Okay, who is this?

[SLad]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/google-executive-calls-police-in-neighbour-row-over-4cm-of-wall-a3770841.html?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1519119899

[Earl Aelfheah]

oh dear, oh dear.

[flocker spotter]

I have no horse in this race and this is not my circus or my monkeys, but I am forever glad I do not live next door to an opera singer. nothing personal.

[Siduhe]

There was a thread a few weeks about about an extension company allegedly doing exactly this in ED. No idea if it is the same matter, but the summary is very similar. If the extension company has screwed up, it's equally awful for both sets of neighbours.

[Sue]

It's a load of bollocks. We are talking 4cm. The poor guy seems to have gone out of his way to try to resolve things, and the neighbour has refused mediation.

Having been involved in a disagreement with a "builder" who also refused mediation, I have every sympathy.

Why would somebody who thought they were in the right refuse mediation?

[Calsug]

the real kicker is he just spent a fortune doing up his house and now they have to live next to each other...

[JoeLeg]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's a load of bollocks. We are talking 4cm. The

> poor guy seems to have gone out of his way to try

> to resolve things, and the neighbour has refused

> mediation.

>

> Having been involved in a disagreement with a

> "builder" who also refused mediation, I have every

> sympathy.

>

> Why would somebody who thought they were in the

> right refuse mediation?

Playing ?Devils Advocate? for a moment, it could be argued that this is like IP law - if you don?t defend something consistently and continuously you may lose the right to it.

The neighbour may feel that whether it is 4cm, 4m or 4mm, it matters not - an encroachment has taken place on their land and they want it rectified. Technically (and I stress the word technically) they are correct; you really, really are not supposed to do that, even slightly.

All that said, I agree that refusal to attend any mediation is the best path to everyone else thinking you?re a grade A plonker, to put it mildly.

[keano77]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's a load of bollocks. We are talking 4cm. The

> poor guy seems to have gone out of his way to try

> to resolve things, and the neighbour has refused

> mediation.

>

> Having been involved in a disagreement with a

> "builder" who also refused mediation, I have every

> sympathy.

>

> Why would somebody who thought they were in the

> right refuse mediation?

It?s not quite that simple Sue, as JoeLeg points out above.

Although the photos don?t show any obvious transgression, if the lady is correct about the 4cms it?s a serious trespass. Assume the extension is 8 metres long by 4 metres high = 320,000 cms x a depth of 4cms = a sizeable volume of space has been appropriated from your property.

Secondly, how will the owner maintain the wall without coming onto her property? - potential access issues here for her and any successors.

Bread and butter work for property lawyers

[Sue]

I don't know whether this is the same article, but I read one today via Facebook about this case which said that the neighbour has been causing a considerable noise nuisance, presumably deliberately. Southwark Noise Control have evidently been called out on several occasions.

The council won't act re the alleged encroachment (is that a word?) because they say 4cm is too small an amount to bother with.

So the nuisance neighbour will have to take the allegedly encroaching one to court.

My sympathies are all with the allegedly encroaching one. I don't suppose he instructed his builders to deliberately extend 4cms onto his neighbour's land, if indeed that is what they have done.

And then, as said above, to have to live next to this woman, who sounds horrendous, after having spent a fortune doing up his house ...... poor bloke.

And he probably couldn't even cut his losses and sell the house, even if it was all sorted out, because who would want a neighbour like that, and it has been well publicised :(

ETA: Surely it is the architect, or the builders, at fault? Aren't they then required to put things right or to pay this woman compensation, not the owner of the house? Somebody must have effed up if they got the position of the boundary wrong.

I think the article I read said that they had gone by the position of an existing fence, which the woman now says was not the boundary. But somebody should have checked, surely.

ETA: When I think of all the trauma I have been caused by so-called builders, reading this makes me realise how very very much worse it could have been ..... not that that's much consolation.

[keano77]

I agree Sue. The foundations for the wall ought to have been signed off by both parties, architect, builder, council, etc before the wall was ever built.

Over the years I?ve read about neighbours going to war over a few square feet with the losing party having to sell the property to pay lawyers fees, much to the consternation of the judges who ask how did the case get to that point.

[alice]

There is a new trend where the bullies accuse those they bully of bullying them.

[intexasatthe moment]

We only have one side of the story ,makes a better press article if one side is an out and out villian .Reality might be slightly different .

Planning authorities don't deal with and AFAIK are not interested in boundary disputes .

They will grant PP where a boundary is disputed .

Advice on boundaries https://www.gov.uk/your-property-boundaries

[womanofdulwich]

Isn't this what party wall agreements are all about?

[intexasatthe moment]

I think party wall agreements are targeted at ensuring works carried out on a boundary are agreed and safe . They assume that the line of the boundary has been agreed .

[Sue]

alice Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There is a new trend where the bullies accuse

> those they bully of bullying them.

It's not a new trend.

It's standard practice for bullies, or at least some bullies.

I've been on the other end of it :(

There's a psychological defence mechanism called projection which could in some cases account for this, so I'm never quite sure whether the person concerned realises what they are doing.

You've got to be quite mentally disturbed to be that kind of person anyway, surely.

[Sue]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We only have one side of the story ,makes a better

> press article if one side is an out and out

> villian .Reality might be slightly different .

>

Whilst of course that's true, the woman in question is quoted as having admitted to playing loud music on at least one occasion.

And if what she is quoted in the article as having done to harass her neighbours is untrue, then presumably she could get an apology printed, at least. I'd be a bit surprised if they would publish something like that without being pretty sure it was accurate.

What I can't understand is, if the wall is in fact (and we don't know for sure, do we?) encroaching on her land, why she has apparently waited until it is completely built to make a fuss about it.

The only reason I could think is that she is going to try to wring a vast amount of compensation out of them.

What a nightmare.

[JohnL]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> alice Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > There is a new trend where the bullies accuse

> > those they bully of bullying them.

>

>

> It's not a new trend.

>

> It's standard practice for bullies, or at least

> some bullies.

>

> I've been on the other end of it :(

>

> There's a psychological defence mechanism called

> projection which could in some cases account for

> this, so I'm never quite sure whether the person

> concerned realises what they are doing.

>

> You've got to be quite mentally disturbed to be

> that kind of person anyway, surely.

It's not like anyone really well known does it every day ... Donald J Trump

[uncleglen]

Why is it that someone ALWAYS has to hijack the thread, ANY thread, and use it to attack ANY politician to the right of Jeremy Corbyn- eh? JohnL

[Sue]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why is it that someone ALWAYS has to hijack the

> thread, ANY thread, and use it to attack ANY

> politician to the right of Jeremy Corbyn- eh?

> JohnL

Well, this is the lounge.

[JoeLeg]

Wow, never had UG down as such a snowflake...

[rendelharris]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why is it that someone ALWAYS has to hijack the

> thread, ANY thread, and use it to attack ANY

> politician to the right of Jeremy Corbyn- eh?

> JohnL

Well you're quite capable of hijacking any thread to bang on about either immigrants or grammar schools...

[Sue]

She ?followed a labourer from the address making money signs at him?, the notice stated.

Can anybody tell me what "money signs" are? Is this some code for V signs? :))

Mr Holtgreve also called Southwark council?s noise and anti-social team eight times alleging Mrs Highland was playing loud music.

In view of her name, could this have been bagpipe music? In which case, I feel for poor Mr Holtgreve even more :))

[JohnL]

Sorry Uncleglen I couldn't resist :)

I won't moan if you have a free go at Jezza

[intexasatthe moment]

We don't know what has really gone on here . There are usually two sides to a story .

"And if what she is quoted in the article as having done to harass her neighbours is untrue, then presumably she could get an apology printed, at least. I'd be a bit surprised if they would publish something like that without being pretty sure it was accurate. "

I think the article reports her as admitting to playing music loudly at 4pm and being accused of, in the police notice ,of ?snide comments?, speaking about Mr Holtgreve and his partner ?in a derogatory way?, and ?shouting up at the windows in a provocative manner? and following a labourer from the address making money signs at him?

It doesn't say how these accusations were verified,did the police witness them ?

The last seems ....I don't know ,unlikely? odd ?And the former 3 ....a bit subjective ?

"What I can't understand is, if the wall is in fact (and we don't know for sure, do we?) encroaching on her land, why she has apparently waited until it is completely built to make a fuss about it."

Maybe the wall was built while Mrs Highland was away ,to avoid the noise and disruption ? She says it wasn't built where she had agreed .

What is going on the pic in the ES article where workmen are shown on MrsH's side ,working on the wall ?

We don't know ,we won't know I expect .Still the ES got a good story .

[alice]

It is the bully with most power that makes the counter attack. I therefore think Ms H. will be proved right. Looks like the midline of the brick has been placed on the boundary.