I'm assuming (and yes - I know about that) that the OP's friend would not be getting bent out of shape, considering legal action, considering unilateral demolition, going on local radio etc if he knew that he didn't own the land that has been build on.
The neighbour has quite deftly knocked the ball into the OPs court. He WANTS his day in court so he can PROVE the fence is in the wrong place yet get the OP to pay for it. Quite a clever trick really. I'm impressed.
Contact the planning office to see if permission was needed/granted.
Then contact Building Control to see if they were involved. If not, why not?
Try to find out who builder was and ask who gave WRITTEN permission for him to encroach on your friends land. (You should obtain permission for a builder to even step on adjoining property!).
Finally, try to find out if the land is leasehold or freehold. If it is leasehold there may be a covenant in the lease regarding 'structural alterations' which forbid any changes without prior permission from the lessor. Chances are that if it is leasehold the local council may be the lease holders.
I had a conservatory built 7 years ago. Got written confirmation from planning that permission was not required. Had BC oversee the project and had no problems. Now in the process of selling and yesterday solicitor phones me to ask for exclusion from a covenant in the terms of the lease. She explained that even if all the above were granted I still needed permission for exclusion from the covenant. If the council want to be awkward about it I may have to have it demolished. Will cost me a fortune and buyer will obviously want a huge reduction in sale price or will pull out altogether.
Judges don't always come down on the side of the offender just because it will cost him a lot of money to rectify.
This is now fully embedded in a legal case and as a result I have been requested not to vilify against the neighbour
However an update is that the neighbour has now pretty much moved out of the property as everyone in the local area seems to have sided with my mate and over the last couple of weeks a number of official looking bodies have assessed the building and said it is not safe.
The original builder has also stopped communicating with my mate. He was chummy to begin with but when it was questioned why it was built on two layers of concrete paving slabs rather than poured foundations then we got a tad abusive!!
The council official who arrived was very on side with my mate and actually commented 'that will be coming down soon'!!
You are all playing the game the neighbour wants you to play. I reckon he has had a surveyor round to measure where the fence should be in regard to the deeds. It'll go to court. He will prove that HE is the aggrieved party and that will be that. The building is just a front. It's the court case he is after and you mugs are paying it for him.
Was the 'council official' from Planning or Building Control? If the latter, when he said 'that will be coming down soon' did he mean that the council will be taking action to have it removed, or was he implying that it appears unsafe and may fall down of its own accord?
I suspect here that Joe90 might have a point, and that the building might be part of a ploy.
There also seems to be a herd mentality, both on here and with the OP's mate's friends, with everyone 'ganging up' against the neighbour. It's a pity we can't hear from the neighbour, and perhaps get a more balanced view.
You are all playing the game the neighbour wants you to play. I reckon he has had a surveyor round to measure where the fence should be in regard to the deeds. It'll go to court. He will prove that HE is the aggrieved party and that will be that. The building is just a front. It's the court case he is after and you mugs are paying it for him.
So are you saying that if a building is constructed on land in dubious circumstances the person upon whose land it has been built is responsible for costs if a court says it has to be demolished? Even if the person that owns the land had nothing to do with the building erection?
What happens if, as appears in this case, the majority of the building footprint is on one part of land and, say a quarter of it, is on adjacent land without permission. Who pays for the demolition in that scenario?
In my eyes, whoever requested/paid for the erection of the building should bear the costs of demolition.
That doesn't answer my question. You stated that they have to "establish who owns the land to issue the order. "
Lets put it more simply.
Scenario A. You own some land which I rent off you. Without your permission I erect a small garage/workshop. You obtain a court order that states the building must be demolished. According to your earlier answer you said the costs are the responsibility of the owner of the land. Therefore, based on that statement, you must be responsible for the cost of demolishing the building that I put up on your land. Yes/No?
Scenario B. I build a garage/workshop on the border of my land but encroach upon your land by one quarter of the building footprint. I obtained planning permission and Building Control consent to erect the building but, again, you obtain a court order forcing the demolition of the building because it encroaches on to your land. As I have permission to build on my land and you don't does this mean you have to pay the demolition costs as you own the land that the 'non-permitted' section stands on. Yes/No?
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below,
or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Please select a service and enter a location to continue...
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
