Unauthorised building on your property

[joe-90]

No-one knows who owns the land until a court decides. Then the neighbour will prove that it is his with a surveyors report and his deeds. Then he'll dismantle the structure and put a new fence up in the new location. Simples.

The OP loses the case and pays costs.

 

[angelboy]

If any part of his building hangs over the boundary line into your property then it's considered encroaching, which means that you can send him a letter informing him that you will remove it after a certain (reasonable) date to which he would then have to get an injunction to stop you.

Boundary lines on deeds on 1250 scale maps can have a 1000mm variation so a surveyor would look at other boundary signs to determine the boundary such as hedges, walls and fences.

Don't go legal.

Don't go legal.

Don't go legal.

I can't stress that enough!

 

[angelboy]

No-one knows who owns the land until a court decides. Then the neighbour will prove that it is his with a surveyors report and his deeds. Then he'll dismantle the structure and put a new fence up in the new location. Simples.

The OP loses the case and pays costs.

Judges aren't stupid. If they see that the neighbor hadn't informed the OP about the building through the correct channels, i.e. a party wall agreement, then the judge would consider this to be reckless behaviour.

In addition, if the dispute is very minor, such as removing the fence then building a wall in place and maybe busting the boundary by cms then it would probably get to a first hearing and the judge would suggest that both parties get their heads together and solve the issue like adults. They don't want valuable court time being taken up with minor disputes and they don't look favorably to people who can't resolve the issue.

It would also, and a solicitor should offer this (if their own negotiations have broken down) go to mediation, arbitration and/or conciliation before a full legal dispute is raised at court.

All cost money, lots of it before you get to court.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Conny, Angel - do not try to engage in rational intelligent debate with J-90.

He does not do rationality or intelligence. Trust me - it will get you nowhere.

 

[joe-90]

Ban all sheds has had his arse kicked many times over the years. He'll not take me on - but neither will he ignore me.

He's well known as a sad and pedantic unemployable.

 

[joe-90]

The neighbour knows what he is doing. His building trumps the OPs fence. The ball is now in the court of the OP. To get the building removed and reclaim the ground he must go legal. If he does then the neighbour will prove (with he help of a surveyor) that the land is actually HIS and he has been the victim of a land grab by the OP. The judge will then rule in favour of the neighbour.

You cannot encroach onto land that is legally yours.

It's obvious what is going on. Why can't you all see that?

 

[SimonH2]

Question, how long has the fence been were it is (was for the bit that's been removed) ? Is there any agreement regarding any previous change ?

People are suggesting that the deeds might prove the fence is in the wrong place - but that would be overridden if you've used the bit of disputed land as your own with any complaints. So if the fence has been there for 10 years or more, then (AIUI) you now own it unless it is only being used with the agreement of the actual owner.

 

[joe-90]

Why should someone 'own' someone elses property because they made a land grab?

 

[KenGMac]

SimonH2 has posted a salient point as regards the undisputed fence line as the demarcation of the boundary between the two properties. Which assumes that because neither neighbour has intimated a problem, or a dispute then the fence line, if it has been In-Situ for a proscribed length of time tends to be taken as the Legal Boundary line.

Consideration? is it possible to demand a rent for the area of ground occupied by the encroaching structure at a punitive rate, Lease hold for one year?

Just a thought

Mist admit leasehold and freehold are an alien concept to me

 

[joe-90]

The neighbour knows he will win. The OP will pay if it goes to court. If the deeds show the neighbour is the rightful owner why shouldn't he win?

 

[tony1851]

SimonH2 has posted a salient point as regards the undisputed fence line as the demarcation of the boundary between the two properties. Which assumes that because neither neighbour has intimated a problem, or a dispute then the fence line, if it has been In-Situ for a proscribed length of time tends to be taken as the Legal Boundary line.

Precisely; people seem to believe that the deeds have the answer to all boundary disputes but, as above, it's down to how the parties deal with it.
Not complaining if a fence is put up in seemingly the wrong place can become tacit acceptance that it marks the boundary.

 

[joe-90]

The neighbour is looking for a fight. He's sure he can win. He's probably right too.

 

[angelboy]

The neighbour knows what he is doing. His building trumps the OPs fence. The ball is now in the court of the OP. To get the building removed and reclaim the ground he must go legal. If he does then the neighbour will prove (with he help of a surveyor) that the land is actually HIS and he has been the victim of a land grab by the OP. The judge will then rule in favour of the neighbour.

You cannot encroach onto land that is legally yours.

It's obvious what is going on. Why can't you all see that?

Why do you keep saying that the neighbour owns the land? If he can prove it then it wouldn't go to court. The solicitors would request full disclosure and upon that point the op would retract the claim. The neighbour would then have to claim for damages to which he would loose as he didn't provide the deeds/proof when he had the opportunity to act in good faith. I don't think you know how the legal system works to be honest, just a load of pub talk if you ask me!!

Anyway, why are you so certain that it's the neighbours land? I don't see it from what has been said - point it out to me please.

 

[angelboy]

The neighbour is looking for a fight. He's sure he can win. He's probably right too.

The neighbour is trying his luck because some idiot down the pub will have told him he could get away with it. Why do you think he's not had the building put up with the right foundations? He knows it's not permanent but if he gets away with it then he'll tear it down and sink some money into it.

 

[joe-90]

Of course it in't permanent - he is staking his claim. Buildings trump fences.