New neighbours have large dogs - great danes I think and have removed
the existing large and tatty boundary hedge with my agreement to be
replace at their expense by a 6 ft high wooden fence. This is to be
timber planks on 4" square timbers set in concrete.

They want the planks to be all on their side of the fence posts which
would leave me looking at the posts. I would prefer the planks to be
on a one on one side/one on the other side basis so that the wind
passes through and the visual impact isn't so great.

As they are paying and building the fence do I have any say at all ?

Rob

Rob Graham wrote:
New neighbours have large dogs - great danes I think and have removed
the existing large and tatty boundary hedge with my agreement to be
replace at their expense by a 6 ft high wooden fence. This is to be
timber planks on 4" square timbers set in concrete.

They want the planks to be all on their side of the fence posts which
would leave me looking at the posts. I would prefer the planks to be
on a one on one side/one on the other side basis so that the wind
passes through and the visual impact isn't so great.

As they are paying and building the fence do I have any say at all ?

If it's completely on their land, not really, unless it's lots over
6 feet.

If it's the boundary line, things might be more complex.
However, it might be worth offering to pay 150% of the difference
between the two sorts of fencing.

A slatted fence will actually reduce the wind a bit more.
A solid fence will tend to just create horrible vortices round the
edge of it.

"Rob Graham" wrote in message
...
snip

They want the planks to be all on their side of the fence posts which
would leave me looking at the posts. snip

As they are paying and building the fence do I have any say at all ?


AIUI if this is *your* fence then the neat side has to face away from your
land.

On 29 Oct 2004 13:03:35 -0700, (Rob Graham)
wrote:

New neighbours have large dogs - great danes I think and have removed
the existing large and tatty boundary hedge with my agreement to be
replace at their expense by a 6 ft high wooden fence. This is to be
timber planks on 4" square timbers set in concrete.

They want the planks to be all on their side of the fence posts which
would leave me looking at the posts. I would prefer the planks to be
on a one on one side/one on the other side basis so that the wind
passes through and the visual impact isn't so great.

As they are paying and building the fence do I have any say at all ?

Rob

This is normally determined by who is responsible for the boundary
fence - (can be found on plans of site)

Conventionally, but not always, as you look down your garden, you are
responsible for the fence on the left.

The convention is that if there is a fair side and a not so good side
to the fence, then the owner should present the better side to the
neighbour.

So if it's his, and he chooses to replace it then he should put the
boards on your side.

However if it's yours and he is paying to replace it, then I think you
have to negotiate, especially as you say that the existing boundary is
tatty.

Of course if it is yours, you don't have to agree to the fence at all
and then he would have to erect the fence completely on his land. He
could also lop back all the hedge on his side to do so, so probably
killing it anyway.

The other factor is that you probably don't want to fall out with him,
so I think your best course is going to be to negotiate something.
The reason for the fence change is because of his dogs, so I don't see
why he should have it all his way.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On 29 Oct 2004 13:03:35 -0700, Rob Graham wrote:

As they are paying and building the fence do I have any say at all ?

Who has the requirement to maintain that boundary? As it stands the
new owner could be trying to shift the responsibilty from himself to
you by putting the posts on your side. Though if push came to shove
the deeds of the properties would decide, but anyone casually looking
at that fence would say it was yours even if it legaly isn't.

On whose land is the new fence going to be built? The "good" side
faces outwards and should run along the boundary line, any supports
being on the owners side. He can build the fence as you describe but
it has to be wholy on his property, including the posts and if you
feel like being difficult you may be able to deny him access to your
land to erect or maintain those posts so would need access space on
his property. Again rights of access for maintenace etc should be in
the Deeds.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Conventionally, but not always, as you look down your garden, you are
responsible for the fence on the left.

Care to cite a legal reference for this? In fact there is no such convention
that has a general basis in law. It may be that a particular estate, for
example, has been laid out in that way bit it does not make it generally
true.

The convention is that if there is a fair side and a not so good side
to the fence, then the owner should present the better side to the
neighbour.

Again there is no general legal requirement for this.

However if it's yours and he is paying to replace it, then I think you
have to negotiate, especially as you say that the existing boundary is
tatty.

Always worth while doing it by agreement but remember that your existing
neighbour nay not always be there. Depending what the deeds say it may, or
may not, be relatively easy to establish exactly where the boundary is and
who owns it. Deeds often only show what is known as "general boundaries"
which is vague enough to keep a whole army of lawyers busy! Take a look at
the is site that is a mine of information on garden and boundary law.

http://www.gardenlaw.co.uk/


Peter Crosland

On 29 Oct 2004 13:03:35 -0700, (Rob Graham)
wrote:

New neighbours have large dogs - great danes I think and have removed
the existing large and tatty boundary hedge with my agreement to be
replace at their expense by a 6 ft high wooden fence. This is to be
timber planks on 4" square timbers set in concrete.

They want the planks to be all on their side of the fence posts which
would leave me looking at the posts. I would prefer the planks to be
on a one on one side/one on the other side basis so that the wind
passes through and the visual impact isn't so great.

As they are paying and building the fence do I have any say at all ?

Rob

If you get on well, you can sugget you pay the extra for any changes
you may like.

One of my friends had a double fence, so both people get the nice
side, and the bad sides are hiden in the middle .......

Rick

In message , ":::Jerry::::"
writes

"Rob Graham" wrote in message
m...
snip

They want the planks to be all on their side of the fence posts which
would leave me looking at the posts. snip

As they are paying and building the fence do I have any say at all ?


AIUI if this is *your* fence then the neat side has to face away from your
land.


No it doesn't, you can put it anyway you like.

There is a convention about putting them the way you state, but that's
all it is.

--
Chris French, Leeds

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:32:30 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

Conventionally, but not always, as you look down your garden, you are
responsible for the fence on the left.

Care to cite a legal reference for this?

No because I didn't suggest that there was.

In fact there is no such convention
that has a general basis in law.

I didn;t suggest that either.

It may be that a particular estate, for
example, has been laid out in that way bit it does not make it generally
true.

Well the last time I did a conveyancing exercise, I asked the
solicitor about it and he said that most that he had seen, over quite
a large area, estate and non-estate were like this. Of course, it
could be regional and coincidental.



The convention is that if there is a fair side and a not so good side
to the fence, then the owner should present the better side to the
neighbour.

Again there is no general legal requirement for this.

No, but again it is the convention as I have read it.

Referring to your site below:

"If the deeds say nothing, as unfortunately they all too often do,
then in the case of fences with posts or struts on one side, the law
presumes that the owner on that side owns and is responsible for
repairing the fence."

and

"When putting up a fence, custom dictates that the posts are entirely
on your land and the face of the fence, points to your neighbours. It
is worth is giving up an inch or two of your land to avoid it going
onto next door and creating a dispute. This is especially so since you
will need cooperation to be able to repair the fence from your
neighbours land. Ensure it complies with Planning Regulations – ring
them first. "


However if it's yours and he is paying to replace it, then I think you
have to negotiate, especially as you say that the existing boundary is
tatty.

Always worth while doing it by agreement but remember that your existing
neighbour nay not always be there. Depending what the deeds say it may, or
may not, be relatively easy to establish exactly where the boundary is and
who owns it. Deeds often only show what is known as "general boundaries"
which is vague enough to keep a whole army of lawyers busy!

Why am I not surprised?

Take a look at
the is site that is a mine of information on garden and boundary law.

http://www.gardenlaw.co.uk/


Peter Crosland


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article ,
Andy Hall writes:
The convention is that if there is a fair side and a not so good side
to the fence, then the owner should present the better side to the
neighbour.

The reason is that the fence should be on the owner's side of the
boundary line, and since the line is straight, you put the flat
side of the fence against the boundary line with all the fence
structure on the owner's side of the line. If the owner puts the
fence up the other way round but still on their side of the boundary,
then they effectively fence off some of their land leaving it only
accessible to their neighbour. If you put a fence up the wrong way
round, it might at some later date be deemed to belong to the other
house if there's no other record, in which case the boundary has
moved between the properties with the original fence owner having
lost out.

--
Andrew Gabriel

On whose land is the new fence going to be built? The "good" side
faces outwards and should run along the boundary line, any supports
being on the owners side. He can build the fence as you describe but
it has to be wholy on his property, including the posts and if you
feel like being difficult you may be able to deny him access to your
land to erect or maintain those posts so would need access space on
his property. Again rights of access for maintenace etc should be in
the Deeds.

A very good point. People often forget that the concrete in which the fence
posts are set has to be within the boundary as well. Access for maintenance
can be obtained by a court order but it is very unusual for rights regarding
construction to be written into deeds particularly domestic property.
Nevertheless it is never good policy to fall out with your neighbour. The
difficulty is that the law regarding boundaries and their exact location is
much more complex than most people realise and that applying "convention" or
rule of thumb is quite likely to give the wrong answer.

On 29 Oct 2004 13:03:35 -0700, (Rob Graham)
wrote:

New neighbours have large dogs - great danes I think and have removed
the existing large and tatty boundary hedge with my agreement to be
replace at their expense by a 6 ft high wooden fence. This is to be
timber planks on 4" square timbers set in concrete.

They want the planks to be all on their side of the fence posts which
would leave me looking at the posts. I would prefer the planks to be
on a one on one side/one on the other side basis so that the wind
passes through and the visual impact isn't so great.

As they are paying and building the fence do I have any say at all ?

AIUI the planks are normally on the owner's side, so that he can
repair the fence (e.g. nailing on new planks) without encroaching on
the other property.

--

Frank Erskine
MJBC
OETKBC

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:

The convention is that if there is a fair side and a not so good side
to the fence, then the owner should present the better side to the
neighbour.

I think the original convention rose from territorial considerations
rather than aesthetic considerations towards the neighbours.

If the boundary fence is your property and responsibility then it must
lie entirely on your land. If the "fair" side faces you then a narrow
strip of land containing the fence posts is effectively lost to the
neighbour. By building it the other way round you only loose the
thickness of the planks.

--
Mike Clarke

I think you are missing my point Andy! The problem is that there are all
sorts of things that are subject to the words if, and, but and maybe in
connection with boundaries and the law. Your statements were without much
qualification particularly your assertion that "Conventionally, but not
always, as you look down your garden, you are responsible for the fence on
the left" without any qualification is simply wrong. It is seldom possible
to set out "rules" that apply to every situation. The garden law site has
quite a bit more detail than either you or I quoted. Even so it is not an
exhaustive statement of all the possibilities. Unfortunately with ever
higher housing density, and therefore smaller gardens, people become ever
more possessive over a few square feet of land that they perceive as theirs.
This has been exacerbated by the fact that the Land Registry plans often
don't show enough detail, or are not of large enough scale to be quite sure
to within a few inches, or even a foot, of the precise position. Enormous
sums of money are wasted every year by people arguing over tiny strips of
land that are worth much less than the legal fees spent on them. Having
recently had to deal with a problem about my own boundary I learnt quite a
lot than I already knew. My property and the adjoining one had been conveyed
four times by the same firm of solicitors (A large nationally known firm
with many employees) by four different individuals who all missed the same
error! Luckily the error was so large it was relatively easy to sort out
with the help of the Land Registry who sent a surveyor to check out the
whole thing. Even so I suspect that my chainlink fence is some six inches
over the actual legal boundary. Fortunately it borders a three acre orchard
so in practical terms it makes no difference particularly as it has been
there for more than twenty years without any query from the neighbour. Teh
only "rule" is to try and stay on good terms with your neighbour and if
possible get any changes recorded in writing and with photographs.

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:58:26 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

I think you are missing my point Andy! The problem is that there are all
sorts of things that are subject to the words if, and, but and maybe in
connection with boundaries and the law. Your statements were without much
qualification particularly your assertion that "Conventionally, but not
always, as you look down your garden, you are responsible for the fence on
the left" without any qualification is simply wrong.

There wasn't an assertion at all, simply a comment from experience
supported by information from a solicitor who had indicated that this
was the convention in his experience.
I was careful not to say that it always was like this so there was no
need to qualify further.


It is seldom possible
to set out "rules" that apply to every situation.

Of course not, which is why there are customs and conventions.

The garden law site has
quite a bit more detail than either you or I quoted. Even so it is not an
exhaustive statement of all the possibilities. Unfortunately with ever
higher housing density, and therefore smaller gardens, people become ever
more possessive over a few square feet of land that they perceive as theirs.

I have noticed that.

This has been exacerbated by the fact that the Land Registry plans often
don't show enough detail, or are not of large enough scale to be quite sure
to within a few inches, or even a foot, of the precise position.

.. and that. In fact they seem to be pretty much useless, other than
to indicate responsibility for the fences.


Enormous
sums of money are wasted every year by people arguing over tiny strips of
land that are worth much less than the legal fees spent on them. Having
recently had to deal with a problem about my own boundary I learnt quite a
lot than I already knew. My property and the adjoining one had been conveyed
four times by the same firm of solicitors (A large nationally known firm
with many employees) by four different individuals who all missed the same
error!

Not Robinsons was it? They seem to be quite well known :-)


Luckily the error was so large it was relatively easy to sort out
with the help of the Land Registry who sent a surveyor to check out the
whole thing. Even so I suspect that my chainlink fence is some six inches
over the actual legal boundary. Fortunately it borders a three acre orchard
so in practical terms it makes no difference particularly as it has been
there for more than twenty years without any query from the neighbour. Teh
only "rule" is to try and stay on good terms with your neighbour and if
possible get any changes recorded in writing and with photographs.


That's certainly true.

--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

There wasn't an assertion at all, simply a comment from experience
supported by information from a solicitor who had indicated that this
was the convention in his experience.

I would used one with wider knowledge in future!

Not Robinsons was it? They seem to be quite well known :-)

No: and I will not be drawn on who it was!

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:46:22 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

There wasn't an assertion at all, simply a comment from experience
supported by information from a solicitor who had indicated that this
was the convention in his experience.

I would used one with wider knowledge in future!

It's hardly a big issue, and obviously one should check anyway.


Not Robinsons was it? They seem to be quite well known :-)

No: and I will not be drawn on who it was!


None of them contribute anything of value to society, so to me it's
picking the least bad from a poor bunch.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 07:30:31 +0100, Peter Crosland wrote:


On whose land is the new fence going to be built? The "good" side
faces outwards and should run along the boundary line, any
supports
being on the owners side. He can build the fence as you describe
but
Access for maintenance can be obtained by a court order but it is
very unusual for rights regarding construction to be written into
deeds particularly domestic property.

Wouldn't access rights for maintenance cover that? I mean if the fence
is so dilapidated that it needs replacing thats just a lot of
maintenace. Still that assume making an ass out of u and me though.
B-)

difficulty is that the law regarding boundaries and their exact
location is much more complex than most people realise and that
applying "convention" or rule of thumb is quite likely to give the
wrong answer.

Quite agree, thats why I said several times refer back to the deeds,
they have much more legal standing than any thumb or convention.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Frank Erskine wrote in message . ..
On 29 Oct 2004 13:03:35 -0700, (Rob Graham)
wrote:

New neighbours have large dogs - great danes I think and have removed
the existing large and tatty boundary hedge with my agreement to be
replace at their expense by a 6 ft high wooden fence. This is to be
timber planks on 4" square timbers set in concrete.

They want the planks to be all on their side of the fence posts which
would leave me looking at the posts. I would prefer the planks to be
on a one on one side/one on the other side basis so that the wind
passes through and the visual impact isn't so great.

As they are paying and building the fence do I have any say at all ?

AIUI the planks are normally on the owner's side, so that he can
repair the fence (e.g. nailing on new planks) without encroaching on
the other property.

Thanks for the inputs guys.

Obviously with new neighbours I don't want to rattle any cages, but
they do seem to be gaining all, even if at their cost in that I've
lost a hedge which might with a bit of care be grown into something
and got in exchange a 6 ft high barricade, which they bluthely say -
"oh you can grow things up it !!" (at my expense it appears).

However there was a complication that I didn't mention and that is
that if one takes the middle of the semi-detached cottages as the
boundary then I've gained several feet by the position of the removed
hedge. The new fence has followed the old hedge line. If I had
pushed too much, next door could I suspect have claimed the 'official'
boundary line - or could they, on the basis that the hedge predates
my entry 30 years ago ?

The one thing that does concern me is the comment that the posts being
on my side gives me responsibility for them.

Rob

Rob

On 30 Oct 2004 12:48:03 -0700, Rob Graham wrote:

The one thing that does concern me is the comment that the posts
being on my side gives me responsibility for them.

No, it only *appears* to give you responsibilty, you need to look in
your Deeds to see what they have to say, if anything...

If the Deeds don't state who is responsible for that boundary fence,
they could be shared, I think you have just "won" it. It would be a
very long, complex and thus expensive legal battle to prove otherwise.

As you have gained several feet I'd keep a bit quiet, look carefully
at the plans lodged with the Land Registry and maybe in a few years
time apply for that strip to be made legaly yours. There is some means
that if you use a bit of land as yours for 11 years (I think) with no
objections you can claim it. *Very* loosely...

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

"Rob Graham" wrote in message
om...

The one thing that does concern me is the comment that the posts being
on my side gives me responsibility for them.

Well, didn't you maintain at least your side of the hedge? That takes more
doing than a fence.

Mary

However there was a complication that I didn't mention and that is
that if one takes the middle of the semi-detached cottages as the
boundary then I've gained several feet by the position of the removed
hedge. The new fence has followed the old hedge line. If I had
pushed too much, next door could I suspect have claimed the 'official'
boundary line - or could they, on the basis that the hedge predates
my entry 30 years ago ?

Probably best to keep quiet and enjoy the extra space!


The one thing that does concern me is the comment that the posts being
on my side gives me responsibility for them.

If they are not on your land then they are not your responsibility unless
there is some documented proof that says otherwise. Why not put you own
fence up just inside theirs and have the "good" side towards you?

"Rob Graham" wrote in message
...
New neighbours have large dogs - great danes I think and have removed
the existing large and tatty boundary hedge with my agreement to be
replace at their expense by a 6 ft high wooden fence. This is to be
timber planks on 4" square timbers set in concrete.

They want the planks to be all on their side of the fence posts which
would leave me looking at the posts. I would prefer the planks to be
on a one on one side/one on the other side basis so that the wind
passes through and the visual impact isn't so great.

As they are paying and building the fence do I have any say at all ?

The owner of the boundary line decides what fence, what colour, what style,
whatnot. There is no law or requirement that the 'good' side faces any
particular direction but obviously the fence must not encroach on
someonelse's property - it'd be trespass. Of course any and all of these
stipulations may be altered by agreement; if they are, get them in writing
and I would seriously urge you to employ a lawyer to write it up - I speak
from bitter experience.