Boundary issue

[Dean Lofthouse]

Surely if the neighbours are objecting / declining permission to fell /prune then they are admitting some degree of ownership.

 

It may then be advisable to ask them what degree of ownership they consider they own that gives them the right to object / refuse

[Gary Prentice]

Just had a look on Amazon - £123 for Mynors book, would you say you use it a lot BT? I can have a copy by Saturday with express delivery, I know it'll come in handy for this one and I suspect it'll be something I'll use time & again!

 

The first edition is available for a lot lot less, but will be out of date on odd things due to changes in the T&C.

 

It's not a cheap book but is useful and mine is often referenced. I'll buy the next edition without hesitation.

[peatff]

If the tree is jointly owned as part of the boundary can't either party do whatever they want to their half leaving the other to sort out their side ? If one claims ownership the other should be able to remove any part coming over their boundary as long as they offer what they have removed to the alleged owner to dispose of as they wish, that's how it usually works isn't it ?

[Gary Prentice]

The lawyers need to do their job!

I have never yet met a conveyancing solicitor that could not advise on the location of a boundary and the strategy depends on the result.

If the tree is on your clients side, they can do as they wish.

 

If it lies on the side of the "big" house, they need to be appraised of the structural problems caused by their tree and advised (in the nicest possible way) that if they fail to deal with it, they will be held liable for any losses or damage suffered as a consequence. (The prospect of being on the wrong end of a claim usually brings folk to their senses)

 

If the tree lies on the boundary, then in the same way that the instigator of remedial work on the tree may become liable for any subsequent damage the tree causes, so the "big" house owners may be liable for damage caused by their wilful refusal to remedy a problem caused by a tree growing on the boundary line.

 

The trick is to avoid this becoming the dreaded "point of principle" that sees some folk go to court for the most stupid reasons. The solution is to find a lawyer that can solve problems, not the sort that can cope with a bog standard conveyancing job and nothing else.

 

All good points. The real problem is if it is actually on the boundary.

 

 

From Lemon and Webb;

'if it grows in a hedge which divides the land of A and B, and the roots take nourishment of both their lands, it was adjudged that they are tenants in common of it'

 

Reading Mynors, it would seem that there is no simple solution. Wanton pruning that devalues the value of the tree would lead to a liabilty, if it reduced its aesthetic value based on something like the helliwell system. Let alone if it contributed to the trees early demise.

 

I wonder if the sellers property became devalued, due to the proximity of the tree and the neighbours refusal to remove it, whether a court would make a judgement against them?

[Gary Prentice]

If the tree is jointly owned as part of the boundary can't either party do whatever they want to their half leaving the other to sort out their side ? If one claims ownership the other should be able to remove any part coming over their boundary as long as they offer what they have removed to the alleged owner to dispose of as they wish, that's how it usually works isn't it ?

 

Not in this case, as tenants in common they both have a right to the benefit of the whole tree. One party destroying his half deprives the other of the benefit of the whole.

[hedgesparrow]

how big is the tree eg its girth and height and is it still sitting on this earth bank. you could if its not that big a tree eg under 12inches dia lay it onto bank devon style best of both worlds tree is down but still growing. keeps both parties happy.

[fagus]

As I experienced a sale will not be completed until the boundary lines are established as it will not be known what is being sold or bought by the parties concerned i.e a conveyance plan cannot be completed or registered.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Thanks all for the overwhelming responses (some notably I was very much hoping to hear from having read previous sage counsel on other subjects!)

 

I'll re-read all responses tomorrow AM and expand / reply to each individually.

 

Next step is meeting with the neighbour, we'll see how that pans out and I'll précis outcome when appropriate.

[peatff]

Any actions that caused a loss to the other party would invoke a liability, so invoking the common law rights would be imprudent.

 

Mynors did write a great deal on this subject, as it's not that uncommon, but I can't remember all the details. I'll have a read up and attempt to summarize the facts for you.

 

Isn't the inaction of the large house owners causing a loss of a sale to the other party ? Who decides the aesthetic value of the tree and how much it is devalued by any pruning, do they just pluck a figure out of nowhere ?

[Gary Prentice]

Isn't the inaction of the large house owners causing a loss of a sale to the other party ? Who decides the aesthetic value of the tree and how much it is devalued by any pruning, do they just pluck a figure out of nowhere ?

 

Did you read all of this thread ?

 

Read my post#24, no they don't pluck a figure out of the air. There is, and has been for a number of years , recognised methods to establish quantifiable figures for trees and woodlands . Rodney Helliwell,s system is one (available from the AA) as is CAVAT.