Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Wait for more replies, but that letter to me can be interpreted as a letter before action. Ignoring it can have consequences. The court to impose sanctions for failure in responding to a letter of claim.
    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
    • so a new powerless B2B debt DCA set up less than a month ago with a 99% success rate... operating on a NWNF basis , but charging £30 to set up your use of them. that's gonna last 5mins.... = SPAMMERS AND SCAMMERS. a DCA is NOT a BAILIFF and have  ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT its type. dx      
    • Migrants are caught in China's manufacturing battles with the West, as Beijing tries to save its economy.View the full article
    • You could send an SAR to DCbl on the pretext that you are going for a breach of your GDPR . They should then send the purported letter of discontinuance which may show why it ended up in Gloucester and see if you can get your  costs back on the day. It obviously won't be much but  at least perhaps a small recompense for your wasted day. Not exactly wasted since you had a great win  albeit much sweeter if you had beat them in Court. But a win is a win so well done. We will miss you as it has been almost two years since you first started out on this mission. { I would n't be surprised if the wrong Court was down to DCBL}. I see you said "till the next time" but I am guessing you will be avoiding private patrolled car parks for a while.🙂
  • 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 4678 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...