Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Take this experience:


An estate was to be built, the roads were laid out, but the selling of plots did take a long time.


A corner plot was developed, the owner was told to enclose his plot, so he had to build fences to the right, to the left and to the bottom of his garden.

These had the boundary ? T ? markings on his side so he owned all three fences, he had financed the fences, so there was no doubt that he owned them.


As time went by the plot to his left was built on, they only had to build a fence to the left, so the left fence was classed as theirs.

The ? T ? markings showed when this was recorded at Registry.


The next plot did not get developed, but the one did two doors down, they built on it, again all fences were theirs, so the ? T ? were recorded as theirs.


Development spasmodically, the plot that was left vacant now had a building on it ,

But no fences needed to be built as they were already in place, so they owned none.

No ? T ? marking showed in their plot to be theirs, so they did not have to maintain any fence.


I would think that as each plot is developed at different times causes a lot of misunderstanding to the purchaser, you will find that Estate Agents and Vendors, will only state approximate measurements of a plot and quite often miss guide a prospective purchaser that such and such fence belong to this plot, as no such marking were in existence in former times when the plot was recorded.

Each plot must be recognised as it is shown on the original Registry Document, if you want to spend money on getting a decision it will cost you money, is it worth your while to find an ownership of a fence?

Well put Shorty.


If you think about it, there are no logical or practical reasons for a house to own any boundary in particular as a matter of course. And various reasons why posts and rails might be one one side or the other.


Commonly held belief is simply a load of old cock.


Best bet is to go with the flow of fencing which has been established.

And there's nothing to stop you fencing all sides of your own garden yourself if you want to!

Document pertaining to the boundaries of plot of land purchased


Reading the conditions of the Freehold Deeds, section number eight gave me thoughts that I am bound to maintain the dividing fence to my left, and I must renew the dilapidated and corroded metal fence adjoining my neighbour?s and my plot.

To my right was the remains of an ancient fence that was barely visible, and would not stop my animals straying into his garden.

Having a conversation with my neighbour, about his fence I asked would he be prepared to contribute toward a new fence, as I was prepared to build it, if he could not find the finance then I would pay for it myself.

He stated that he was an old age pensioner and only had a small income, the light construction Bungalow he lived in the maintenance used up most of that.

I purchased the fencing for one hundred and twenty foot long.

Twenty four foot high by four inches square concrete posts allowing six inches set in concrete. 19 six foot by 1 1/4 concrete gravel boards. and had 19 wooden Lapped panels made six foot long and three foot high to fit between,

and ordered the ballast and cement to hold up the posts.


Looking at the old metal Strainer Fence of three foot high, it was made up of metal posts concreted into the ground, between each post there were wires stretched through holes in the posts with a tensioned device to pull the slack wire up, there was the remains of a chain link wire mesh fixed to it.


I came to the conclusion that it was going to be difficult for me to dig up the metal posts out, with a knob of concrete on the bottom as they would be in the way of the new concrete fence posts.

There was a lot of garden bushes now growing through the missing fence from next door, to remove these bushes and the fence would take me a considerable time.


I told the owner that it would be easier to leave his fence in situ and move back into my plot a six inches, and build a new fence, saying that as this was to be on my plot completely I would take over the maintenance of the new fence, as I had bought the fence and it was completely in my garden, I realised that by just the six inches now not in my garden multiplied by the length of one hundred and twenty foot, I had relinquished the right to approximately sixty square foot of ground.

We agreed, I built the fence creosoted the wooden panels, leaving his old metal Fence to do what he liked with, to be removed at a later date if he wished to.

The owners only remark was ? I thought that you were going to build it six foot high ?.

I said that unfortunately my own finances would only pay for the fence to be three foot six high, as you can see the old fence still there is six inches lower.

Eventually the Metal fence was removed or parts of it bent over and buried, some of these must still be in the ground, by a younger man who visited.

I have retained the Receipts for the purchase of the fencing in my name.


Unfortunately the owner has now died and can not collaborate my statements.


The new owners contest that the fence is mine on my land, the approx measurements were sold to them as 32 feet wide I asked them to measure their plot it is now 32ft 6 ins, my own was 53 ft wide and is now 52ft 6 ins wide.

I am too old to pursue this now.

They have removed four, three ft high panels and put in six ft high ones in their place and are using it as the back of a shed that he built the roof slopes in my direction is overhanging, I asked him to remove the overhang and the gutter is in now over my garden, he has done this but still claims that the fence is his because the Deeds say that the fence to his left is his, I told him that his fence that was there had been removed after mine had been built on my land.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...