Hip roof to pitch.Neighbor problems.Advice please.

[Bouba]

Hi,
Please advice the best solution to this problem my mother is facing.Will hire someone with the knowledge,but want to know what is really involved.

Mum has recently been having some problems with her new neighbors who are a young couple.She has lived there for 43 years and never had a problem.

The problem we have now is the roof of the rear room.It is a typical rear addition room on a victorian house, which extends beyond the house wall by 1 metre or so.This room has a hip roof, whose hip sits beyond the boundary line.The neighbors are now saying that this is encroaching their land.

This hip roof was done back in 2000 when the previous owners of the adjoining property build their extension inside their boundary line.Mother's roof was done at the same time .The hip of the roof is actually above their flat roof to protect from rain. There is a sliding door under this roof atm,which seems to have 2x(2x4) on which the roof is being supported.


If i remove this roof and have a lean to roof, there will a gap in between the 2 houses.Who will be responsible for damp problems.The neighbor seems ok,and said that they just want to get things sorted so everyone is happy.Mother is 69 and seems to be losing her sleep due to this problem,and has asked me for help and support.Thank you.

 

[SimonH2]

Could be interesting.
Just point out that it was built with the permission of the previous owner (I assume that's the case), and they bought the property with that overhang already in place. If that doesn't see them off, then point out that if they "get legal" then they will lose and you will claim all legal costs from them - ie it will be very expensive for them and nothing will change.

 

[Bouba]

There is no paperwork to say so.The previous neighbor's did verbally agree with my mother.When you say nothing will change,i assume you mean it will still stay as it is.The new owners are saying that as the hip roof is overhanging on their land,my mother must move it and keep it on her side.
Thanks.

 

[SimonH2]

They are wrong.
There does not need to be any paperwork - a verbal agreement is just as valid in law (just harder to prove).

If they go to law, they would have to show that there was no such agreement - which I'd suggest would be difficult if the previous owner did nothing about the trespass.
Even if they showed that there was a trespass, they would then need to prove a loss (as that's all they can claim AUIU), and persuade a judge that chopping back the roof would be a proportionate remedy. The only ones to gain from this would be the lawyers

And of course, they'd have to answer the question: if you didn't like the way the neighbour's roof overhangs the property, then why did you buy it ?

 

[Bouba]

Thanks Simon.

Spoken to mother and she says she does not want to fall out with the new ones.She insists if it is overhanging then we should move it, as technically it is wrong.You might be correct about the law, but if we do decide to move the roof,and put it on our side what do we do about the gap left.

Obviously we need to serve party wall to raise the party wall which will be another expense,and possibly open another can or worms.

Any easy solution please if we decide to change this roof from hip to gable.The whole of solid party wall atm is covered by the roof on our side.

 

[SimonH2]

Sorry but that's a ridiculous idea - spending a fortune altering your house just because the new neighbour doesn't like what they bought.

Just write a letter to the neighbours and put the following points :

* The roof was built like that with the full agreement of the then owner of the neighbour's property.
* As the new neighbours bought the property with the full knowledge of the building arrangement, they have no grounds for complaint now.
* As it's been like that for 14 years with the full agreement of the previous landowner, they have no grounds for complaint.
• If they check with a solicitor and ask the right questions, then their solicitor will tell them the same thing.

With any luck that will get them to shut up.
But please try and convince your mother that the way to deal with it is not to waste good money making completely unnecessary alterations.

 

[SimonH2]

BTW - I assume their only reason is "it's over our land" and they aren't planning works that the roof would interfere with ?

 

[tony1851]

+1 to what Simon has stated.

Technically, the encroachment (ie the overhanging bit) would constitute trespass. The only remedy the neighbour would have in this instance is to apply to the court for an injunction to have the encroaching part removed.

However, an injunction is a discretionary remedy and in the circumstances of this case, a judge would never give the neighbour an injunction. When considering this remedy, a judge has to take into account - among other matters - the behaviour of the parties. As the encroachment has been there 14 years, and as the neighbours moved into the property knowing full-well about this, a judge would remind them that they bought the property on this understanding.

But this affair will never get to court anyway; as above, the neighbour's solicitor will point all this out to them.

 

[dishman]

I agree with the above. Do not let the bully you (or your mother) into ripping down the existing guttering just to satisfy them.

If this was a situation where you were building now, then no question you would have to ensure it is on your side of the boundary. This is the very reason why these things should be avoided by formally sorting and agreeing it at the time.

I had this same issue with my neighbours. Their builders were being very unclear as to their intentions. So I formally wrote a letter stating I did not give them permission to have any eaves or gutter overhang nor any foundations on my side of the boundary.

However in your case...it has been their for fourteen years and was agreed verbally! They bought the house based on the existing layout.

If there is no "gain" from this extra space, one wonders why the have just noticed or are suddenly bothered by it. How big and/or old is their flat roof extension? Are they planning to replace it with a new extension? Hence they have looked more closely at it and have realised they can get an extra bit of space. If the current space is inaccessible or non-existent why would they bother bringing it up as an issue.

Without escalating the issue. I would get some decent pictures of the area in question, just in case they try to take matters in to their own hands in the misguided belief they can take down your guttering or something.

 

[SimonH2]

If there is no "gain" from this extra space, one wonders why the have just noticed or are suddenly bothered by it. How big and/or old is their flat roof extension? Are they planning to replace it with a new extension? Hence they have looked more closely at it and have realised they can get an extra bit of space.

That's the only reason I can think of, and so they are trying to get the OPs mother to alter the roof at her expense. What they should really do in that situation is discuss their plans and ask if they can alter the roof as part of their works. I don't think any reasonable person would not consider that.

I suspect some people have read/seen/heard "facts" about trespass and think they have more rights/less responsibilities than they actually do.

 

[noseall]

I agree with the above. Do not let the bully you (or your mother) into ripping down the existing guttering just to satisfy them.

Bully? I am reading this thread with growing unease.

What if it was the other way around? What if a meek single mom had moved in next door and the owner of the overhang was a loudmouth who likes to push his weight around? And what if this single mom wished to extend her property vertically?

There is no disputing that a trespass does exist. The neighbours are not at fault here and have every right to be concerned.

 

[SimonH2]

Bully? I am reading this thread with growing unease.

Perhaps "bully" isn't the right word. But clearly the neighbours have moved in, and it appears that the OPs mum is thinking of spending money to do what the neighbours want to avoid any conflict. It does sound like she's "of an age" where it would be very easy for someone to persuade her that she's in the wrong and "must" do it.

What if it was the other way around? What if a meek single mom had moved in next door and the owner of the overhang was a loudmouth who likes to push his weight around? And what if this single mom wished to extend her property vertically?

We've seen nothing to suggest that (yet) - and the question has been asked. But if that is the case, then that's how it should be talked about. Just altering the roof to remove an inconsequential (supposed) trespass doesn't make sense.

There is no disputing that a trespass does exist. The neighbours are not at fault here and have every right to be concerned.

Yes, the neighbours are at fault. They bought the property, and the situation should have been readily apparently before they bought. If they were concerned then they should have asked for clarification before buying - at which point they would (unless the vendor was dishonest) have found that there is an express licence in place, which in the absence of an agreed end date/time is irrevocable by the licensor.

If they failed to see the situation, or failed to ask, then that is 100% their own fault. It does remind me of the situation where someone buys a house near to {airport|major road|sports ground|whatever] and then tries to get the bothersome activity stopped - there are plenty of cases of people moving in next to a small airfield and then trying to get it closed because of the "nuisance".

 

[bernardgreen]

It was bought as seen and unless the matter of the overhang was bought up before the sale then the new people have little if any claim to have the over hang removed.

 

[noseall]

I kinda agree with both of the above but the airport analogy is pants. An airport would be considered more permanent than a 'cosmetic' overhang.

I'm pretty sure that there would have been a clause in the agreement which in the event the neighbour wished to re-claim their space (via say an extension) then they would be perfectly within the rights to do so.

Would there be a time limit on the ovehanging space claim?

 

[bernardgreen]

The term "flying freehold" may be applicable here.

Flying freehold is an English legal term to describe a freehold which overhangs or underlies another freehold. Common cases include a room situated above a shared passageway in a semi-detached house, or a balcony which extends over a neighbouring property.

If a flying freehold has been established before the house next door was sold then any claim would be against the seller for not declaring it to the buyer.