Have they crossed the line?

[mattylad]

AFAIK the law expects you to enclose your land to its extents, if you did not do so then you gifted your neighbours a few inches.

However, dont fret over it - there are more important things to worry about than that - such as whats on TV tonight

 

[misterhelpful]

However, dont fret over it...

I'm not!

...there are more important things to worry about than that - such as whats on TV tonight

The trouble is there's s0d all and so I'm starting to worry over why I'm paying Sky so much to not watch it!

 

[studips]

...hence why i said the neighbour can object

If the neighbour dosent object the wall can go astride the boundary

No. Don't confuse the PWA with normal property law

A person owns the land within his boundaries and the PWA does not give rights to build on that land.

Agreement under the PWA is not agreement to build on land which the building owner does not own

i know this is off at another tangent altogether, but isn't there something about none of us actually owning any land - it's really just ours for life & the crown actually owns it? that just surfaced from the swamp that is my memory - i seem to recall listening to an article about it a few years ago.

 

[^woody^]

No, the law of property clearly deals with ownership of land, and the land registry records ownership.

Land owners also own the ground beneath and air above, but the Crown has mining and flying over rights

 

[^woody^]

AFAIK the law expects you to enclose your land to its extents,

There is no such requirement

But a landowner may be responsible for things which escape from or enter his land due to there being no fence or barriers on the boundary to prevent it