We are in the process of buying a terraced house. The only house in the neighbourhood with shared driveway which, as per our surveyors report and our google maps checks, appears to have been done by the neighbour in the last few months. There is no planning permission in place for these works. The house was previously rented for 10+ years so I guess the renters didn't see a reason to get involved.
The neighbour has removed a physical boundary (a kerb) and a planter between the two properties, and hard surfaced the front area with a new tarmac. This means that there is no physical boundary between the two properties at present, with the new hard surface in front of the neighbours house - different colour - visually incorporating a portion of the land that belongs to the property we are hoping to buy.
We don't mind the hard surface but are concerned with potential future issues, possibly legal, if the line between the two surfaces is treated by the neighbour as the line of their property. Since the kerb and planter removal, they have placed a 3-bin storage roughly along this line, and are leaving bicycles laying around in this area.
We have raised it with the vendors and asked that the true boundary line is clearly defined. Their reply was, in summary, that the vendor is 'not aware that the neighbours removed anything' (re kerb and planter - how can he not be aware, it was his house for years?), that the neighbours' storage is positioned 'in keeping with the boundary line', and that 'it would be up to a new owner to define a boundary if they wish'.
Is the vendor correct? We haven't replied to them yet, not sure what next. Our solicitor has raised the issue with the vendors' solicitors as well and are now awaiting a reply.
Should I write to the vendor, attach images of 'before' and 'after', and again request defining this boundary? Should it be a condition of the contract? We like the house, want to buy it and would not like to loose it over this issue. But at the same time we would like to have it resolved before we sign, main reason being to avoid any potential conflict with the neighbour next door as they are already 'spreading' over land that is not theirs.
I would be most grateful for your opinions.
The neighbour has removed a physical boundary (a kerb) and a planter between the two properties, and hard surfaced the front area with a new tarmac. This means that there is no physical boundary between the two properties at present, with the new hard surface in front of the neighbours house - different colour - visually incorporating a portion of the land that belongs to the property we are hoping to buy.
We don't mind the hard surface but are concerned with potential future issues, possibly legal, if the line between the two surfaces is treated by the neighbour as the line of their property. Since the kerb and planter removal, they have placed a 3-bin storage roughly along this line, and are leaving bicycles laying around in this area.
We have raised it with the vendors and asked that the true boundary line is clearly defined. Their reply was, in summary, that the vendor is 'not aware that the neighbours removed anything' (re kerb and planter - how can he not be aware, it was his house for years?), that the neighbours' storage is positioned 'in keeping with the boundary line', and that 'it would be up to a new owner to define a boundary if they wish'.
Is the vendor correct? We haven't replied to them yet, not sure what next. Our solicitor has raised the issue with the vendors' solicitors as well and are now awaiting a reply.
Should I write to the vendor, attach images of 'before' and 'after', and again request defining this boundary? Should it be a condition of the contract? We like the house, want to buy it and would not like to loose it over this issue. But at the same time we would like to have it resolved before we sign, main reason being to avoid any potential conflict with the neighbour next door as they are already 'spreading' over land that is not theirs.
I would be most grateful for your opinions.