Any obligation to fence boundary?

garbo speaks

Hello,
I have a question about boundary fences. Can a neighbour legally force another neighbour to erect a boundary fence between the two?

Peregrinus

garbo speaks wrote: »

Hello,
I have a question about boundary fences. Can a neighbour legally force another neighbour to erect a boundary fence between the two?

No, barring unusual circumstances.

garbo speaks

Me and my partner have an issue with a neighbour. We have a high row of planting that lies inside our side of the boundary line, but the neighbouring family want us to put up a fence on the exact boundary line (beyond our planting by about a foot). Me and my partner's view is that the planting we already have up is an effective boundary.

Peregrinus

Why do your neighbours think it's your job to put up a boundary fence? Why don't they just put up a fence themselves?

garbo speaks

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why do your neighbours think it's your job to put up a boundary fence? Why don't they just put up a fence themselves?

My sentiments exactly.

Lmklad

Smacks of Trumpismness. Make them over there pay for the wall! The only legal obligation for fencing is on farmers with livestock.

Peregrinus

Lmklad wrote: »

Smacks of Trumpismness. Make them over there pay for the wall! The only legal obligation for fencing is on farmers with livestock.

And, even then, if garbo's planting is stockproof, that would be sufficient "fencing" to comply with any obligation to keep livestock contained.

Peregrinus

garbo speaks wrote: »

My sentiments exactly.

Yes, but what are your neighbour's sentiments? They must have offered some justification for their expectation that you, rather than they, should erect the fence they want.

They're not suggesting, are they, that you should jointly bear the cost of erecting a boundary fence? They are suggesting that it needs to be done, and that you,b but not they, need to pay for it?

Victor

Realise that not having a boundary may compromise your rights. By having the planting as the physical boundary, it may also become the legal boundary by adverse possession. However, there was a contrary case where a fence was erected to one side of a drainage ditch and it was held that adverse possession could not apply, as the ditch could not be 'occupied'.

Lmklad wrote: »

The only legal obligation for fencing is on farmers with livestock.

It's wider than that, e.g. the building regulations, HSA Acts, Explosives Acts impose a requirement to have barriers in certain circumstances, although these circumstances may or may not align perfectly with legal boundaries.

garbo speaks

Victor wrote: »

Realise that not having a boundary may compromise your rights.

In our opinion, the planting is the boundary, even though the actual boundary line is beyond it by around a foot.

Peregrinus

garbo speaks wrote: »

In our opinion, the planting is the boundary, even though the actual boundary line is beyond it by around a foot.

The planting is not the boundary. The planting is just a hedge planted next to the boundary.

Victor's point, though, is that if you and your neighbour both treat the planting as if it were the boundary, and if this goes on for long enough, over time your neighbour may acquire possessory title to the strip of land that runs between the hedge and the original boundary and the hedge, in effect, may become the boundary - i.e. you may lose ownerships of that strip of land.

You may be relaxed about this, in which case, fine. If not, then you may want to take steps to prevent this happening.

CreativeSen

garbo speaks wrote: »

In our opinion, the planting is the boundary, even though the actual boundary line is beyond it by around a foot.

Think of it like squatting. You are not using the foot of space behind the planted bushes, it is yours but you are not using it. In time, after a number of years, your neighbors could potentially take a case to say that you have never used it while they have. They can also say that they asked you to put up a fence, you didnt so a creative solicitor could interpret that as you giving up your claim on that sliver of land....

Property Registration Authority wrote:

Possession of land implies actual occupation of the land, and/or receiving the rents and profits out of lands and generally performing those acts of ownership in relation to the lands that are inconsistent with the interest claimed. Of necessity, this involves dispossession of the owner.

seagull

What have you planted, and is it likely to grow out by a foot so that it reaches the actual boundary? If not, then you are at risk of sacrificing that strip, which might wind up e.g. preventing you building an extension.