boundary fence

[joanna37]

we have recently replaced a boundary fence at the front of our house We used the exisiting post holes and follwed the exiting fence line. The neighbour has now asked that we remove the fence as it encrouches on his land. It does by a couple of cms as the original fence was obviously not straight and the new fence replicates this. We financed the fence and did all the work, do we now have to remove the fence as he has requested?

[alexl]

You need a copy of the land deeds. It is common for boundaries to move with fences being taken up and down. I know it's too late now but the deeds should have been consulted before a fence went up IMHO as it can save a lot of problems. Talk to him before doing any more maybe you can reach a compromise.

[hc4361]

The deeds can never show an accuracy of a couple of centimetres.
Tell him it follows the original fence and leave it at that.

[LoftyLottie]

hc4361 is correct. A couple of cms would have no significance to land registry. Boundary lines allow for this. You have used the orginal post holes which is the most important thing. I would just leave it alone.

[factor-fiction]

I agree with the last 2 posters- although I have a horrible feeling an expert like buildersmate or barmaid will be on quoting some cases which suggest otherwise

[buildersmate]

No F30, all except the first answer are right.
In these situations with a difficult neighbour it is sensible to agree with the neighbour what one is doing and/or take photos beforehand, but the LR title plan only shows what are called 'General Boundaries', not an exact boundary line.
Need to tread carefully (whilst declining to change the thing) as boundary disputes that start to involve lawyers are to be avoided at all costs. They have cost people tens of thousands - all over a tiny strip.

[hc4361]

I concur with buildersmate - except that the costs can run it to £100k plus and years of misery.


But in your case if it ever did get to court (doubtful) his claim would be kicked out. I can't think of the legal term but it means it is too insignificant to warrant a judgement.

[factor-fiction]

Is it 'de minimis' you're thinking of, hc4371. I remember something from a long time ago about "the court (or law) doesn't concern itself with trifles" which always suggested a possible bad joke but thankfully I never bothered to use it.

[hc4361]

That's is! Thanks, Factor 30.