Hip roof to pitch.Neighbor problems.Advice please.

[noseall]

Do ANY of these agreements give carte blanche authority to the holder, for ever? Could such an agreement actually exist?

What happens to this agreement once something happens to the agreement holder?

As I have pointed out, there are two sides here and so far all I'm reading is a propensity to side with the property causing a problem.

 

[dishman]

Bully? I am reading this thread with growing unease.

Not my intent. perhaps bully was a bit strong.

I read the thread in the same way as SimonH2. Two new neighbours taking to task an older woman living on her own over something they maybe should have spotted when they bought the property. It does seem they are putting some pressure on this lady to remove it as per Boubas later post about his mother insisting they remove it to avoid bad relations.

I also agree with SimonH2, that if they are planning an new extension. Maybe a compromise can be found as part of their build which will remedy the situation (an alteration of some sort). If they are not planning a build, the offending overhang does not/will never affect them and they are just bringing it up because of the principle, it is a little odd.

As with noseall; I can see this from both sides. My neighbours did not seem to understand why I was concerned about a gutter overhang. I explained that while it may not cause problems now, these things have a habit of becoming problems much later on....as we are finding here.

Maybe find out what they are planning, why it has become an issue and then look for a compromise.

 

[SimonH2]

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.

The principal is the same though - plenty of people are prepared to buy something which they should realise is not to their liking and then make it someone else's problem to change. Less different, in our town there is a tower with a striking clock (many, many years ago it was the Town Hall I believe). Some ****** moved into the town and immediately complained to the council, who said they had no option but to declare it a statutory nuisance - and (against the wishes of the vast majority of existing residents) forced the owner to silence the clock (it was later modified to not strike at night).

The majority of opinion was well and truly in the "if she didn't want to live in earshot of a clock then she shouldn't have moved there". IMO the same applies to the neighbours in this case - if they didn't like what they were moving into then that's their own fault.

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.

Only if it was thought about at the time.Given that it was a verbal agreement, probably of the "no problem, doesn't interfere with my property" sort, then a break clause was probably not thought about.

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

Do ANY of these agreements give carte blanche authority to the holder, for ever? Could such an agreement actually exist?

According to this Wikipedia article any license is irrevocable by the licensor unless there was a break clause when it was agreed. The 10 year rule for adverse possession would not apply in this case since the occupation was with permission.

What happens to this agreement once something happens to the agreement holder?

Nothing, the agreement would simply pass with the property to whoever inherits it. This is much the same as covenants attached to a property - eg a right for neighbours to access their back garden via a "shared" passageway which might be part of your property.

My neighbours did not seem to understand why I was concerned about a gutter overhang. I explained that while it may not cause problems now, these things have a habit of becoming problems much later on....as we are finding here.

That can be dealt with by way of a writtenagreement. Perhaps allowing an overhanging gutter, on condition that it can be moved/removed should you want to build something yourself and it be in the way. In the OPs situation, it sounds like if the neighbours were wanting to build an extension, then the party wall could be raised and the roof converted to a gable end with the now raised party wall as it's gable - or it be shortened a bit and valley gutter formed (though I'm not in favour of those).
While the agreement doesn't have to be written, putting it down on paper is the only way to avoid disagreement later about what terms were agreed.

 

[tony1851]

any claim would be against the seller for not declaring it to the buyer.

The seller may not have been aware of the implicationand there may not have been any dispute over the encroachment. Perhaps any claim would be against the buyers' surveyor for not pointing this out?
Other than that, it's the buyer's fault: caveat emptor and all that.

 

[noseall]

What happens to this agreement once something happens to the agreement holder?

Nothing, the agreement would simply pass with the property to whoever inherits it.

How?

As you have said, everything so far has been w.o.m. "Oh by the way new homeowners, don't worry about the dispute next door whereby your soon-to-be new neighbours are chuntering about your new house overhanging their property, it's all in hand. Rock solid. They ain't gotta leg to stand on. We got it all sown up in a verbal agreement which was agreed with a lady that lived here once".The only thing going in favour of the offenders is the fact that the offending structure exists and has existed for some time.

However, it all seems a bit tenuous to me. From what I have read and from what I have gleaned from here, the only thing stopping the neighbours from removing the 'obstacle' themselves is a bit of hearsay.

I am still of the opinion that the neighbours have a good reason not to accept this trespass and would be within their rights to seek ways to have it removed and at cost to the offender.

The agreement has run its time.

 

[joe-90]

There's a term that solicitors often use.

"The deeds are king".

A neighbour can give temporary permission only unless both parties agree on a particular course of action - then they have to apply to the court to get the deeds changed. If they do not - the agreement terminates with the dissolution of the neighbouring status quo.

When you sell a house there is a question on the form sent by the buyers solicitor asking whether any part of the property overhangs the neighbouring property. It's a yes or no question - you can't not answer it. If the answer is yes - then you must pay for an indemnity policy to cover it's potential removal.

 

[dishman]

SimonH2 wrote:

that can be dealt with by way of a written agreement.

That is exactly what I ended up doing as mentioned in my earlier post.

I wrote a formal response saying "under no circumstances could there be any eave or gutter overhang nor any foundations on my side of the boundary.

That made it formally clear to them and they complied.....just...

They still built as close as they possibly could though, reducing the eave and gutter overhang on the side elevation only to get as much space as possible.

My research showed that if you do not do anything and your let your neighbours build and overhang a gutter, it is a legal quagmire to get it removed after the fact....as we seem to be finding out it in this case....

It would be interesting to see if we can get a definative legal answer to this issue, as it is a very common one that crops up on the forums

 

[tony1851]

I am still of the opinion that the neighbours have a good reason not to accept this trespass and would be within their rights to seek ways to have it removed and at cost to the offender.

That would constitute criminal damage, and the neighbours would end up in the magistrates' court.
The overhang has been there long enough - the neighbours (or their solictor) should have made diligent enquiries before they took the property.

If they want to build a two-storey extension, they will have to build around the overhang; if they loose some width on their extension, that's tough.

(BTW, I know this from personal experience).

 

[joe-90]

How long is long enough?

 

[noseall]

If they want to build a two-storey extension, they will have to build around the overhang; if they loose some width on their extension, that's tough.

(BTW, I know this from personal experience).

Was it tested in court?

 

[jeds]

If they want to build a two-storey extension, they will have to build around the overhang; if they loose some width on their extension, that's tough.

That's not right Tony. An owner has a right to remove overhanging obstructions under the PWA.

My question here is what exactly is the motivation to have this overhang removed. It sounds like it is out the way above a flat roof so how is it causing them any problem.

 

[phatboy]

Isn't this sort of thing exactly what a buyers lawyers and surveyors are paid to pick up on prior to purchase ?!

 

[jeds]

Isn't this sort of thing exactly what a buyers lawyers and surveyors are paid to pick up on prior to purchase ?!

Doubt they had a survey. Most people don't. And a lawyer has no way of knowing if something has been altered without being told. The fact is this doesn't sound like a real issue. Just something in the mind of the young bloke next door.

 

[phatboy]

If a mortgage was used for the purchase, the bank would have appointed a surveyor, although I suppose thats just to protect their investment.

Shouldn't the lawyer visit the site, and check the boundaries, and pick up if any seem to have been altered from the plans?

Maybe we do it differently here...!

 

[joe-90]

There's a question on the disclosure form about overhanging buildings. That's why the people that owned next door didn't want the overhang on their side, so they didn't have to declare it on their sale to the young couple.
She's been stitched up.