-
If the fence dividing the properties has been in the same location for a long period of time, then it will have become the legal boundary through adverse possession or on the basis of an implied boundary agreement. If the fence has been there for a long time, and everyone's treated it as the boundary, then it is the boundary.
This is my concern if the fence becomes their wall, then the implied boundary may be the face not the centre of the wall. As it is I'm not sure whether the fence is on my side, their side or down the line. The arrangement of fenceposts at the far end would suggest the fence is on my side, but the dog-leg at the brick pier near the house would suggest it's centred or even on their side.
I will ask them to keep the fence. PWetcA Section 1(5) is if the face of their wall is at the boundary which if the fence is centred would still affect (replace) the fence. But if they build as close as they can up to, but without affecting the fence, then presumably no notice is required? I will also ask that any new footings stay on their side.
If no notices etc required, should we still agree something in writing, or if it's all on their side then that's that? I will ask about height as well (max 2.5m without planning permission).
hoefla-
This is my concern if the fence becomes their wall, then the implied boundary may be the face not the centre of the wall. As it is I'm not sure whether the fence is on my side, their side or down the line. The arrangement of fenceposts at the far end would suggest the fence is on my side, but the dog-leg at the brick pier near the house would suggest it's centred or even on their side.
I think a judge would be unlikely to come to that conclusion, but in the absence of an express agreement it's possible. If you want to avoid risk, agree it, write it down, and keep the document.
I will ask them to keep the fence. PWetcA Section 1(5) is if the face of their wall is at the boundary which if the fence is centred would still affect (replace) the fence. But if they build as close as they can up to, but without affecting the fence, then presumably no notice is required? I will also ask that any new footings stay on their side.
Yes. Section 1(5) would only apply if the wall just touches the boundary. If it's 6" inside the boundary line, then it doesn't and no notices would be necessary as long as they don't need to build foundations on your land.
If no notices etc required, should we still agree something in writing, or if it's all on their side then that's that? I will ask about height as well (max 2.5m without planning permission).
If it's all on their side then there's not really much to agree. It's their land, they can build a shed on it. Unless doing so would constitute an actionable nuisance, a substantial interference with an easement or breach an enforceable restrictive covenant, of course. Which it doesn't sound like it would in this case.
Brommers
The original location of the legal boundary will be determined by the conveyance which originally divided your land from the adjoining land. In a lot of cases though, espcially with older houses, that original conveyance will no longer be available.
The Land Registry plans are useless for determining boundaries, thanks to the general boundaries rule. Basically, don't even bother trying to use Land Registry plans to establish where the boundary is.
If the fence dividing the properties has been in the same location for a long period of time, then it will have become the legal boundary through adverse possession or on the basis of an implied boundary agreement. If the fence has been there for a long time, and everyone's treated it as the boundary, then it is the boundary.
If your neighbour wants to build a wall straddling the boundary line, then they have to serve a notice under s. 1(2) of the Party Wal etc Act 1996 (and yes, the real title of the Act includes the word 'etc'). You have two options:
If they want to build the wall so the outside face (from their property) is on the boundary line (so in line with the fence) they have to serve a section 1(5) notice. However, they have to compensate you (under section 1(7)) for any loss or damage you suffer as a result.
Personally, I'd insist on it being done properly and having proper 1996 Act notices being served, unless they want to build the new shed entirely on their land. It's a bit of a PITA, and it can get expensive for them, but it's not as much of a PITA and nowhere near as expensive as a full-blown boundary dispute. And I've known full-blown boundary disputes kick off over far less.
Salutary tale: I was involved not that long ago in a boundary dispute case, where the combined legal costs ended up being over quarter of a million, because my client resurfaced a shared driveway. He won, but it still ended up costing him £50k and 2 years of aggro.