Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Who owns the guttering?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4686 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I own a terraced house with guttering along the front and back. My neighbours house is a semi but the house is rotated 90deg to mine so looking from the front you see the side of his house (if that makes sense). He only needs one gutter on the detached side.

 

--/\

/__ \________

|___|_______|

| ----|--------- |

|___|_______|

 

The image above shows his on left, mine on right looking from the front of the house. *ok image didnt turn out right

 

Our guttering runs along the bottom of the roof (as normal) but then extends onto his property by less than a foot and the vertical section runs down onto his property and his drains. Problem is there's a leak on his side on the vertical section and it's clearly damaging/saturating the brick work. If he owns the vertical guttering then clearly it's his problem but I don't want to get a a couple thousand pound bill 6 months down the line if it's my problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally I would suggest guttering is resp of property to which it is affixed, even if it extends over the property line. In this case the single horiz roof guttering benefits both properties. Any repair 'downstream' would be a joint liability, irresp of location. Consider the rules applying to repair of shared boundary fences or sewage pipes. The Deeds may better inform

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd go with Mariner51. Unless access is difficult, guttering repairs are not expensive - and it is possible to buy temporary repair tape from most DY chains. For the sake of a £5 B&Q bill I'd be inclined to patch it and the argue about liability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Consult a Solicitor, because the legal rights of adjoining property owners are determined by the title deeds of the properties, and a lawyer will need to look through the title to your property to try to work it out.

 

You can NOT own guttering that crosses the property boundary, so the Solicitor will try to determine exactly where the boundary of your land runs. You may have an easement, i.e. a right allowing you to use a gutter on the neighbour's land, either an express right or one implied by many years use.

 

But you will need professional assistance to find out, if the legal position was not explained to you when you bought the property.

 

Shared cost of upkeep is a frequent, but not invariable, consequence of this type of shared useage. Again, the title deeds may cast light.

 

Anomolous rights in party structures can exist within Greater London; so the situation may be affected by whether the property is in London.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The downpipe attached to your neighbours property is defo not your responsability and it is up to him to repair.

In fact if any damage is caused to your property because of any leak he will be responsable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The downpipe attached to your neighbours property is defo not your responsability and it is up to him to repair.

In fact if any damage is caused to your property because of any leak he will be responsable.

 

 

What statutory, or case law, authority are you relying on in making such a sweeping statement?

 

The standard form of easement clause which is typically used by solicitors in the case of a terraced or semi-detached property, when the property is built, because of the inevitable presence of party walls and shared drains and gutters in such a case, provides for sharing of the cost of upkeep.

 

You cannot tell what the legal rights are without consulting the title deeds. There may be legal covenants in the deeds, requiring a contribution. There might be a legal rent charge. Or other legal mechanisms. Or certain statutory provisions peculiar to London may apply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

done loads I am a surveyor/structural engineer/cdm co-ordinator and and carry out defect surveys, reports, party wall awards/contracts all the time.

examined all sorts of deeds, never found anything about roof drainage, other than the right to discharge onto adjacent property/land.

The general rule is if its nailed to your property its your responsability.

examined plenty of wayleaves/covenants but never seen one that covered that.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I defer to raydtinu's expertise, I would suggest only the property deeds can define liability if shared guttering is mentioned.

OP indicates some of his roof offrun is carried by the shared gutter before entering the defective downspout, so some water causing damage to his property has fallen on his roof. A sensible solution would be to share downspout repair costs & avoid expensive litigation.The neighbour can equally refer to his Deeds, if favouarable. Deed provisions could be available from Land Registry online for a nominal sum.

Both my adjacent neighbour's foul water feed in to foul weater/sewage pipes under my land. My Deeds indicate each is resp for repair/rodding costs before junction, even if pipes are on my land, costs for repair/removal of obstructions post junction are shared pro rata. I suggest the OP applies a similar solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guttering is the property of the building it is attached to. In this case, your neighbour. Have you even spoken to them about it? If so and they gave the usual British 'not my problem' response, contact your council environmental health department. They will visit, assess and write to him!

Link to post
Share on other sites

well sometimes the sections of guttering do span both properties!

but agree first stance if a problem is with the downpipe attached to adjaent house then they should fix, but if leak is causing damage to yours;

rather than wait for it to escalate just get on with it. Also access is sometimes easier from one side or the other.

Anyway sounds pretty minor and no great cost involved.

Perhaps they should just talk to each other.

mountain and molehill spring to mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can NOT own guttering that crosses the property boundary, so the Solicitor will try to determine exactly where the boundary of your land runs. You may have an easement, i.e. a right allowing you to use a gutter on the neighbour's land, either an express right or one implied by many years use.

 

Not quite.

 

First we can look at S. 62 LPA which, omitting all words not relevant to this thread, says:

 

A conveyance of land, having houses or other buildings thereon, shall be deemed to include and shall by virtue of this Act operate to convey, with the land, houses, or other buildings, all [...] gutters [...] whatsoever, appertaining or reputed to appertain to the land, houses, or other buildings conveyed, or any of them, or any part thereof, or, at the time of conveyance, demised, occupied, or enjoyed with, or reputed or known as part or parcel of or appurtenant to, the land, houses, or other buildings conveyed, or any of them, or any part thereof.

 

Accordingly, if a house is sold where a gutter overhangs land retained by the seller, the gutter must go with the house and belong to its owner. An easement to keep the gutter in place will be implied if not expressly granted.

 

In a case where there are two neighbouring plots in separate ownership and a building is constructed on or near the line of junction so that the gutter extends into the neighbour's airspace, then there will, absent any arrangement to the contrary, be a trespass. The ownership of the gutter remains with the owners of the house to which it is attached. If the gutter is there long enough an easement will eventually be acquired by prescription.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the owner does need to rely on prescription, IIRC the minimum period is twenty years. After the property has been standing for that long, an easement exists by virtue of prescription, if the adjoining owner has not objected by then, e.g. by issuing a writ.

Edited by Ed999
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...