Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Does anyone know how to identify which fence (i.e. left/right) belongs to a property? Southwark council own the neighbouring property and the tenants have taken it upon themselves to remove the ivy that was holding the old fence together. I am just trying to work out who's responsibility it is - any advice greatly appreciated.
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/66608-neighbours-fence/
Share on other sites

My deeds don't say anything about this either.


I've always just split any cost with the relevant neighbours.


In one case where they wanted to replace an old wall with a fence rather than repairing the wall, I paid the extra cost of repairing the wall (ie the neighbours paid half of what the fence would have cost, and I paid the rest).

minder Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> L1, you say that the people living next door to

> you have removed some ivy from their fence i.e

> taken it upon themselves.

>

> So why didn't you?



If the ivy was holding the fence together, as the OP says, then I guess removing it has caused the fence to fall down?

Thanks all. I should have been clearer in the original post, next door have removed the ivy and now the fence is falling down. They have no intention of replacing the fence. On closer inspection the front(neat side) of the fence faces their garden which suggests it belongs to that property.


I am really trying to establish if the fence is southwark's responsibility and how likely they are to replace it. I will probably just end up paying for the replacement but feels as though the neighbours have forced me into it.

Did you get a copy of the Title register as well as the plan ? Sometimes this has reference to boundaries and maintenance .


Have you tried getting a copy of register and plan for your neighbour ,this might show their responsibilties for boundary maintenance ?


Tricky all this I know .Wish you luck .

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> The old myth; cause of many a dispute


Agree, our house is a case in point. We are responsible for all the boundaries as our house is build on one half of a split of a single property, and the neighbour decided they wanted as little responsibility for boundaries as possible (which is fair enough!)

L16579 Wrote:

------------------------------------------------------- They have no

> intention of replacing the fence. On closer

> inspection the front(neat side) of the fence faces

> their garden which suggests it belongs to that

> property.

No, it suggests the opposite. When someone constructs a fence, they work from their own garden. So, the fenceposts are in the garden of the fence owner and the neat side faces the neighbour.

kiera Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No, it suggests the opposite. When someone

> constructs a fence, they work from their own

> garden. So, the fenceposts are in the garden of

> the fence owner and the neat side faces the

> neighbour.


Depends what sort of fence it is though, doesn't it?

I've always understood it was accepted practice to put the good side to your neighbour, and I'm pretty sure it is a requirement if your neighbour is the public highway.


If you have the sort of fence where the panels are on one side of the post, then by putting the good side towards your neighbour you get a couple of inches of extra garden

It's basically individual, depending on previous history.

On my left the guy built a brick wall and left the 'rough' side for me

On my right the neighbour put up a chain-link fence (his side of the posts), which I several years later re-covered with fence panels (my side of the posts, good side for me).

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

    • Hey Sue, I was wrong - I don't think it would just be for foreign tourists. So yeah I assume that, if someone lives in Lewisham and wants to say the night in southwark, they'd pay a levy.  The hotels wouldn't need to vet anyone's address or passports - the levy is automatically added on top of the bill by every hotel / BnB / hostel and passed on to Southwark. So basically, you're paying an extra two quid a night, or whatever, to stay in this borough.  It's a great way to drive footfall... to the other London boroughs.  https://www.ukpropertyaccountants.co.uk/uk-tourist-tax-exploring-the-rise-of-visitor-levies-and-foreign-property-charges/
    • Pretty much, Sue, yeah. It's the perennial, knotty problem of imposing a tax and balancing that with the cost of collecting it.  The famous one was the dog licence - I think it was 37 1/2 pence when it was abolished, but the revenue didn't' come close to covering the administration costs. As much I'd love to have a Stasi patrolling the South Bank, looking for mullet haircuts, unshaven armpits, overly expressive hand movements and red Kicker shoes, I'm afraid your modern Continental is almost indistinguishable from your modern Londoner. That's Schengen for you. So you couldn't justify it from an ROI point of view, really. This scheme seems a pretty good idea, overall. It's not perfect, but it's cheap to implement and takes some tax burden off Southwark residents.   'The Man' has got wise to this. It's got bad juju now. If you're looking to rinse medium to large amounts of small denomination notes, there are far better ways. Please drop me a direct message if you'd like to discuss this matter further.   Kind Regards  Dave
    • "What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???" Why is it perceived, Reeves is responsible for doubling the "black hole" to £20b through the public sector pay increases. You can't live beyond your means and when you try you go bankrupt pdq. In 4 yrs time if this Govt survives that long and the country doesn't go bust before then, in 2029 I dread to think the state the country will be in.  At least Sunak and co had inflation back to 2% with unemployment being stable and not rising.   
    • He seemed to me to be fully immersed in the Jeremy Corbyn ethos of the Labour Party. I dint think that (and self describing as a Marxist) would have helped much when Labour was changed under Starmer. There was a purge of people as far left as him that he was lucky to survive once in my opinion.   Stuff like this heavy endorsement of Momentum and Corbyn. It doesn't wash with a party that is in actual government.   https://labourlist.org/2020/04/forward-momentum-weve-launched-to-change-it-from-the-bottom-up/
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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