Neighbour refused permission for me to paint her fence

[kingandy2nd]

"OP : Prove it.
Angry neighbour : errrrrrrrmmmmmmm.

In a civil court there is no requirement to provide proof to the same standard as a criminal court - it only needs to be assessed on the balance of probabilities. If the fence was not painted before the neighbour went on holiday but was on their return then they simply need to prove they were on holiday when it happened and I would be very surprised if a judge did not find in their favour. For the fence to be painted someone would need access to the OPs property for a long period of time, and without a police record of a reported break in I doubt the OP would have any chance.

Ok, different scenario:

Angry neighbour : How dare you paint my fence!!
OP : You said I could the day before you went away.
Angry neighbour : No, I didn't
OP : Yes you did
Angry neighbour : No, I didn't
OP : Yes you did - otherwise why would I have gone to all this time and trouble to paint your fence. I acted on your instructions.
Angry neighbour : No, I didn't
OP : Prove it.


Yes civil court is different to criminal court, but the claimant still has to prove or disprove the action of the defendent.

Verbally contracts are legally binding too.

 

[xdave]

OP : Yes you did - otherwise why would I have gone to all this time and trouble to paint your fence. I acted on your instructions.
Angry neighbour : No, I didn't
OP : Prove it.

In the absence of proof the benefit is likely to fall towards the fence owner as they are less likely to give permission then deny it than the other scenario, particularly given the previous refusals. The balance of probabilities can be worked out on paper if there is no actual evidence. Is it fair? Not always - but it is designed to allow for exactly the kind of scenario you describe where the defendant is being deliberately vexatious and dishonest.

Defending yourself in a civil court against a claim when neither side has documentary proof is not as easy as you make out, even when you genuinely have done nothing wrong. A member of my family has been there and lost for a situation far more bizarre than painting a fence without permission and lost their home as a result (with an appeal date in around 80 years time thanks to the ludicrous property courts in this country).

Meanwhile, as well as the costs of defending themselves, the OP in your scenario is now left with a declarable dispute against their property and the loss of value attached to that.

The only way the OP can come out of their situation favourable is to either erect another fence bang against the boundary line, or obscure with plants (and preferably the latter). Any other scenario could end up costing them more than the cost of the best fence money can buy. If they have that sort of money to throw around then they should take a nice holiday for six months and forget all about their angry neighbour...

 

[Deleted2797112]

Yes civil court is different to criminal court, but the claimant still has to prove or disprove the action of the defendent.

Crossposted with xdave who answered far better than I ever could.

 

[kingandy2nd]

Sorry, someone could not lose their home because the painted another person’s fence. You are arguing to the nth degree of extreme.

Yes, what I have suggested is a dishonest act on the part of the OP – but in the big scheme of things who really cares.

For such a small civil case, even if it were to come to court, there would be the onus on the claimant to demonstrate loss or injury from the action of the defendant. The angry neighbour can not see the affected side of the fence, and thus there is no loss of enjoyment. In fact the angry neighbour would actually benefit from the OP’s side of the fence being painted in order to preserve its serviceable life. Therefore no loss / injury and thus no damages to seek and no case to answer. Exemplary damages would be out of the question for this case.

Should the angry neighbour ever realise the fence has been painted, then yes she will probably be pretty irked and the following could happen – in descending order of likeliness:

Angry neighbour has rant at OP about fence.
Angry neighbour could never speak to the OP again.
Angry neighbour could call the police – police advise it’s a civil manner
Angry neighbour could seek legal advice about civil case
Angry neighbour could decide that they want to the have the cost/expense of bringing a claim which they may or may not win
Angry neighbour raises civil case
Angry neighbour needs to demonstrate what loss has occurred in order to request damages.
Sensible judge throws petty dispute where no loss has occurred out of court.
Angry neighbour brings case to court which OP settles by compensating angry neighbour for cost of fence
Angry neighbour brings cases to court which OP contests and angry neighbour wins compensation and costs.
OP appeals through various appeal courts until eventually some slimy lawyer takes the case on with some kind of Human Rights violation for the OP.
European courts over rules UK courts and OP is vindicated
UKIP wins general election, ECJ rulings declared void and OP has to replace fence with new/untreated panels.
But by this point it doesn’t matter any way because the icecaps have melted due to Global Warming and both Angry Neighbour and Op’s gardens are now under 8 feet of water.



Yes I know what you’re saying is true but the fact of the matter is that all sorts could happen, but I bet it wouldn’t go past the first or second step

 

[Deleted2797112]

But why risk it even going to the first or second step? Why not try to mend fences (pardon the pun )?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As for informing potential buyers of disputes, unless she does something "official", does it count as a "dispute"?

Yes it does. A silly dispute over a fence or hedge can knock 10% off a sale price when declared. Assuming a national average price of £180k would you risk a dispute that could cost you £18k?

With nothing "official", there is no record of any dispute. Everything is deniable.

If I painted the passenger side of your car would you be happy to say "oh well, never mind" as you can only see it from your neighbour's drive? Of course not, you would sue them for criminal damage and the cost of respraying your car.

My correspondence with you is now closed, because you are being unbelievably stupid.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Ok, different scenario:

Angry neighbour : How dare you paint my fence!!
OP : You said I could the day before you went away.
Angry neighbour : No, I didn't
OP : Yes you did
Angry neighbour : No, I didn't
OP : Yes you did - otherwise why would I have gone to all this time and trouble to paint your fence. I acted on your instructions.
Angry neighbour : No, I didn't
OP : Prove it.

Another one.

AN : How dare you paint my fence!!
OP : But your husband came round and said it was OK, just to keep it low key so that you didn't notice, and that you'd soon forget about it.

 

[xdave]

With nothing "official", there is no record of any dispute. Everything is deniable.

Which is in itself a dispute...

AN : How dare you paint my fence!!
OP : But your husband came round and said it was OK, just to keep it low key so that you didn't notice, and that you'd soon forget about it.

The AN would then check with her husband who would either (hopefully) lie to keep the peace (the OP wins) or deny it in which case the balance of probabilities would find it unlikely the AN would issue and then withdraw consent given the previous firm statement that permission would not be granted. Remember the neighbour has issued a written statement asserting their rights and will have a dated copy of it and possibly proof of delivery.

My correspondence with you is now closed, because you are being unbelievably stupid.

How about painting the side wall of your neighbours house when it is not a party wall? A few houses up from mine did just that before selling up (owner deceased) and when the neighbour found out a few months later the new owners had to pay four figures to get it repaired and are now suing the vendor for the costs. It was a bare brick wall and as the paint could not be removed it had to be rendered. This sort of thing happens more often than you may think. Ask a local fencing contractor how many jobs he does to replace fences that have been 'protected' with water entrapping sealants. Neighbours following your advice keep most of them in business.

Or to stick with cars - what about that case last year where five-figure costs were awarded to a claimant when his neighbour sprayed his own fence with a treatment that blew all over the claimants house, car, and garden? A re-spray is not cheap, but the re-landscaping costs dwarfed them. Apparently fencing stains don't come off of sandstone. (Search the Gardenlaw forums to read the fun discussion about that one.)

The OP here has already indicated that they are going to take the correct action (both legally and ethically) and not touch their neighbours property. Nobody here should advise anyone to willingly break the law, whether it be criminal or common law, and where such action is suggested it should be challenged. At the end of the day people are free to make up their own minds but if they come here asking for help then they should be given help, not be fed a bunch of rubbish that can escalate an already tense situation into an unnecessary financial loss for themselves, not to mention the stress of living with a dispute. The OP asked for clarification, received it, and has acted correctly.

 

[Deleted2797112]

Apologies for bumping an old and contentious thread but thought it was worth putting this here.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Good for him, stupid cow painting his fence white. Hope she gets a record.