House extends onto neighbours land & water from out roof pouring onto theirs.

Bank and Solicitor relationship

Thanks everyone for your informed replies,
I'm still a bit puzzled though, hypothetically say if we were having mortgage problems (which thankfully we're not). The bank could then try and sell the house, but if there was a trespass, the neighbour could potentially stop the sale.
Would the bank not have wanted the solicitor to cover off this eventuality before releasing the funds for the original purchase?
In other words, the solicitor would have been responsible for satisfying the bank that the house was good to go.
 
Heavy Rain

Latest developments in this issue,
Due to heavy rain this evening water is falling from the gulley on our roof onto the roof of the neighbours kitchen extension down below.
They called to the door saying that their insurance company said that in the event of flooding we'd be liable because of the trespass. We agreed that it was the previous owner who should ultimately be liable. I offered the neighbour our solicitor's number but they said they had no reason to ring them.
One question I'd like to know the answer to is....
Say, if there is no trespass and the water from our gulley was flowing onto the neighbours kitchen extension below. Would we be liable?
There seems to be 2 parallel and maybe unrelated issues.

  • Alleged Trespassing.
  • Water flowing onto the neighbours roof from our roof.
 
WTG,

It seems to me that your neighbour is about to sue you for alleged damages, you must consult your own solicitor without delay to defend yourself and follow his advice.

Agreeing "that it was the previous owner who should ultimately be liable" is a mistake in my opinion. Its better not to agree anything until you have had an opportunity to consult a solicitor.

WGT said:
There seems to be 2 parallel and maybe unrelated issues.

  • Alleged Trespassing.
  • Water flowing onto the neighbours roof from our roof.
Click to expand...
yes I think you are right there. The trespass might just be an opening gambit by your neighbour.


aj
 
WGT said:
Latest developments in this issue,
Due to heavy rain this evening water is falling from the gulley on our roof onto the roof of the neighbours kitchen extension down below.
They called to the door saying that their insurance company said that in the event of flooding we'd be liable because of the trespass. We agreed that it was the previous owner who should ultimately be liable. I offered the neighbour our solicitor's number but they said they had no reason to ring them.
One question I'd like to know the answer to is....
Say, if there is no trespass and the water from our gulley was flowing onto the neighbours kitchen extension below. Would we be liable?
There seems to be 2 parallel and maybe unrelated issues.

  • Alleged Trespassing.
  • Water flowing onto the neighbours roof from our roof.
Click to expand...

You need to take independent legal advice and preferably not from the one who oversaw the conveyance in case it turns out he was part of the problem..
The fact that rain prompted todays encounter shows the neighbour must have known about all these issues while the previous owner was in situ.
If the roof leaks from a simple outfall of rainwater its not necessarily your fault at all - it could be faulty workmanship on THEIR roof!
You need to stop talking to the neighbour and in particular AGREE NOTHING WITH THEM - their roof should be watertight.


ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.
 
WGT said:
Thanks everyone for your informed replies,
I'm still a bit puzzled though, hypothetically say if we were having mortgage problems (which thankfully we're not). The bank could then try and sell the house, but if there was a trespass, the neighbour could potentially stop the sale.
Would the bank not have wanted the solicitor to cover off this eventuality before releasing the funds for the original purchase?
In other words, the solicitor would have been responsible for satisfying the bank that the house was good to go.
Click to expand...

WGT, you need to stop asking and answering your own questions.
The neighbour could not stop the sale as far as I know, but its possible.
Its far more likely that a surveyor will point out the trespass and stop the sale.
You also need to stop reverse engineering the situation.
With the adjoining owner not defending his title no-one may have known.
Therefore the surveyor may not have spotted it and the solicitor would not be advised of it.
This whole affair starts and ends with your neighbours unusual silence.


ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.
 
WGT said:
They called to the door saying that their insurance company said that in the event of flooding we'd be liable because of the trespass.
Click to expand...

+1 to what ONG says re independent solicitor.

I also think you are making a mistake by relying so heavily on what your neighbour has to say. This guy is about to sue you and you appear to accept every thing he says with out much contention.
 
WGT - listen to Ajay (and me, if you're inclined).

Address your queries through an independent solicitor to the previous owner's solicitor and the previous owner, if he's still in the country - find out how this came to pass and if there were any deals done - why would a builder build so far out of position for example - very suspicious.

Was there a deal to gain access to the neighbours site to put rainwater goods in place from your extension which was later reneged on by the adjoining property owner - did the trespassing builder just leave it like that?

Was your neighbour trying to get them into a catch 22 position - and is he now trying to manoeuvre you into a similar position?

There are edges to this that suggest we're not getting the full facts but we do know about Chapter 3 of this Act.

And now, so do you. :)


ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.
 
Loud and clear

Thanks onq and ajapale,
I hear you both loud and clear. I'm analysing this too much. Need to call in the professionals and an independent one at that.
 
28 posts later and still no detail of the actual trespass.

Is the extension in question a 2 storey one that was built on the boundary wall and that the overhang is the soffit boards and the gutter.

After this was built the neighbour built single storey against this and this is the roof that is getting extra water when the gutter overflows?

The other question is does it have planning?

What's the relevance of Cht 3 in this case?
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your contribution hastalavista. The extension was carried out by the previous owner of our house, so don't really know the full history but to the best of my knowledge see answers below in red.

28 posts later and still no detail of the actual trespass.
Well alleged trespass to be exact.
Is the extension in question a 2 storey one that was built on the boundary wall and that the overhang is the soffit boards and the gutter.
Yes extension was a 2 storey, and from the front of the house we can visibly see that the garage is on the neighbours side of the wall, on top of this there is an overhang by the soffits and the gutter. I've learnt that the wall was built after the extension, so whether that truly represents the boundary is still an open issue.

After this was built the neighbour built single storey against this and this is the roof that is getting extra water when the gutter overflows?
Yes, this would be the one thing we can definitely be sure of.

The other question is does it have planning?
I don't know 100%, but having spoken to our solicitor I guess it has. They said they were looking at an up to date plot map (which has the extension visible on it) and they can't see a trespass. However, they said that because of the scale of the map, we should hire an engineer to give an 'on the ground' inspection. Would have thought the original surveyor in conjunction with the solicitor should have done this.

What's the relevance of Cht 3 in this case?
Please let me know.
 
WGT said:
Thanks for your contribution hastalavista. The extension was carried out by the previous owner of our house, so don't really know the full history but to the best of my knowledge see answers below in red.

28 posts later and still no detail of the actual trespass.
Well alleged trespass to be exact. :eek: I mean physical detail as opposed to legal:)
Is the extension in question a 2 storey one that was built on the boundary wall and that the overhang is the soffit boards and the gutter.
Yes extension was a 2 storey, and from the front of the house we can visibly see that the garage is on the neighbours side of the wall, on top of this there is an overhang by the soffits and the gutter. I've learnt that the wall was built after the extension, so whether that truly represents the boundary is still an open issue. Am confused here. what wall was built after the extension. The other thing that could be drawn from what you wrote is that the 2nd story was built over the existing garage and that the original garage perimeter always 'overhung' the neighbours or was the garage part of the extension

After this was built the neighbour built single storey against this and this is the roof that is getting extra water when the gutter overflows?
Yes, this would be the one thing we can definitely be sure of.

The other question is does it have planning?
I don't know 100%, but having spoken to our solicitor I guess it has. They said they were looking at an up to date plot map (which has the extension visible on it) and they can't see a trespass. However, they said that because of the scale of the map, we should hire an engineer to give an 'on the ground' inspection. Would have thought the original surveyor in conjunction with the solicitor should have done this.

The plot map will only show the plan so if there was already a garage there...

Establishing PP is a question of fact and not supposition. put ur address into the COCO/LA website. Your advisors on the purchase are in CTA mode so there is no point in relying on them or wondering 'should': the fact is they didnt...

What's the relevance of Cht 3 in this case?
Please let me know.
Click to expand...
I was asking ONQ as this chapter is popping up everywhere....
 
Think of it as bedtime reading.

Since I've gone to the trouble of posting it, the least you can do is read it :)


ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.
 
Thanks onq,
Carried out bedtime reading of Chapter 3 as recommended.
However, can't see how any of relates to us directly, as it was the previous 'building owner' and not us who carried out the 'work order' or extension. Indeed, the 'adjoining owner' has also moved on and is not the current neighbour.
Seems there is a bit of history involved here and if necessary previous owner of our house will have to have their solicitor notified.
However, for the moment, my wife and I have decided to carry out work on our roof to ensure that any rain flows down our side of the boundary and not onto the neighbour's extension. If the separate issue of alleged trespass is raised again, we'll engage a solicitor at that point. If there is a trespass, then from what I ascertained from Chapter 3, the 'building owner' who carried out the 'work order' or extension will be notified.
 
Thanks ajapale,
But why is the time factor an issue. How is that going to change the outcome, surely if it comes to it, the outcome will be the same, regardless of whether we act now or wait for the neighbour to act. Or is there something I'm not getting.
 
Any solicitor will tell you not to talk freely to people you may end up at loggerheads with legally.
Your neighbours are trying to pull you into a situation so you can turn this to your advantage.

What happens if they die tomorrow - tied up on probate for a year and a half.
Then say you want to sell next year and cannot because of this.

Carpe Diem!


ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.
 
WGT said:
Thanks onq,
Carried out bedtime reading of Chapter 3 as recommended.
However, can't see how any of relates to us directly, as it was the previous 'building owner' and not us who carried out the 'work order' or extension. Indeed, the 'adjoining owner' has also moved on and is not the current neighbour.
Seems there is a bit of history involved here and if necessary previous owner of our house will have to have their solicitor notified.
However, for the moment, my wife and I have decided to carry out work on our roof to ensure that any rain flows down our side of the boundary and not onto the neighbour's extension. If the separate issue of alleged trespass is raised again, we'll engage a solicitor at that point. If there is a trespass, then from what I ascertained from Chapter 3, the 'building owner' who carried out the 'work order' or extension will be notified.
Click to expand...

If u do this, based on my interpretation of what is there now, Chpt 3 will apply as you are now the 'aggressor' (for the want of a better word) and your neighbour is the 'victim" of your aggression.

This may in fact what your neighbor wants, to provoke a repair job that will allow him unleash his rights under Chpt 3.

IMO looking back is no use because you bought the house and all bets are off vis a vis the previous owner.

For whatever reason, you may have got stuffed here with the purchase, however if you 'provoke' your neighbour.
Proceed with care.
 
Thanks for the response hastalavista, See comments below in red.

If u do this, based on my interpretation of what is there now, Chpt 3 will apply as you are now the 'aggressor' (for the want of a better word) and your neighbour is the 'victim" of your aggression.
How could this possibly be, we would merely be carrying out routine work on the dwelling that we own. Is this not allowed? If not the law must really be an ass.


This may in fact what your neighbor wants, to provoke a repair job that will allow him unleash his rights under Chpt 3.
The 'repair' job has nothing to do with an alleged trespass. In fact it's not totally a repair job. It's just putting a down-pipe where there wasn't one previously. So it's actually an addition rather than a repair.

IMO looking back is no use because you bought the house and all bets are off vis a vis the previous owner.
I would say that's debatable at least.

For whatever reason, you may have got stuffed here with the purchase,
Again, highly debatable. Bank who lent the money would have got stuffed as well as technically they still own the house (until the mortgage is paid off).
however if you 'provoke' your neighbour.
Proceed with care.
Click to expand...
 
All very well but please consult a solicitor at the earliest possible stage.

Remember most advice/commentary here on AAM is really only marginally better than the bar stool musings of a barrack room lawyer. (with due respect to ONG and Hasta:))
 
ajapale said:
All very well but please consult a solicitor at the earliest possible stage.

Remember most advice/commentary here on AAM is really only marginally better than the bar stool musings of a barrack room lawyer. (with due respect to ONG and Hasta:))
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more, at least on my part.
I'm all done here on this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top