Boundary wall

Eru

OK guys, time for you guys to fill me in on something.

With all these new housing estates going up around eachother at what point does the boundary wall come into play? Does the builder need permission to eract a wall that touches with your property? Can they make you remove an item that overflows the wall even if the item was legally built and previously overlooked an empty field?

For that matter, can your neighbour make a wall bigger or build a wall where say, shrubs or a fence originally existed?

If such work does need to be carried out who has too pay? For example, my neighbour has trees on his side and they grow into my side, I simple cut them back when need be but I have never bothered to go making demands that he does it.

Can a management company make demands of you on behalf of the owner?

This isnt a request for legal advise, its just an area that is increasingly in the news and interests me.

Victor

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Does the builder need permission to eract a wall that touches with your property?

He can go up to, but can't interfere with your property.

Can they make you remove an item that overflows the wall even if the item was legally built and previously overlooked an empty field?

Sounds like a minor trespass. He can insist it is removed.

For that matter, can your neighbour make a wall bigger

Yes, but depending on cicrumstances PP and or agreement may be needed.

or build a wall where say, shrubs or a fence originally existed?

Depends on wher ethe boundary line is. Usually it is the centre of the hedge. If he wants to build a wall, it has to be on his side of the hedge, unless by agreement. Planning permission may be required.

If such work does need to be carried out who has too pay?

Who ever wants it.

For example, my neighbour has trees on his side and they grow into my side, I simple cut them back when need be but I have never bothered to go making demands that he does it.

Generally not a problem. If his tree is a nuisance, you could insist he tame it. Most neighbours just get along.

Can a management company make demands of you on behalf of the owner?

I assume you mean the management company is a neighbour, not your management company. As agent, they can ask. To demand would mean that they are in a better legal position than you.

Eru

Thanks for answering, its all very messy, glad I stick to nice and simple criminal law.

As for management companies, I was actually thinking about new estate (run by management company) V old estate (no company just corporation or council). Theres an arguement with my local (Fingal) crowd giving out and pushing for management companies to be run out of town as they have completely overrun the area and seem to squabble over everything and just do what they like (see other users posts about parking) luckily IM in the middle of an old estate so they dont come near me.

Some of them are crazy, a mate of mine bought an apartment but hes not allowed erect a satelite dish even if its put inside the balcony, for god sake!

civdef

It's funny how many cases that start out as a civil dispute over something like party walls end up as criminal matters.

dermot_sheehan

Victor pretty much has it all covered. An interesting legal nugget, the ability for management companies to exist at all in housing (not appartment) developments is due to an interesting legal device developed by a barrister a few years ago.

Management companies' power comes from the fact that they're your landlord, and you hold a leasehold estate. This is due to the fact that restrictive covenents (i.e. restrictions on your use of land) can not bind your successor in title (person who you sell property to) in a freehold estate. For example, you buy house from developer and enter agreement to abide by the rules and contribute to a management company for the common areas, such an agreement can not bind the person you sell the freehold to. There are exceptions to this rule such as tulk v. moxhay, but I won't go into these. So basically for an arrangement where you need to get successors in title bound to something, you must use a leasehold estate. Since the conditions are in the lease, the successor in title is bound by it. These are typically very long leases 9999 years, etc). Appartments are always leaseholds, you have to bind the successor in title to contribute to the management company and if nothing else support the appartment above him (otherwise he could simply start demolishing walls, it being his land).

All well and good, so why not use leaseholds if you're having a managed estate of houses? The reason is the Land Lord and Tenant (Ground Rents) Act allows leaseholders in residential houses to compulosorary buy out the freehold if certain conditions are met. So people in your estate start to compulsarily buy out the freeholds, stop contributing to the management company, and there's nothing the management company can do.

This was the situation, and prevented gated housing developments in Ireland (since the roads needed to be open to the public to be taken in charge, and needed to be taken in charge since management companies were unworkable).

However an ingenious barrister came up with a solution. When selling houses in the estate you sell the freehold but lease the easements. Easements are property rights other then a right to exclusive possession, such as a right to pass over someone else's land to access your property, right to pass electricity and water pipes, discharge sewage, etc. Any successor in title would have to lease the easements to make any use of the property (otherwise they couldn't access it), and therefore contribute to the management company, and the leasing of the easements was not covered by the land lord and tenant act.


Just a little bit of the complexities of irish land law for you.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

lol - brilliant!

Lplated

Developing the theme of management companies - it may (UNDERLINE) be the case that some of them have questionable legal status. To be precise, there are cases where local authorities required developers, as a condition of planning permission, to set up a management company. In turn, it was required that these man cos carried out tasks that are in law functions of local authorities.

It emerged before Christmas that the Dept of Environ were 'looking at' the issue. Problems arise particularly where X resident has been paying a fee to the man co to carry out services that in law resident X was entitled to receive from a local authority.

Full import of the above remains to be teased out, including, of course, compensation payments to the residents involved. Estimated circa 1,000 developments affecting up to 10,000 residences around Ireland, mostly in the Dublin and Leinster area.

dermot_sheehan

It's amazing what planning authorities think they can get away with. Wouldn't requiring a planning condition to achieve a task not in the interests of the proper planning and development of the area but merely to avoid having to fund a statutory duty contravene Ashbourne Holdings?