Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • In that case I don't think you'd have any grounds for a claim against the receiver, short of anything actually criminal. The receiver was appointed by the lender so any claim you make should be aginst them. How much equity do you reckon there was when they took possession? Realistic value less outstanding balance (including arrears).  This messing around makes me wonder even more if the property was wildly over valued. Normally a lender would sell and not really care if they got the best price so long as they covered the balance plus their costs. 
    • Hey @lookinforinfo I'm not sure, I don't believe he told them he's the driver. He must have selected an option saying that he's appealing on behalf of the driver or something of the sort. In more news, however, these wannabe thugs are back at it again. Honestly, what a joke. In the letter they sent before this it said they had made "2 attempts" and in this letter they said "4 attempts", I wonder what happened to the "3rd attempt" lol.  WhatsApp Image 2024-04-18 at 14.06.07_44abc9c8.pdf
    • Hi all, I purchased a car in January from Big Motoring World Leeds. At the time of sale I was shown a tab on the salespersons computer marked 'service history' and I was able to take comfort knowing that the car had been serviced on 3 occasions as the date, mileage and company was there on screen. Being a 3 and a bit year old car that, in my mind, constituted full service history 🤷‍♂️ Anyway, collected the car a week later. Once home I settled down to through the book pack etc. Opened the service history booklet and it was completely blank. In addition there were no invoices detailing that any services had been done. I duly contacted BMW and asked them to supply me with proof of service history. They responded saying that on their 'vehicle documentation checklist' I had ticked and then signed to the fact that I had seen the service history and that I was happy with it. I dug out this checklist and what it actually states is 'seen service history online' which I had in the showroom. BMW seem to think that this satisfies their responsibility in providing service history. The reality is that I don't have any proof that the vehicle has ever been serviced! For my own peace of mind I ended up paying for a service that satisfied the manufacturers maintenance schedule to the tune of £330. I even complained to the finance company that the vehicle contravenes the Sale of Goods act 2015 as l, in effect, ot is not as described. Amazingly they weren't interested and instead I just got an email stating that it's not illegal to sell a vehicle without service history and that servicing costs were part and parcel of vehicle ownership. I've since complained to the ombudsman and am awaiting to see if they can help. I have no issue with the car but the treatment and customer service has been the worst I've ever experienced. I don't really know what to do next as I really do feel aggrieved that I've had to pay to service a car that should have already been serviced. Can anyone point me in the right direction please? 🙏
    • Fraudsters copy the details of firms we authorise to try and convince people that their firm is genuine. Find out why you shouldn’t deal with this clone firm.View the full article
  • 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 4679 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...