David J wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:00:10 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

Pat wrote:

One possible complication is that the boundary, as defined by the
original ditch, runs closer to the road at the front of my property
than at the front of my neighbours property. The original ditch
(and hedges) did a zig zag away from the road starting just before,
and continuing, under my drive. The neighbour has, some years ago,
claimed that as justification for allowing their hedge to grow
outwards. The view past my hedge has always been slightly
restricted but any traffic is on the opposite side of the road.
The view past my neighbour's hedge used to be completely
unrestricted making exiting from my drive very safe.

Has anyone a legal reference that could be used in a complaint to my
neighbours?

What most people do is get someone to see them out safely.

If that's not possible, what most people do is erect a mirror on a
stick.

Would you really rather have have a neighbour dispute than do either
of those?

If we all took that attitude then the bullies of this world wouild
walk all over us - is that what you approve of?

No.

Make the wretch cut back his hedge to his legal boundary. That's what
I would do.

Excellent. But the question is how.

What do you suggest?

On 13 Aug, 12:40, Martin Bonner wrote:
On Aug 13, 11:55 am, David J wrote:

Make the wretch cut back his hedge to his legal boundary. *That's what
I would do.

Really? *The legal boundary of his property is almost /certainly/ the
centre-line of the highway. *(It always has been in all the houses I
have owned).

It "almost /certainly/" isn't.

The problem is that the hedge is extending into the highway (which
includes the verges) - not that it extends beyond his property.

On 12 Aug, 20:55, "Pat" wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message

...





Pat wrote:

One possible complication is that the boundary, as defined by the
original ditch, runs closer to the road at the front of my property
than at the front of my neighbours property. *The original ditch (and
hedges) did a zig zag away from the road starting just before, and
continuing, under my drive. The neighbour has, some years ago,
claimed that as justification for allowing their hedge to grow
outwards. *The view past my hedge has always been slightly restricted
but any traffic is on the opposite side of the road. *The view past
my neighbour's hedge used to be completely unrestricted making
exiting from my drive very safe.

Has anyone a legal reference that could be used in a complaint to my
neighbours?

What most people do is get someone to see them out safely.

Highly inconvenient most of the time and often totally impractical.

If that's not possible, what most people do is erect a mirror on a stick.

Indeed, and that might be the final solution.

Would you really rather have have a neighbour dispute than do either of
those?

Why is asking, with an appropriate legal reference if available, likely to
cause a neighbour dispute? *I have been asking, nicely and politely, each
year for possibly 20 years as the lack of visibility has moved from
inconvenience to significant hazard, we haven't yet fallen out.

To erect a mirror on a stick needs official approval. *From some of the
other posts it seems the officials may investigate before giving approval,
perhaps to seek another solution. *Official involvement may well cause a
neighbour dispute, which is what I am trying to avoid.

I interpret the gist of your post as being that anyone can encroach
significantly (six feet or more) on the grass verge outside their property
with impunity. *Is that a correct interpretion and, if it is, has anyone any
comments regarding that.

A lot of Japanese pick up trucks have a windscreen at the very front
of the vehicle. If you could find one with a windscreen that winds
down you could stick your head out of it and look both ways.

On Aug 13, 3:05 pm, wrote:
On 13 Aug, 12:40, Martin Bonner wrote:

On Aug 13, 11:55 am, David J wrote:

Make the wretch cut back his hedge to his legal boundary. That's what
I would do.

Really? The legal boundary of his property is almost /certainly/ the
centre-line of the highway. (It always has been in all the houses I
have owned).

It "almost /certainly/" isn't.

What makes you say that? As I said, all the houses I have bought have
had legal boundaries that extend to the middle of the highway. My
understanding was that this was the normal rule.

Of course, although the land is "mine", I have essentially no rights
over the highway (apart from those rights that any member of the
public has).

Martin Bonner wrote:
On Aug 13, 3:05 pm, wrote:
On 13 Aug, 12:40, Martin Bonner wrote:

On Aug 13, 11:55 am, David J wrote:
Make the wretch cut back his hedge to his legal boundary. That's what
I would do.
Really? The legal boundary of his property is almost /certainly/ the
centre-line of the highway. (It always has been in all the houses I
have owned).
It "almost /certainly/" isn't.

What makes you say that? As I said, all the houses I have bought have
had legal boundaries that extend to the middle of the highway. My
understanding was that this was the normal rule.

My deeds show the boundary (plot outlined in red) at the property edge
of the verge. Checking back to 1923, when the land was fields, the red
line is still at the property edge of the verge.

Of course, although the land is "mine", I have essentially no rights
over the highway (apart from those rights that any member of the
public has).

Can any ordinary member of the public insist that the hedge is cut back
to the indicated boundary "because their ability to use (walk along) the
verge is severely curtailed"?

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

On 15 Aug, 12:40, Martin Bonner wrote:
On Aug 13, 3:05 pm, wrote:

On 13 Aug, 12:40, Martin Bonner wrote:

On Aug 13, 11:55 am, David J wrote:

Make the wretch cut back his hedge to his legal boundary. *That's what
I would do.

Really? *The legal boundary of his property is almost /certainly/ the
centre-line of the highway. *(It always has been in all the houses I
have owned).

It "almost /certainly/" isn't.

What makes you say that? *As I said, all the houses I have bought have
had legal boundaries that extend to the middle of the highway. *My
understanding was that this was the normal rule.

Of course, although the land is "mine", I have essentially no rights
over the highway (apart from those rights that any member of the
public has).

When we bought our house, it was explained to me by the solicitor that
when a house is newly built, the legal boundary extends to the centre
of the highway, as you say.
However, as soon as the LA adopts the road, each householder forfeits
the section that includes the road and pavement to the LA.
In exchange for "giving" them that land, they agree to undertake
maintenance of in in perpetuity.
Our boundary therefore is at the junction of my lawn and the pavement.
I think the deeds do still show the boundary going to the centre of
the road, thus the reason for explaining to me why in practice it has
moved and is now at the end of my lawn. I no longer "own" that section
that is the highway.

BobC

In message
, at
09:10:09 on Sat, 16 Aug 2008, BobC remarked:
When we bought our house, it was explained to me by the solicitor that
when a house is newly built, the legal boundary extends to the centre
of the highway, as you say.
However, as soon as the LA adopts the road, each householder forfeits
the section that includes the road and pavement to the LA.
In exchange for "giving" them that land, they agree to undertake
maintenance of in in perpetuity.

When I last bought a new house it was slightly worse than that.

The (short cul-de-sac) road outside the house was "open plan" and did
not have a pavement, and most of the utilities ran along the five feet
of lawn bordering the road.

Not only did those five feet also belong to the council when adopted, we
had some covenants not to plant anything whose roots might interfere
with the utilities.
--
Roland Perry