to be on a one on one side/one on the other side basis so that the wind passes through and the visual impact isn't so great.

As they are paying and building the fence do I have any say at all ?

Rob

Reply to
Rob Graham
Loading thread data ...

If it's completely on their land, not really, unless it's lots over

6 feet.

If it's the boundary line, things might be more complex. However, it might be worth offering to pay 150% of the difference between the two sorts of fencing.

A slatted fence will actually reduce the wind a bit more. A solid fence will tend to just create horrible vortices round the edge of it.

Reply to
Ian Stirling

AIUI if this is *your* fence then the neat side has to face away from your land.

Reply to
:::Jerry::::

This is normally determined by who is responsible for the boundary fence - (can be found on plans of site)

Conventionally, but not always, as you look down your garden, you are responsible for the fence on the left.

The convention is that if there is a fair side and a not so good side to the fence, then the owner should present the better side to the neighbour.

So if it's his, and he chooses to replace it then he should put the boards on your side.

However if it's yours and he is paying to replace it, then I think you have to negotiate, especially as you say that the existing boundary is tatty.

Of course if it is yours, you don't have to agree to the fence at all and then he would have to erect the fence completely on his land. He could also lop back all the hedge on his side to do so, so probably killing it anyway.

The other factor is that you probably don't want to fall out with him, so I think your best course is going to be to negotiate something. The reason for the fence change is because of his dogs, so I don't see why he should have it all his way.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Reply to
Andy Hall

Who has the requirement to maintain that boundary? As it stands the new owner could be trying to shift the responsibilty from himself to you by putting the posts on your side. Though if push came to shove the deeds of the properties would decide, but anyone casually looking at that fence would say it was yours even if it legaly isn't.

On whose land is the new fence going to be built? The "good" side faces outwards and should run along the boundary line, any supports being on the owners side. He can build the fence as you describe but it has to be wholy on his property, including the posts and if you feel like being difficult you may be able to deny him access to your land to erect or maintain those posts so would need access space on his property. Again rights of access for maintenace etc should be in the Deeds.

Reply to
Dave Liquorice

Care to cite a legal reference for this? In fact there is no such convention that has a general basis in law. It may be that a particular estate, for example, has been laid out in that way bit it does not make it generally true.

Again there is no general legal requirement for this.

Always worth while doing it by agreement but remember that your existing neighbour nay not always be there. Depending what the deeds say it may, or may not, be relatively easy to establish exactly where the boundary is and who owns it. Deeds often only show what is known as "general boundaries" which is vague enough to keep a whole army of lawyers busy! Take a look at the is site that is a mine of information on garden and boundary law.

formatting link
Peter Crosland

Reply to
Peter Crosland

If you get on well, you can sugget you pay the extra for any changes you may like.

One of my friends had a double fence, so both people get the nice side, and the bad sides are hiden in the middle .......

Rick

Reply to
Rick Dipper

In message , ":::Jerry::::" writes

No it doesn't, you can put it anyway you like.

There is a convention about putting them the way you state, but that's all it is.

Reply to
chris French

No because I didn't suggest that there was.

I didn;t suggest that either.

Well the last time I did a conveyancing exercise, I asked the solicitor about it and he said that most that he had seen, over quite a large area, estate and non-estate were like this. Of course, it could be regional and coincidental.

No, but again it is the convention as I have read it.

Referring to your site below:

"If the deeds say nothing, as unfortunately they all too often do, then in the case of fences with posts or struts on one side, the law presumes that the owner on that side owns and is responsible for repairing the fence."

and

"When putting up a fence, custom dictates that the posts are entirely on your land and the face of the fence, points to your neighbours. It is worth is giving up an inch or two of your land to avoid it going onto next door and creating a dispute. This is especially so since you will need cooperation to be able to repair the fence from your neighbours land. Ensure it complies with Planning Regulations ? ring them first. "

Why am I not surprised?

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Reply to
Andy Hall

The reason is that the fence should be on the owner's side of the boundary line, and since the line is straight, you put the flat side of the fence against the boundary line with all the fence structure on the owner's side of the line. If the owner puts the fence up the other way round but still on their side of the boundary, then they effectively fence off some of their land leaving it only accessible to their neighbour. If you put a fence up the wrong way round, it might at some later date be deemed to belong to the other house if there's no other record, in which case the boundary has moved between the properties with the original fence owner having lost out.

Reply to
Andrew Gabriel

A very good point. People often forget that the concrete in which the fence posts are set has to be within the boundary as well. Access for maintenance can be obtained by a court order but it is very unusual for rights regarding construction to be written into deeds particularly domestic property. Nevertheless it is never good policy to fall out with your neighbour. The difficulty is that the law regarding boundaries and their exact location is much more complex than most people realise and that applying "convention" or rule of thumb is quite likely to give the wrong answer.

Reply to
Peter Crosland

AIUI the planks are normally on the owner's side, so that he can repair the fence (e.g. nailing on new planks) without encroaching on the other property.

Reply to
Frank Erskine

I think the original convention rose from territorial considerations rather than aesthetic considerations towards the neighbours.

If the boundary fence is your property and responsibility then it must lie entirely on your land. If the "fair" side faces you then a narrow strip of land containing the fence posts is effectively lost to the neighbour. By building it the other way round you only loose the thickness of the planks.

Reply to
Mike Clarke

I think you are missing my point Andy! The problem is that there are all sorts of things that are subject to the words if, and, but and maybe in connection with boundaries and the law. Your statements were without much qualification particularly your assertion that "Conventionally, but not always, as you look down your garden, you are responsible for the fence on the left" without any qualification is simply wrong. It is seldom possible to set out "rules" that apply to every situation. The garden law site has quite a bit more detail than either you or I quoted. Even so it is not an exhaustive statement of all the possibilities. Unfortunately with ever higher housing density, and therefore smaller gardens, people become ever more possessive over a few square feet of land that they perceive as theirs. This has been exacerbated by the fact that the Land Registry plans often don't show enough detail, or are not of large enough scale to be quite sure to within a few inches, or even a foot, of the precise position. Enormous sums of money are wasted every year by people arguing over tiny strips of land that are worth much less than the legal fees spent on them. Having recently had to deal with a problem about my own boundary I learnt quite a lot than I already knew. My property and the adjoining one had been conveyed four times by the same firm of solicitors (A large nationally known firm with many employees) by four different individuals who all missed the same error! Luckily the error was so large it was relatively easy to sort out with the help of the Land Registry who sent a surveyor to check out the whole thing. Even so I suspect that my chainlink fence is some six inches over the actual legal boundary. Fortunately it borders a three acre orchard so in practical terms it makes no difference particularly as it has been there for more than twenty years without any query from the neighbour. Teh only "rule" is to try and stay on good terms with your neighbour and if possible get any changes recorded in writing and with photographs.

Reply to
Peter Crosland

There wasn't an assertion at all, simply a comment from experience supported by information from a solicitor who had indicated that this was the convention in his experience. I was careful not to say that it always was like this so there was no need to qualify further.

Of course not, which is why there are customs and conventions.

I have noticed that.

. and that. In fact they seem to be pretty much useless, other than to indicate responsibility for the fences.

Not Robinsons was it? They seem to be quite well known :-)

That's certainly true.

Reply to
Andy Hall

I would used one with wider knowledge in future!

No: and I will not be drawn on who it was!

Reply to
Peter Crosland

It's hardly a big issue, and obviously one should check anyway.

None of them contribute anything of value to society, so to me it's picking the least bad from a poor bunch.

Reply to
Andy Hall

supports

Wouldn't access rights for maintenance cover that? I mean if the fence is so dilapidated that it needs replacing thats just a lot of maintenace. Still that assume making an ass out of u and me though. B-)

Quite agree, thats why I said several times refer back to the deeds, they have much more legal standing than any thumb or convention.

Reply to
Dave Liquorice

Thanks for the inputs guys.

Obviously with new neighbours I don't want to rattle any cages, but they do seem to be gaining all, even if at their cost in that I've lost a hedge which might with a bit of care be grown into something and got in exchange a 6 ft high barricade, which they bluthely say - "oh you can grow things up it !!" (at my expense it appears).

However there was a complication that I didn't mention and that is that if one takes the middle of the semi-detached cottages as the boundary then I've gained several feet by the position of the removed hedge. The new fence has followed the old hedge line. If I had pushed too much, next door could I suspect have claimed the 'official' boundary line - or could they, on the basis that the hedge predates my entry 30 years ago ?

The one thing that does concern me is the comment that the posts being on my side gives me responsibility for them.

Rob

Rob

Reply to
Rob Graham

No, it only *appears* to give you responsibilty, you need to look in your Deeds to see what they have to say, if anything...

If the Deeds don't state who is responsible for that boundary fence, they could be shared, I think you have just "won" it. It would be a very long, complex and thus expensive legal battle to prove otherwise.

As you have gained several feet I'd keep a bit quiet, look carefully at the plans lodged with the Land Registry and maybe in a few years time apply for that strip to be made legaly yours. There is some means that if you use a bit of land as yours for 11 years (I think) with no objections you can claim it. *Very* loosely...

Reply to
Dave Liquorice

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.