Having Just Watched The Film 'Dont Look...
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Property boundary
My back garden has a hedge with a long established ditch just the other side of it and a playing field beyond that. Obviously anyone would put a hedge or something at the bottom of their garden, but who should be responsible for the ditch? It has been suggested to me that the ditch is also my responsibility. Does any reader have knowledge/experience of this kind of situation please?
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
From: http://www.p
13:08 Sun 28th Oct 2012
Have you got your deeds? If the property is registered, its quite cheap to get an electronic copy from the land registry. make sure you use the .gov website as there are loads of private ones who will charge you a fee on top of the LR fee.
http://www.landregistry.gov.uk
http://www.landregistry.gov.uk
Traditionally, the owner of the hedge is the owner of the ditch on the basis that the landowner dug the ditch at the boundary line, throwing the excavated soil back onto his own land. This created a bank on which the hedge was grown.
As I said, this is the traditional view. Others would argue differently.
As I said, this is the traditional view. Others would argue differently.
From: http://
There are certain presumptions which assist the inferences which may be drawn from the topographical features. Perhaps the best known is the one which is drawn from the existence along the boundary of a hedge and a ditch. In such a case, it is presumed that the boundary lies along the edge of the ditch on the far side from the hedge. The basis of this presumption was explained by Lawrence J. in Vowles v. Miller (1810) 3 Taunt. 137, 138:
"The rule about ditching is this: No man, making a ditch, can cut into his neighbour's soil, but usually he cuts it to the very extremity of his own land: he is of course bound to throw the soil which he digs out, upon his own land; and often, if he likes it, he plants a hedge on top of it . . . ."
There are certain presumptions which assist the inferences which may be drawn from the topographical features. Perhaps the best known is the one which is drawn from the existence along the boundary of a hedge and a ditch. In such a case, it is presumed that the boundary lies along the edge of the ditch on the far side from the hedge. The basis of this presumption was explained by Lawrence J. in Vowles v. Miller (1810) 3 Taunt. 137, 138:
"The rule about ditching is this: No man, making a ditch, can cut into his neighbour's soil, but usually he cuts it to the very extremity of his own land: he is of course bound to throw the soil which he digs out, upon his own land; and often, if he likes it, he plants a hedge on top of it . . . ."
Graham W has this spot on; I can confirm that I have applied this to my advantage in the situation that involved the highways department of a local authority (so it is likely to be correct), in relationship to where the public highway starts and my land ends.
In the absence of any legal document to the contrary, the common law position is that the boundary is on the far side of the ditch (from where the raised bank/hedge is). It is exactly for the reason that Graham W gives.
In the absence of any legal document to the contrary, the common law position is that the boundary is on the far side of the ditch (from where the raised bank/hedge is). It is exactly for the reason that Graham W gives.
1 to 8 of 8
