yes I think you are right there. The trespass might just be an opening gambit by your neighbour.There seems to be 2 parallel and maybe unrelated issues.
- Alleged Trespassing.
- Water flowing onto the neighbours roof from our roof.
Latest developments in this issue,
Due to heavy rain this evening water is falling from the gulley on our roof onto the roof of the neighbours kitchen extension down below.
They called to the door saying that their insurance company said that in the event of flooding we'd be liable because of the trespass. We agreed that it was the previous owner who should ultimately be liable. I offered the neighbour our solicitor's number but they said they had no reason to ring them.
One question I'd like to know the answer to is....
Say, if there is no trespass and the water from our gulley was flowing onto the neighbours kitchen extension below. Would we be liable?
There seems to be 2 parallel and maybe unrelated issues.
- Alleged Trespassing.
- Water flowing onto the neighbours roof from our roof.
Thanks everyone for your informed replies,
I'm still a bit puzzled though, hypothetically say if we were having mortgage problems (which thankfully we're not). The bank could then try and sell the house, but if there was a trespass, the neighbour could potentially stop the sale.
Would the bank not have wanted the solicitor to cover off this eventuality before releasing the funds for the original purchase?
In other words, the solicitor would have been responsible for satisfying the bank that the house was good to go.
They called to the door saying that their insurance company said that in the event of flooding we'd be liable because of the trespass.
I was asking ONQ as this chapter is popping up everywhere....Thanks for your contribution hastalavista. The extension was carried out by the previous owner of our house, so don't really know the full history but to the best of my knowledge see answers below in red.
28 posts later and still no detail of the actual trespass.
Well alleged trespass to be exact.I mean physical detail as opposed to legal
Is the extension in question a 2 storey one that was built on the boundary wall and that the overhang is the soffit boards and the gutter.
Yes extension was a 2 storey, and from the front of the house we can visibly see that the garage is on the neighbours side of the wall, on top of this there is an overhang by the soffits and the gutter. I've learnt that the wall was built after the extension, so whether that truly represents the boundary is still an open issue. Am confused here. what wall was built after the extension. The other thing that could be drawn from what you wrote is that the 2nd story was built over the existing garage and that the original garage perimeter always 'overhung' the neighbours or was the garage part of the extension
After this was built the neighbour built single storey against this and this is the roof that is getting extra water when the gutter overflows?
Yes, this would be the one thing we can definitely be sure of.
The other question is does it have planning?
I don't know 100%, but having spoken to our solicitor I guess it has. They said they were looking at an up to date plot map (which has the extension visible on it) and they can't see a trespass. However, they said that because of the scale of the map, we should hire an engineer to give an 'on the ground' inspection. Would have thought the original surveyor in conjunction with the solicitor should have done this.
The plot map will only show the plan so if there was already a garage there...
Establishing PP is a question of fact and not supposition. put ur address into the COCO/LA website. Your advisors on the purchase are in CTA mode so there is no point in relying on them or wondering 'should': the fact is they didnt...
What's the relevance of Cht 3 in this case?
Please let me know.
.. If the separate issue of alleged trespass is raised again we'll engage a solicitor at that point.
Thanks onq,
Carried out bedtime reading of Chapter 3 as recommended.
However, can't see how any of relates to us directly, as it was the previous 'building owner' and not us who carried out the 'work order' or extension. Indeed, the 'adjoining owner' has also moved on and is not the current neighbour.
Seems there is a bit of history involved here and if necessary previous owner of our house will have to have their solicitor notified.
However, for the moment, my wife and I have decided to carry out work on our roof to ensure that any rain flows down our side of the boundary and not onto the neighbour's extension. If the separate issue of alleged trespass is raised again, we'll engage a solicitor at that point. If there is a trespass, then from what I ascertained from Chapter 3, the 'building owner' who carried out the 'work order' or extension will be notified.
If u do this, based on my interpretation of what is there now, Chpt 3 will apply as you are now the 'aggressor' (for the want of a better word) and your neighbour is the 'victim" of your aggression.
How could this possibly be, we would merely be carrying out routine work on the dwelling that we own. Is this not allowed? If not the law must really be an ass.
This may in fact what your neighbor wants, to provoke a repair job that will allow him unleash his rights under Chpt 3.
The 'repair' job has nothing to do with an alleged trespass. In fact it's not totally a repair job. It's just putting a down-pipe where there wasn't one previously. So it's actually an addition rather than a repair.
IMO looking back is no use because you bought the house and all bets are off vis a vis the previous owner.
I would say that's debatable at least.
For whatever reason, you may have got stuffed here with the purchase,
Again, highly debatable. Bank who lent the money would have got stuffed as well as technically they still own the house (until the mortgage is paid off).
however if you 'provoke' your neighbour.
Proceed with care.
Couldn't agree more, at least on my part.All very well but please consult a solicitor at the earliest possible stage.
Remember most advice/commentary here on AAM is really only marginally better than the bar stool musings of a barrack room lawyer. (with due respect to ONG and Hasta)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?