I think I've been stupid - PWA

[wessex101]

Just for the sake of clarity you can only go ahead with work if you have served notice and the neighbour has written back and agreed. If you hear nothing from them after 14 days they have dissented and then you have to get surveyors and do the award. He can't stop the work but he can appoint a surveyor to look after his interests.

For the purposes of the discussion between me and Woody, No. Under Section 1, Line of Junction and foundation on neighbour's land, you serve the notice and proceed, neighbour cannot object or dissent. For all other PWA works, Yes you are correct.

I qualify that by saying this is not something I do on a daily basis and my responses here are completely off the cuff so do not rely on anything I write, always double check.

 

[Footsoldier888]

I have checked on a law site and it says this:

Although notices (under section 1, section 3 or section 6(5)) must be served in advance of works commencing (with a variety of different notice periods), the problem for developers is more commonly the “deemed dispute” provisions contained in sections 5 and 6(7). Under these provisions, where an adjoining owner does not consent to the proposed works within 14 days, the Act deems a dispute to have arisen between the building owner and the adjoining owner. Such a dispute must then be resolved by the dispute resolution procedure under section 10.

What do you think?

 

[wessex101]

I have checked on a law site and it says this:

Although notices (under section 1, section 3 or section 6(5)) must be served in advance of works commencing (with a variety of different notice periods), the problem for developers is more commonly the “deemed dispute” provisions contained in sections 5 and 6(7). Under these provisions, where an adjoining owner does not consent to the proposed works within 14 days, the Act deems a dispute to have arisen between the building owner and the adjoining owner. Such a dispute must then be resolved by the dispute resolution procedure under section 10.

What do you think?

There is no provision under section 1 for the adjoining owner to dissent (except 1(2) obviously, building on the boundary) so how can you have a "deemed dispute".
What are they disputing?

 

[Footsoldier888]

I haven't read the Act itself so am only going off the explanatory booklet.

Curiously there is nothing mentioned in it about the situation that is very common, when someone wants to put a wall a few cm inside the boundary but foundations will go over the boundary. I think this is the situation you hare talking about hopefully.

I still don't understand why you can't dissent in that case though because the whole purpose of the act was to encourage the right to dissent so that should a dispute occur costs for both parties are kept down.

Also if there is no agreement from the neighbour why isn't it a trespass???

 

[wessex101]

That goes back to my original point. I was taught many many years ago that there is legislation somewhere that gives a homeowner the right to place concrete foundations across a boundary. Hence the PWA allows it and specifically prevents the adjoining owner from objecting.

However, I cannot remember the piece of legislation and can't be arsed to spend hours trying to find it. Maybe I'm wrong and I just imagined it but the PWA does seem to allude to something along those lines.

When you think it through probably 99% of fences are placed against the boundary. When you concrete the posts in do you only place concrete around the 3 sides of the post on your side or do you "trespass" with concrete on the fourth side on the neighbour's side of the boundary? It is just one of those things that are necessary otherwise the courts would be full of bogus trespass claims or all our fences would fall over. It does no harm and should have no adverse affect so it cannot be trespass.

 

[^woody^]

The legislation is the PWA, if the Act is followed. No other legislation.

Property, and boundaries are sacred in terms of law from centuries ago, and the boundary line is protected by many laws directly and indirectly. It can't be crossed, only in very few specific instances where a right is granted by statute, or private contract.

 

[Footsoldier888]

Btw I am just arguing for the sake of it over this - I would really like to know for my own situation.

At my house the neighbours have extended with foundations inside the boundary by a few cm and I am thinking about extending on my side. I have been wondering if I wanted founds under their land whether they could dissent or not and if I should expect to budget for PWA costs. I was thinking of staying inside the boundary above ground and it would probably be the same depth.

As for boundary fences people take them uber strictly where I live, concreting over the boundary is a capital offence up here. Sadly the courts are full of such claims and I have been subject to one myself over something a previous neighbour did. If you concrete over the boundary without consent they are entiltled to remove the post and sadly some folk obsess about such things.

 

[^woody^]

If you concrete over the boundary without consent they are entiltled to remove the post

It's not as straightforward was people think. Even when some encroachment may exist, the action of just removing the fence or wall or whatever, may in fact be a trespass against the neighbour who is encroaching.

In reality, there is often very few times when foundations need to cross a boundary. Despite what engineers and building control officers think, off-centred walls on foundations for extensions are not an issue.

Many walls need to be set back anyway for the roof projection. Even those that do not, it's just a case of concreting up to the boundary, and then put the wall where you like. Nothing will happen to the wall or foundation.

 

[wessex101]

At my house the neighbours have extended with foundations inside the boundary by a few cm and I am thinking about extending on my side. I have been wondering if I wanted founds under their land whether they could dissent or not and if I should expect to budget for PWA costs. I was thinking of staying inside the boundary above ground and it would probably be the same depth.

This illustrates how silly things can get. Neighbour A builds his extension but steps it back from the boundary for fear of committing a trespass. Neighbour B comes along later and also wants to build an extension.Usually they step it back as well so you end up with a gap of 4 inches or so which can create no end of headaches. In practical terms it will be impossible to dig a new foundation and leave thin strip of soil between the new trench and the existing foundation so by default the foundation creeps over the boundary.

Wouldn't it be better if everyone in semi's or terraces built right up to the boundary so later extensions could build the new flank wall butting tight up against the existing wall making weathering the roof/wall junction so much easier. Better still why not build the first extension flank wall astride the boundary as a party wall so the neighbour can make use of it later if necessary and save having to build their own flank wall.

I'm intrigued how you Yorkshire folk put your fences up. I assume everyone has a foot wide strip of no mans land either side of the boundary. Complete with razor wire, machine gun turrets and guard dogs.

 

[Footsoldier888]

Thanks a lot guys, really helpful points.

Woody I have always puzzled over this foundation issue, what with all my books stressing the necessity of building dead centre. This does clear a lot of things up, like how my neighbour the other side has managed to build his garage almost on the boundary line. And just as you warned, he has a pitched roof that may even be over, the gutter certainly is. The funny thing is the garage is in the back garden and at the same time he built a side extension infront of it, with two steel columns supporting a bedroom above. The columns are setback 15cm. I think the original idea was to have them bang on the boundary because he can't get a car through! He can at least laugh about it and told me he had cocked it up.

wessex I am an exile up here, maybe that is the problem! At my last house both the back and side fences were about six inches inside the boundary, done by previous owners. Then the guy the other side had a huge beef about the side boundary. Now I have moved and found out there was a big row here and the guys next door ended up paying for the whole fence but putting that a few inches inside their boundary. I have doubtless been unlucky but it feels like that up here at times.

Woody I take your point about removing fences. And wessex I agree about the party wall points you made.

 

[sambotc]

Thanks for all the replies, all very useful and just goes to show that the regulations are ambiguous even for professionals.

I'm a heating engineer by trade so I'm used to it myself.

All the points raised here, I have questioned myself. I'd also agree that if I could build on the boundary, the neighbour could use that to their advantage and build off it. It would make perfect sense!

Anyway, I have been away for a few days and the neighbour has snuck up the path and taken photos, only to be caught by my misses who was go smacked at his childish behaviour. I have since seen him and offered to talk about things amicably so we can raise our concerns, but the guy is a complete pansy and wouldn't even let me talk. Apparently it's all gone to his solicitor.

To clarify: the property is a terrace house, so surely the boundary exists on the party wall which adjoins the houses? Ie dead centre of that wall?

So by that definition, the boundary will also carry on from this point externally? Even if it changes angle, the wall is slap bang on the boundary at that point in which it joins the house wall. We both also have a pier either side which protrudes further.

Originally, when it was build (ex council) their was a wire on wooden posts separating the gardens. On either side of the wire was a poured concrete path, the two paths were obviously poured seperately, as there is a join in the middle, under where the wire would be.

At some point, the wall was built on top of this joint. When I removed my concrete path, the concrete fell away with ease to the joint, hence why the wall looks to have no purpose provided footings and why it looks like this guy is basically trying to extort some cash out of me by filling a claim on me.

 

[sambotc]

I'm in the middle of gathering information on this and this is all I can find in the regulations. It seems to controdict itself, on one hand I have the right, on the other a dispute is determined via section 10.

 

[sambotc]

And finally, it seems my neighbour may be the least of my worries. Only after paying for building notice have I been informed that I now need to get permission to build over a 4" clay sewer that runs through my garden (along with all the others).

It's about 2 metres down but has been problematic in the past because it's too small (serves 12 houses)

Even though it runs under many other outbuilding, I can see this being an issue. I'm almost ready to give up, seems a mans home is no longer his castle.

 

[Footsoldier888]

Hells bells sambotc - sounds a total mare.

Regarding the wall, I can sort of understand why the guy next door might be a bit stressed if you have removed the concrete that goes right up to it, even if there is no actual damage.

I think it is normal for walls to be built on concrete like this, say 4 or 6 inch concrete.

If you post a photo I'm sure the others can advise about the wall itself.

You basically cut the concrete well inside your side but the edge flaked away I guess.

Look it's only a wall at the end of the day, it's not like you given the guy a settlement crack or something.

I'm sure he is more worried about it all than trying to extort money out of you. At least worst ways you can make good easily if it comes to it.

 

[Footsoldier888]

sambotc in your first post you said you were planning to build just an inch away from the party wall, effectively enclosing it. I can't see how it can be in your interests to do this because you could face a big bill in the future if it needed work.

Yours really is the classic party wall problem, you have tried to accomodate your neighbour but ended up in a position which is a lot worse for both of you by the sound of it. I can't help thinking you would be a lot better off going for your original solution of removing the wall.

Never used an angle grinder but I can see it must have been hard to do so near the edge of the concrete. Did it actually come away under the brick then??? I'm just thinking if you have made a bit of a boo boo then you don't want to leave it unsafe as such. It's just when you say 'the concrete fell away with ease to the joint', that doesn't sound like a good thing to me at least.