My next door neighbour has today had a section of wooden fencing
replaced. They guy who's done it has put the posts on my side so she
has the "clean" face.

He's now turning it round so the boards are facing my side. I've just
had a word with him to ask why he'd put them differently to the fence
that was always there and he said "usually the person paying for it
chooses which way round". First time I've heard this.

The old biddie next door is now irate that I even mentioned the issue
and regards me as being "fussy".

Am I? Would you have mentioned it?

--
AnthonyL

AnthonyL wrote:

The old biddie next door is now irate that I even mentioned the issue
and regards me as being "fussy".

I think (with no real source to back it up) that it's normal for the
ugly rail side to face the owner. The hit and miss type fence has
identical sides, so avoids the issue (and has lower wind loading)

Andy Burns wrote:

AnthonyL wrote:

The old biddie next door is now irate that I even mentioned the issue
and regards me as being "fussy".

I think (with no real source to back it up) that it's normal for the
ugly rail side to face the owner. The hit and miss type fence has
identical sides, so avoids the issue (and has lower wind loading)

I think that the usual explanation is that the "outside" face is
intended to be on the actual boundary, thus the posts are on the
owner's land.

If the posts are on the outside, they should not encroach onto
the neighbour's property. If erected this way, the owner is
actually making their enclosed space smaller.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

In article ,
AnthonyL wrote:
My next door neighbour has today had a section of wooden fencing
replaced. They guy who's done it has put the posts on my side so she
has the "clean" face.

He's now turning it round so the boards are facing my side. I've just
had a word with him to ask why he'd put them differently to the fence
that was always there and he said "usually the person paying for it
chooses which way round". First time I've heard this.

The old biddie next door is now irate that I even mentioned the issue
and regards me as being "fussy".

Am I? Would you have mentioned it?

Check the deeds to your house. You'll likely own the fence one side but
not the other. Convention is the posts go on your side of the fence you
own - to give you the maximum 'floor' area. If the neighbour wants the
'posh' side facing them on their fence, just make sure it is all,
including posts, on their side of the boundary.

--
*Could it be that "I do " is the longest sentence? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
My next door neighbour has today had a section of wooden fencing
replaced. They guy who's done it has put the posts on my side so she
has the "clean" face.

He's now turning it round so the boards are facing my side. I've just
had a word with him to ask why he'd put them differently to the fence
that was always there and he said "usually the person paying for it
chooses which way round". First time I've heard this.

The old biddie next door is now irate that I even mentioned the issue
and regards me as being "fussy".

Am I?

Yes.

Would you have mentioned it?

Yes.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
My next door neighbour has today had a section of wooden fencing
replaced. They guy who's done it has put the posts on my side so she
has the "clean" face.

He's now turning it round so the boards are facing my side. I've just
had a word with him to ask why he'd put them differently to the fence
that was always there and he said "usually the person paying for it
chooses which way round". First time I've heard this.

The old biddie next door is now irate that I even mentioned the issue
and regards me as being "fussy".

Am I?

The posts go on the side of whoever's erecting the fence*.

As leaving aside the fact that they're encroaching on your
property if only to the extent of 4 inches, and the question
of appearance, it's also their responsibility to ensure that the
posts are regularly maintained, with preservative or whatever.

Basically you're under no obligation to maintain "their"
fence posts and so if as a result "their" fence falls onto
your property then they would be liable for any damage caused.

Neither are you under any obligation to allow them on
your property to undertake maintainence which shouldn't
be neccessary - on your side in the first place.

*In this case the asumption being that whoever erects the
fence also assumes subsequent responsibility for it. Regardless
of what it may, or may not say, in the deeds.


michael adams

....

I think its one of those negotiation things but sense would I think dictate
that you would want it to match what was already there. the only time I've
had to reverse a fence was when the neighbour put a shed so close to the
fence that there was no way to nail the boards on from their side any more,
and short of faffing about on the ground then trying to drop it in and add
arris rail extensions in a cramped space it was put the other way around.

However if you have the attitude which calls her an old biddy maybe she is
merely acting to match your stereotyping? grin.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
My next door neighbour has today had a section of wooden fencing
replaced. They guy who's done it has put the posts on my side so she
has the "clean" face.

He's now turning it round so the boards are facing my side. I've just
had a word with him to ask why he'd put them differently to the fence
that was always there and he said "usually the person paying for it
chooses which way round". First time I've heard this.

The old biddie next door is now irate that I even mentioned the issue
and regards me as being "fussy".

Am I? Would you have mentioned it?

--
AnthonyL

"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
My next door neighbour has today had a section of wooden fencing
replaced. They guy who's done it has put the posts on my side so she
has the "clean" face.

He's now turning it round so the boards are facing my side. I've just
had a word with him to ask why he'd put them differently to the fence
that was always there and he said "usually the person paying for it
chooses which way round". First time I've heard this.

The old biddie next door is now irate that I even mentioned the issue
and regards me as being "fussy".

Am I? Would you have mentioned it?

nothing should be over the boundary unless the posts were mutual and boards
should be on his side and you can board your side .......

"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
My next door neighbour has today had a section of wooden fencing
replaced. They guy who's done it has put the posts on my side so she
has the "clean" face.

He's now turning it round so the boards are facing my side. I've just
had a word with him to ask why he'd put them differently to the fence
that was always there and he said "usually the person paying for it
chooses which way round". First time I've heard this.

The old biddie next door is now irate that I even mentioned the issue
and regards me as being "fussy".

Am I? Would you have mentioned it?

I remember building a garage with the wall on the boundary.....the neighbor
then built a fence lined with board on both sides flush with the wall....I
just considered the fence to be mine as it was all over the boundary....tee
hee

Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

I remember building a garage with the wall on the boundary.....the neighbor
then built a fence lined with board on both sides flush with the wall....I
just considered the fence to be mine as it was all over the boundary....tee
hee

Trying to picture that. Your wall is on the boundary, yet his
fence was over it?

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:12:15 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
AnthonyL wrote:
My next door neighbour has today had a section of wooden fencing
replaced. They guy who's done it has put the posts on my side so she
has the "clean" face.

He's now turning it round so the boards are facing my side. I've just
had a word with him to ask why he'd put them differently to the fence
that was always there and he said "usually the person paying for it
chooses which way round". First time I've heard this.

The old biddie next door is now irate that I even mentioned the issue
and regards me as being "fussy".

Am I? Would you have mentioned it?

Check the deeds to your house.

There is no argument about the ownership of the fence. It's hers.

You'll likely own the fence one side but
not the other. Convention is the posts go on your side of the fence you
own - to give you the maximum 'floor' area. If the neighbour wants the
'posh' side facing them on their fence, just make sure it is all,
including posts, on their side of the boundary.



--
AnthonyL

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:17:02 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:


However if you have the attitude which calls her an old biddy maybe she is
merely acting to match your stereotyping? grin.

She's not been here long and already complained to the council about a
car parked across the road which turned out to belong to a friend of
the nearest house, but it interfered with her ability to turn her car
around though I've not worked out why she needs to as she drives it
forward into her driveway. Anyway she's called the friendly neighbour
a "nasty man". Silly old biddy.

--
AnthonyL

"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
...
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

I remember building a garage with the wall on the boundary.....the
neighbor
then built a fence lined with board on both sides flush with the wall....I
just considered the fence to be mine as it was all over the
boundary....tee
hee

Trying to picture that. Your wall is on the boundary, yet his
fence was over it?

Chris

he built the whole fence on my ground ...so it was mine .......

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 10:37 14 Nov 2017, Chris J Dixon wrote:

Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

I remember building a garage with the wall on the
boundary.....the neighbor then built a fence lined with board on
both sides flush with the wall....I just considered the fence to
be mine as it was all over the boundary....tee hee

Trying to picture that. Your wall is on the boundary, yet his
fence was over it?

Chris

Seems like a cheeky neighbour. How did he build it without coming
onto the poster's land?

I liked him so I just to him thanks for the fence .......

Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
.. .
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

I remember building a garage with the wall on the boundary.....the
neighbor
then built a fence lined with board on both sides flush with the wall....I
just considered the fence to be mine as it was all over the
boundary....tee
hee

Trying to picture that. Your wall is on the boundary, yet his
fence was over it?

he built the whole fence on my ground ...so it was mine .......

My mental picture is clearly different from what you are meaning.

You say that your garage has its wall on the boundary, ie there
is none of your land beyond that wall.

Do you actually mean that your neighbour's fence is in line with
your garage wall, not flush up to it? Instead of him working from
his side of the boundary line, he has put it all on yours?

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 10:37 14 Nov 2017, Chris J Dixon wrote:

Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

I remember building a garage with the wall on the
boundary.....the neighbor then built a fence lined with board on
both sides flush with the wall....I just considered the fence to
be mine as it was all over the boundary....tee hee

Trying to picture that. Your wall is on the boundary, yet his
fence was over it?

Chris

Seems like a cheeky neighbour. How did he build it without coming
onto the poster's land?

Neighbours can be a bit irrational. 'My' wall in the rear garden was made
from cast in situ concrete. I'd guess original Victorian. Most of it was
still good apart from the higher part between the two houses, which was
leaning and rather scruffy. Had just that bit re-built in blockwork and
rendered to match the good other bit. Neighbour didn't want my workmen in
his garden to render their side. Which looks pretty odd as they used
assorted odd bricks on the top to get to the right height.

--
*Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
...
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
. ..
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

I remember building a garage with the wall on the boundary.....the
neighbor
then built a fence lined with board on both sides flush with the
wall....I
just considered the fence to be mine as it was all over the
boundary....tee
hee

Trying to picture that. Your wall is on the boundary, yet his
fence was over it?

he built the whole fence on my ground ...so it was mine .......

My mental picture is clearly different from what you are meaning.

You say that your garage has its wall on the boundary, ie there
is none of your land beyond that wall.

Do you actually mean that your neighbour's fence is in line with
your garage wall, not flush up to it? Instead of him working from
his side of the boundary line, he has put it all on yours?

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

Chris

yes ... think about it ...it gave him a nice flush side to his garden
.........

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
...
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
...
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

I remember building a garage with the wall on the boundary.....the
neighbor
then built a fence lined with board on both sides flush with the
wall....I
just considered the fence to be mine as it was all over the
boundary....tee
hee

Trying to picture that. Your wall is on the boundary, yet his
fence was over it?

he built the whole fence on my ground ...so it was mine .......

My mental picture is clearly different from what you are meaning.

You say that your garage has its wall on the boundary, ie there
is none of your land beyond that wall.

Do you actually mean that your neighbour's fence is in line with
your garage wall, not flush up to it? Instead of him working from
his side of the boundary line, he has put it all on yours?

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

Chris

yes ... think about it ...it gave him a nice flush side to his garden
........

working in Building Standards I knew all about boundary problems and people
building over........ I just thought it was good of him building me a fence
100% on my ground .........saved me the bother .....

here is a good one ...in a stepped cavity wall semi detached where would
your neighbor start building?...they ALWAYS get it wrong ...think about it

Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

here is a good one ...in a stepped cavity wall semi detached where would
your neighbor start building?...they ALWAYS get it wrong ...think about it

I'm not quite sure what that is, but my semi is about 5 bricks
higher than my neighbour. We have happily agreed our boundary
line on the ground is exactly on the geometric centreline of the
party wall.

However, what I presume is my roof naturally overhangs the upward
projection of the party wall, so is probably a good foot or so
over this line.

If it ever comes down to maintaining the verges, I have two and
my neighbour just one.

I suppose it is much the same for many terraces on sloping sites
- a sort of minimal flying freehold.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:06:44 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

AnthonyL wrote:

The old biddie next door is now irate that I even mentioned the issue
and regards me as being "fussy".

I think (with no real source to back it up) that it's normal for the
ugly rail side to face the owner. The hit and miss type fence has
identical sides, so avoids the issue (and has lower wind loading)

I think that the usual explanation is that the "outside" face is
intended to be on the actual boundary, thus the posts are on the
owner's land.

If the posts are on the outside, they should not encroach onto
the neighbour's property. If erected this way, the owner is
actually making their enclosed space smaller.


I've just had a closer look and the nice preformed concrete post has
been placed about on the centre line of the border so about half of it
is now on my property. If I run a line between the ends of the old
sections the new sections fall slightly into my property. It is
probably not worth arguing about, we're talking inches but clearly the
handyman who did the job was careless/ignorant.

Neither he nor the neighbour asked permission to come on my property
which he did to do the fence and of course once he re-fixed it the
right way round he was "trapped" in my garden. As I noticed this
would happen I offered him a route through my garage (I don't have a
path down the side).


--
AnthonyL

"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:06:44 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

AnthonyL wrote:

The old biddie next door is now irate that I even mentioned the issue
and regards me as being "fussy".

I think (with no real source to back it up) that it's normal for the
ugly rail side to face the owner. The hit and miss type fence has
identical sides, so avoids the issue (and has lower wind loading)

I think that the usual explanation is that the "outside" face is
intended to be on the actual boundary, thus the posts are on the
owner's land.

If the posts are on the outside, they should not encroach onto
the neighbour's property. If erected this way, the owner is
actually making their enclosed space smaller.


I've just had a closer look and the nice preformed concrete post has
been placed about on the centre line of the border so about half of it
is now on my property. If I run a line between the ends of the old
sections the new sections fall slightly into my property. It is
probably not worth arguing about, we're talking inches but clearly the
handyman who did the job was careless/ignorant.

Neither he nor the neighbour asked permission to come on my property
which he did to do the fence and of course once he re-fixed it the
right way round he was "trapped" in my garden. As I noticed this
would happen I offered him a route through my garage (I don't have a
path down the side).

free fence...what is the problem? ....

In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:06:44 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

AnthonyL wrote:

The old biddie next door is now irate that I even mentioned the issue
and regards me as being "fussy".

I think (with no real source to back it up) that it's normal for the
ugly rail side to face the owner. The hit and miss type fence has
identical sides, so avoids the issue (and has lower wind loading)

I think that the usual explanation is that the "outside" face is
intended to be on the actual boundary, thus the posts are on the
owner's land.

If the posts are on the outside, they should not encroach onto
the neighbour's property. If erected this way, the owner is
actually making their enclosed space smaller.


I've just had a closer look and the nice preformed concrete post has
been placed about on the centre line of the border so about half of it
is now on my property. If I run a line between the ends of the old
sections the new sections fall slightly into my property. It is
probably not worth arguing about, we're talking inches but clearly the
handyman who did the job was careless/ignorant.

Neither he nor the neighbour asked permission to come on my property
which he did to do the fence and of course once he re-fixed it the
right way round he was "trapped" in my garden. As I noticed this
would happen I offered him a route through my garage (I don't have a
path down the side).

free fence...what is the problem? ....

Glad I've not got you as a neighbour.

--
*Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:10:07 -0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
wrote:


"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:06:44 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

AnthonyL wrote:

The old biddie next door is now irate that I even mentioned the issue
and regards me as being "fussy".

I think (with no real source to back it up) that it's normal for the
ugly rail side to face the owner. The hit and miss type fence has
identical sides, so avoids the issue (and has lower wind loading)

I think that the usual explanation is that the "outside" face is
intended to be on the actual boundary, thus the posts are on the
owner's land.

If the posts are on the outside, they should not encroach onto
the neighbour's property. If erected this way, the owner is
actually making their enclosed space smaller.


I've just had a closer look and the nice preformed concrete post has
been placed about on the centre line of the border so about half of it
is now on my property. If I run a line between the ends of the old
sections the new sections fall slightly into my property. It is
probably not worth arguing about, we're talking inches but clearly the
handyman who did the job was careless/ignorant.

Neither he nor the neighbour asked permission to come on my property
which he did to do the fence and of course once he re-fixed it the
right way round he was "trapped" in my garden. As I noticed this
would happen I offered him a route through my garage (I don't have a
path down the side).

free fence...what is the problem? ....


The fence was already there before other workman broke a section of it
knocking her trees out.

How far would you let them encroach before you'd consider it a
problem?

--
AnthonyL

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:33:19 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:06:44 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

AnthonyL wrote:

The old biddie next door is now irate that I even mentioned the issue
and regards me as being "fussy".

I think (with no real source to back it up) that it's normal for the
ugly rail side to face the owner. The hit and miss type fence has
identical sides, so avoids the issue (and has lower wind loading)

I think that the usual explanation is that the "outside" face is
intended to be on the actual boundary, thus the posts are on the
owner's land.

If the posts are on the outside, they should not encroach onto
the neighbour's property. If erected this way, the owner is
actually making their enclosed space smaller.


I've just had a closer look and the nice preformed concrete post has
been placed about on the centre line of the border so about half of it
is now on my property. If I run a line between the ends of the old
sections the new sections fall slightly into my property. It is
probably not worth arguing about, we're talking inches but clearly the
handyman who did the job was careless/ignorant.

Neither he nor the neighbour asked permission to come on my property
which he did to do the fence and of course once he re-fixed it the
right way round he was "trapped" in my garden. As I noticed this
would happen I offered him a route through my garage (I don't have a
path down the side).

free fence...what is the problem? ....

Glad I've not got you as a neighbour.


There are times a "Like" button would be useful, I guess you'll just
have to have a +1

--
AnthonyL

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:06:44 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

AnthonyL wrote:

The old biddie next door is now irate that I even mentioned the
issue
and regards me as being "fussy".

I think (with no real source to back it up) that it's normal for the
ugly rail side to face the owner. The hit and miss type fence has
identical sides, so avoids the issue (and has lower wind loading)

I think that the usual explanation is that the "outside" face is
intended to be on the actual boundary, thus the posts are on the
owner's land.

If the posts are on the outside, they should not encroach onto
the neighbour's property. If erected this way, the owner is
actually making their enclosed space smaller.


I've just had a closer look and the nice preformed concrete post has
been placed about on the centre line of the border so about half of it
is now on my property. If I run a line between the ends of the old
sections the new sections fall slightly into my property. It is
probably not worth arguing about, we're talking inches but clearly the
handyman who did the job was careless/ignorant.

Neither he nor the neighbour asked permission to come on my property
which he did to do the fence and of course once he re-fixed it the
right way round he was "trapped" in my garden. As I noticed this
would happen I offered him a route through my garage (I don't have a
path down the side).

free fence...what is the problem? ....

Glad I've not got you as a neighbour.

I wouldn't build over the boundary but why complain about getting a free
fence? .....

"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:10:07 -0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
wrote:


"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:06:44 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

AnthonyL wrote:

The old biddie next door is now irate that I even mentioned the issue
and regards me as being "fussy".

I think (with no real source to back it up) that it's normal for the
ugly rail side to face the owner. The hit and miss type fence has
identical sides, so avoids the issue (and has lower wind loading)

I think that the usual explanation is that the "outside" face is
intended to be on the actual boundary, thus the posts are on the
owner's land.

If the posts are on the outside, they should not encroach onto
the neighbour's property. If erected this way, the owner is
actually making their enclosed space smaller.


I've just had a closer look and the nice preformed concrete post has
been placed about on the centre line of the border so about half of it
is now on my property. If I run a line between the ends of the old
sections the new sections fall slightly into my property. It is
probably not worth arguing about, we're talking inches but clearly the
handyman who did the job was careless/ignorant.

Neither he nor the neighbour asked permission to come on my property
which he did to do the fence and of course once he re-fixed it the
right way round he was "trapped" in my garden. As I noticed this
would happen I offered him a route through my garage (I don't have a
path down the side).

free fence...what is the problem? ....


The fence was already there before other workman broke a section of it
knocking her trees out.

How far would you let them encroach before you'd consider it a
problem?

well my neighbour built his or should I say mine flush with my garage that I
had carefully build on the boundary .......so the entire fence was
mine...didn't see a problem.....if I wanted to build up to the boundary I
would have just removed his...sorry ...my fence .....

as the party wall between me and the neighbors is 2 bricks wide, if i build an extension would it have to be inline with my bricks not theirs, staggered if you see what i mean?
[george]

On 15/11/2017 15:58, AnthonyL wrote:
I've just had a closer look and the nice preformed concrete post has
been placed about on the centre line of the border so about half of it
is now on my property.

Well this is completely wrong. Your neighbour is trespassing onto
your property.

Boundary fences (or structures) do not cross the boundary. The
entire width of your fence or wall occupies your own space.

If they are slotted concrete posts, then the outside face
marks the boundary.

If it is a wall with coping stones that project, the wall
must be set back onto your property so that the coping
stones do not cross the boundary.

This is established boundary law.

On 15/11/2017 16:46, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:06:44 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

AnthonyL wrote:

The old biddie next door is now irate that I even mentioned the
issue
and regards me as being "fussy".

I think (with no real source to back it up) that it's normal for the
ugly rail side to face the owner. The hit and miss type fence has
identical sides, so avoids the issue (and has lower wind loading)

I think that the usual explanation is that the "outside" face is
intended to be on the actual boundary, thus the posts are on the
owner's land.

If the posts are on the outside, they should not encroach onto
the neighbour's property. If erected this way, the owner is
actually making their enclosed space smaller.


I've just had a closer look and the nice preformed concrete post has
been placed about on the centre line of the border so about half of it
is now on my property. If I run a line between the ends of the old
sections the new sections fall slightly into my property. It is
probably not worth arguing about, we're talking inches but clearly the
handyman who did the job was careless/ignorant.

Neither he nor the neighbour asked permission to come on my property
which he did to do the fence and of course once he re-fixed it the
right way round he was "trapped" in my garden. As I noticed this
would happen I offered him a route through my garage (I don't have a
path down the side).

free fence...what is the problem? ....

Glad I've not got you as a neighbour.

I wouldn't build over the boundary but why complain about getting a free
fence? .....



Where does the land registry place the 'T' marks ?.

Who ever has them on their side, has the right (but not
the obligation) to erect a boundary structure.

On 15/11/2017 16:44, AnthonyL wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:10:07 -0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
wrote:


"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:06:44 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

AnthonyL wrote:

The old biddie next door is now irate that I even mentioned the issue
and regards me as being "fussy".

I think (with no real source to back it up) that it's normal for the
ugly rail side to face the owner. The hit and miss type fence has
identical sides, so avoids the issue (and has lower wind loading)

I think that the usual explanation is that the "outside" face is
intended to be on the actual boundary, thus the posts are on the
owner's land.

If the posts are on the outside, they should not encroach onto
the neighbour's property. If erected this way, the owner is
actually making their enclosed space smaller.


I've just had a closer look and the nice preformed concrete post has
been placed about on the centre line of the border so about half of it
is now on my property. If I run a line between the ends of the old
sections the new sections fall slightly into my property. It is
probably not worth arguing about, we're talking inches but clearly the
handyman who did the job was careless/ignorant.

Neither he nor the neighbour asked permission to come on my property
which he did to do the fence and of course once he re-fixed it the
right way round he was "trapped" in my garden. As I noticed this
would happen I offered him a route through my garage (I don't have a
path down the side).

free fence...what is the problem? ....


The fence was already there before other workman broke a section of it
knocking her trees out.

How far would you let them encroach before you'd consider it a
problem?


About 0.0 inches else future owners might be more problematic.

On 15/11/2017 20:47, Andrew wrote:
On 15/11/2017 15:58, AnthonyL wrote:
I've just had a closer look and the nice preformed concrete post has
been placed about on the centre line of the border so about half of it
is now on my property.

Well this is completely wrong. Your neighbour is trespassing onto
your property.

Boundary fences (or structures) do not cross the boundary. The
entire width of your fence or wall occupies your own space.

If they are slotted concrete posts, then the outside face
marks the boundary.

If it is a wall with coping stones that project, the wall
must be set back onto your property so that the coping
stones do not cross the boundary.

This is established boundary law.

While the above is the common position, AFAIK a fence may straddle the
boundary and be owned jointly by the 2 neighbours. The deeds/LR may
then show "T" marks on both sides so it looks like an "H". Or may not.
"T" marks don't necessarily indicate ownership. Indeed, as the LR
state in their Practice Guide 40:

"'T' marks on deed plans which are not referred to in the text of a deed
have no special force or meaning in law and unless an applicant
specifically requests that the €˜T marks be shown on the title plan, we
will normally ignore them."


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 15/11/2017 20:49, Andrew wrote:
On 15/11/2017 16:46, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Â*Â* Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:06:44 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

AnthonyL wrote:

The old biddie next door is now irate that I even mentioned the
issue
and regards me as being "fussy".

I think (with no real source to back it up) that it's normal for the
ugly rail side to face the owner. The hit and miss type fence has
identical sides, so avoids the issue (and has lower wind loading)

I think that the usual explanation is that the "outside" face is
intended to be on the actual boundary, thus the posts are on the
owner's land.

If the posts are on the outside, they should not encroach onto
the neighbour's property. If erected this way, the owner is
actually making their enclosed space smaller.


I've just had a closer look and the nice preformed concrete post has
been placed about on the centre line of the border so about half of it
is now on my property.Â* If I run a line between the ends of the old
sections the new sections fall slightly into my property.Â* It is
probably not worth arguing about, we're talking inches but clearly the
handyman who did the job was careless/ignorant.

Neither he nor the neighbour asked permission to come on my property
which he did to do the fence and of course once he re-fixed it the
right way round he was "trapped" in my garden.Â*Â* As I noticed this
would happen I offered him a route through my garage (I don't have a
path down the side).

free fence...what is the problem? ....

Glad I've not got you as a neighbour.

I wouldn't build over the boundary but why complain about getting a free
fence? .....



Where does the land registry place the 'T' marks ?.

Who ever has them on their side, has the right (but not
the obligation) to erect a boundary structure.

Many deeds conbtain a requirement to maintain a fence, wall or hedge as
the leaseholder doesn't want the boundaries to move.

Mine certainly does. One the other hand, restrictions on extending are
non-existent - maintain a building with a rental value of greater than x
pounds per year (my shed would probably manage that!) and no need to
inform them of any additions/extensions/changes.

SteveW

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." Wrote in message:

"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:10:07 -0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
wrote:


"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:06:44 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

AnthonyL wrote:

The old biddie next door is now irate that I even mentioned the issue
and regards me as being "fussy".

I think (with no real source to back it up) that it's normal for the
ugly rail side to face the owner. The hit and miss type fence has
identical sides, so avoids the issue (and has lower wind loading)

I think that the usual explanation is that the "outside" face is
intended to be on the actual boundary, thus the posts are on the
owner's land.

If the posts are on the outside, they should not encroach onto
the neighbour's property. If erected this way, the owner is
actually making their enclosed space smaller.


I've just had a closer look and the nice preformed concrete post has
been placed about on the centre line of the border so about half of it
is now on my property. If I run a line between the ends of the old
sections the new sections fall slightly into my property. It is
probably not worth arguing about, we're talking inches but clearly the
handyman who did the job was careless/ignorant.

Neither he nor the neighbour asked permission to come on my property
which he did to do the fence and of course once he re-fixed it the
right way round he was "trapped" in my garden. As I noticed this
would happen I offered him a route through my garage (I don't have a
path down the side).

free fence...what is the problem? ....


The fence was already there before other workman broke a section of it
knocking her trees out.

How far would you let them encroach before you'd consider it a
problem?

well my neighbour built his or should I say mine flush with my garage that I
had carefully build on the boundary .......so the entire fence was
mine...didn't see a problem.....if I wanted to build up to the boundary I
would have just removed his...sorry ...my fence .....


& then the sh1t would fly!

I expect your neighbour & all other encroaching fence building
neighbours regard the fences they built as "theirs", whilst you
regard it as "yours"....

Should be a question on a solicitor's house sale checklist...
--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 22:13:35 +0000, Robin wrote:

On 15/11/2017 20:47, Andrew wrote:
On 15/11/2017 15:58, AnthonyL wrote:
I've just had a closer look and the nice preformed concrete post has
been placed about on the centre line of the border so about half of it
is now on my property.

Well this is completely wrong. Your neighbour is trespassing onto
your property.

Boundary fences (or structures) do not cross the boundary. The
entire width of your fence or wall occupies your own space.

If they are slotted concrete posts, then the outside face
marks the boundary.

If it is a wall with coping stones that project, the wall
must be set back onto your property so that the coping
stones do not cross the boundary.

This is established boundary law.

While the above is the common position, AFAIK a fence may straddle the
boundary and be owned jointly by the 2 neighbours. The deeds/LR may
then show "T" marks on both sides so it looks like an "H". Or may not.
"T" marks don't necessarily indicate ownership. Indeed, as the LR
state in their Practice Guide 40:


I don't want joint ownership. I was quite satisfied with the
alignment of the pre-existing fence at the time of purchasing my
property 2 years ago. The "T" marks for that fence are indicated on
the neighbours' side on the LR documents.

It is in the repairing of the fence that the alignment has changed
purely for the repaired section and merely a matter of inches. The
owner had a handyman do the work and then redo the work (under
sufference) to put the panels the "right way round" eg consistent with
the rest of the fence.

It is a slotted concrete post and I would estimate that the slots are
about on the boundary so maybe its only the post that encroaches.


--
AnthonyL