Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Better version attached with the late appeal explained more clearly for the judge. This will sound silly, but I think it would be a good idea to e-mail it to the court and UKPC on Sunday.  It's probably me being daft, but Sunday is still March, and as it's late, sending it in March rather than April will make it sound like it was less late than it really is.  if you get my drift. You can still pop in a paper version on Tuesday if you want. E-mail address for the court: [email protected] And for UKPC: [email protected]   [email protected] Defendant WS.pdf
    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
  • 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
      • 160 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 4659 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...