Ownership of boundary?

[Bruce]

I have been retained to advise on a small project involving a terraced cottage that was built in 1882. The rear garden is narrow but very long and I would like to establish who "owns" (or is responsible for) which boundary.

We have obtained the relevant documents from the last conveyance of the property in 1998 together with annotated copies of the 1:1250 Ordnance Survey map from the Land Registry.

From previous experience, I had hoped to find ticks or v-marks showing which boundaries were the responsibility of which landowners. However, in this case, the map shows nothing, just a solid line for each fence and a dotted line for an unfenced but defined boundary, with no ticks.

There is nothing helpful on the ground either, with 3' or 4' plastic coated chain link fences marking all the boundaries and no hint of which side the posts are on.

The neighbours on each side are friendly and helpful but no-one knows who "owns" which boundary. They do know who installed what length of fence and when, but without prejudice to whose responsibility the boundaries might be.

So where do I go from here? I could have searches carried out but I fear that all they will turn up is the same annotated plans from the Land Registry, and having spent some money we will be no further on.

[geoffr]

It's not uncommon for there to be no mention of boundary ownership in the deeds and unfortunately it's a grey area with no obvious answer. In the absence of any clear evidence then there is a presumption that they are party boundaries, but this can be rebutted a number of ways such as one party maintaining a boundary over a period of time. There is no point in carry out a local authority search as this will not reveal any information with regard to the boundary. Equally the Land Registry are not interested in ownership issues unless there is a deed detailing ownership.

I am not an expert so cannot advice you in any great detail, but hope this has been of some help!

[Bruce]

[Bruce]

Thanks Geoff. That was helpful as you described the situation very succinctly.

[Tim Lamb]

In message , Bruce writes

Silly question... why is it important?

If a new owner wishes to erect a boundary having more width than a chain link fence (brick wall) perhaps he should erect it on his own land?

I think the agricultural assumption is that you fence your own livestock so the actual ownership of a *fence* could vary. Hedges and ditches are a special case where it is assumed you threw the soil from the boundary ditch onto your land and then planted the hedge on top. Confusingly, land can be sold by the fences:-)

The paper deeds might still exist. My solicitors still hold documents for land we registered when it was first necessary.

The previous owners might know something.

IANAL

regards

[Roger Chapman]

My experience is that the T marks found on original deeds do not transfer to the Land Registry maps. IANAL but it is my understanding that these days at least the legal profession do not consider such marks conclusive and only accept written confirmation in the deeds. My northern boundary is so identified but the other 3 sides are not.

When it suits him my neighbour (a small farmer) claims that his dry stone wall boundaries are in common ownership between himself and the appropriate neighbours. The original maps with his deeds told a different story for some of the walls but now his property is registered the LR maps don't reflect that distinction.

snip

[geoff]

In message , Bruce writes

I thought that by convention, looking from the front of the house to the rear, the property's boundary fence is the one on the LHS

and

the owner of the boundary wall or fence would have the support facing his property

not definitive of course

[Andrew Gabriel]

I hadn't heard of that, but it's true of the two houses I've owned.

This is sometimes used to define an unknown/disputed boundary. The significant point is that the boundary is normally a straight line, and the owner of the fence should have put it on his own land, so the fence is not crossing the boundary line, and that's normally done by having the flat side facing away from the fence owner and any supporting structure on the owner's side. If you put it up the other way around, you are fencing yourself off from your own land.

There are cases where owners erect fences the wrong way around (wanting the flat, and often more pretty side facing them), and this has eventually lost them the fence and the land it's on in a later dispute, where the boundary is redefined to be the flat face of the fence (or wall), so don't be tempted to erect your fence/wall the wrong way around just so you can't see the structural side.

There aren't hard and fast rules which apply to every case.

[NT]

NT

[Andrew Mawson]

It's odd that but I've always prefered the appearance of the 'structural' side - perhaps it's because I'm an engineer and not an artist !

AWEM

[mark]

The reason for putting the structural side of a fence facing the owners land has nothing to do with defining ownership of fence or boundary. If the structural side is placed facing outwards it provides easy clambering for univited guests. Thus the structural side traditionally faces inwards.

mark

[geoff]

In message , mark writes

So yon swagman ( stripy T-shirt, mask and brown sack over his shoulder), already in next door's garden might think - lets not bother with this house, the cash might be greener next door - ooh look, there's a supporting structure we can clamber over ... lets go

or not

that must be a shortrunner for the dennis of the week award

[mark]

That's a bit harsh! :-(

[dennis]

We haven't seen anyone bad enough for the geoff of the week award for ages, not even drivel could take your award from you.

[geoff]

In message , "dennis@home" writes

Sorry, we don't have a geoff of the week , just a dennis and a drivel

[Hugo Nebula]

...

Occasionally the written description of the Registry mentions the boundary, but not very often.

If this is a terrace, the boundary usually is a continuation of the party wall. In one of my former jobs, I was responsible for drawing up the deed plans for the sale of Council houses, and we would usually start from where the centre of the party wall met the external wall.

[Bruce]

Thanks Hugo, and thanks to everyone who replied.

It's taken me a few days to contact everyone whose boundaries will be affected. No-one has any legal documents that define ownership of, or responsibility for the boundaries, and no boundary disputes have arisen that anyone can remember. One of the owners is 73 and still lives in the house he was born in 1936! Basically, anyone who erects a fence takes responsibility for it, and some of the neighbours have shared the costs of a new fence and responsibility for it thereafter.

There was some interest in the proposed development because it includes a vehicle access which will enable people to build garages instead of relying on on-street parking. No-one raised any objections at this stage, so my duty is to keep them happy as work proceeds.

[The Natural Philosopher]

In general, if no one objects, things become the property of those who maintain them, de facto and to an extent, de jure.

Sometimes its simply not worth the hassle: someone I used to know had a shared drive. His neighbour objected to him parking cars on it, and parked his own on it instead. In the end he built a new drive and a hedge, all on his property, and has essentially ceded the shared drive that actually was his, to the neighbour.

[Frank Erskine]

The title deeds for my house (built around 1970) state that boundary fences/hedges are joint responsibility, which does seem to be the fairest solution.

[Bruce]

Indeed, it has to be the best way. But my experience has mostly been with properties dating from between the wars, and responsibility for boundaries has usually been stated.