Boundary issue at end of garden.

B

balga

Registered User
Messages
28
This is perhaps a little different from the boundary issues in the other threads. We moved into this semi-d house in Sept 2000. On one side we are adjacent to a green space, taken in charge by the local council. The row of houses was built 1997. In 2001 one of my neighbours asked all of us in the row to a chat. He moved into his house as first buyer 1997. It appears that the rear fenceline of our row of houses was placed this side of a not insubstantial row of hedging and mature trees. I imagine the builder did this for convenience. My neighbour informed us that the rear boundary of the houses behind us was actually on the far side of the hedging and had originally been marked by some wire fencing. We all paid for a surveyor to examine the official boundaries on the appropriate planning maps at the local council. He returned with the information that the official rear boundary according to title is the far side of the hedgeline and not at our fenceline. The depth of this extra section varies from 2 - 3 metres extending the entire row of houses. We felt at the time that for peace of mind we would leave things as is.
I recently had occasion to meet with an official from the Parks division of the local council. The context was trying to keep the level of anti-social behaviour on the open space at a tolerable level this Halloween. We were looking (unfortunately) at having a thorn tree removed as it is used as a shelter. The official telephoned me the following day and, unprompted, indicated that he had a planning map in front of him. This map showed "as clear as a bell" that the rear boundary of our property is on the far side of the hedge, and not at our fenceline. I think this was a surprise to the official because "...the boundary is normally decided as running through the middle of the hedge."
For various reasons, which I can detail later, we would now like to pursue this issue ie claim what seems to be part of our backyard.
Any responses?
 
If the area is in your ownership and you do not have it insured, you are leaving yourself open to potential claims for damages arising out of accidents on it.

Either incorporate it into your backyard, insure it and secure it or try to get the council to take it in charge or to accept a transfer from you, with the knowledge that you have no right thereafter to future ownership of it.
 
That's quite alarming. In the first instance, despite the advice we have received, it is highly likely the line of neighbours to the rear will claim ownership. Leaving this aside, despite not having access to the land, (it is in effect part of the rear neighbours' back gardens) we have responsibility for it?
If that is the case, then definite ownership of the land, satisfying the demands of all the neighbours, needs to be determined.
 
I missed the point about this strip forming part of your neighbours backgardens and thought it was on the edge of the green area you referred to.


However the original advice about leaving yourself open to potential claims is still valid albeit that you would have had an arguable point that it formed to all intents and purposes part of a neighbours back garden and that therefore they should be liable for it, were you still ignorent of the situation.

Instead of the council, therefore it is in fact your neighbours that you should be thinking of either transferring the plot to them or reclaiming it from them, only you can decide.

However if the boundary has existed since 1997 only your neighbours as yet do not have any right to claim ownership of it- if you leave it for 12 years- i.e. until 2009 or thereafter they will be able to claim.
 
Not to contradict Vanilla, but the situation is in my view potentially more complex. You have a situation here where a builder put up houses, built site boundaries in a certain way, mapped the sites in a different way, and sold them to house buyers. I make the following observation:

A. Look at it from the neighbours perspective; If the builder had incorrectly mapped the sites, so as to register people with less ground than they actually possess, would anybody think it fair of a neighbour to come in taking some of their ground? I think not. It is quite possible that a court would find that the boundaries as built represent the clear intention of the parties, and would order the rectification of the site maps.

B. I would qualify the foregoing remarks somewhat if houses are sold off the plans. In this case, clearly the buyer is only able to go by the map supplied.

One cannot assume that in a conflict between boundary as built and boundary as mapped, the map must always take precedence. It is not a neat, tidy area; A lot may hinge on the individual facts.
 
I think there was also a point made in the original post that there was a hedge running between the two boundaries before the walls were built, so if one were to assume that the original buyers saw the original hedge, they would have assumed before the walls were built that that would have been the defining boundary. However the walls were built, not instead of the hedge but to one side of it. So you have a situation whereby purchasers presumably bought, possibly thinking this hedge would be the boundary, but it was not.

My post was a very general one- at the end of the day, if you can reach an agreement with your neighbour to the rear, any thing can be done by agreement.
 
Yes, for a variety of reasons the situation can be made more complex. Our line of houses was purchased from plans. Prior to the houses being built, the rear boundary of the houses behind us was marked by a three or four strand barbed wire fence, positioned on the far side of the hedge in accordance with the current planning map. The houses behind us pre-date our houses by several years.
I know that several of my neighbours are keen to proceed with this. I suspect that the rear neighbours each have their own views. We get on amicably with the parents of our rear neighbours, however (for reasons that I won't go into) I would be unwilling to cede ownership of this strip of land to them. Thus the idea that we would be liable for this strip of land seems to make it inevitable that we would have to move to assert ownership.
 
If I may, I would like to briefly update this thread. It might be of interest.

(The other factor involved in this particular issue is the anti-social behaviour occurring on the green space adjoining our house.)

I have decided to pursue this matter. The side boundary of our property is a block wall, the last two sections of which is a reasonably sturdy wooden fence erected by my rear neighbour not so long ago. Due to past experiences of anti-social behavour I would like to replace this wooden fence by continuing the block wall : I have witnessed juveniles climbing over this wooden fence. Anti-social behaviour over the past 5 years has made this part of the estate unfriendly. It has only recently abated (since Halloween last) due to a combination of myself and some neighbours speaking to the juveniles; the council erecting a fence and the local gards responding in a proactive manner.

We all have young families in this part of the estate, and we have no intention of allowing the anti-social behaviour to continue. As a natural progression of extending the side block wall, the rear boundary will need to be moved to it's mapped position.

My first step is to contact the Parks division of the local Council and establish the exact line for the block wall extension. I will then speak with my rear neighbour. I don't know how things will go, but this will be an interesting exercise.
 
Thanks to the posters who made some comments. I would like to update the situation if I may. I met on site an official from the council familiar with the situation. He returned to the council offices and rang me to indicate that the boundary lines on his map seem to indicate that the property boundary to the rear is on the far side of the hedge ie on my rear neighbour's side of the hedge. However, another boundary line is marked on the map approximating the line of the hedge. The side boundary is indeed a straight boundary. This was important as any block wall extension should not be situated on council land. The council official indicated that his map has no legal bearing and advised consulting the land registry.
The land registry folio was examined during the week. This map is very unclear, and affords even less information than that given by the council. A neighbour accessed the registry. Like myself, he is not from Ireland. We both thought it a little odd that the folio did not clearly mark the boundaries of the properties.
We are having a neighbours meeting this weekend. I guess the next step would be to access the property title deeds. Interestingly, it increasingly looks like the boundary as built is the boundary to be acknowledged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top