A FUMING neighbour who took a fence row to court has seen her plan backfire.
Helen Faber has now been ordered to rip out her patio and central heating after losing a bitter four-year boundary dispute.
The couple took their neighbours to court of a 4ft wide shared pathway[/caption]
Helen Faber and Dominic Miles have been ordered to rip up their patio[/caption]
A judge ruled the fence posed no real nuisance[/caption]
The accountant originally sued the couple next door in 2021 and claimed she couldn’t carry a picnic tray to her garden due to their fence.
Her and partner Dominic Miles, who live in a £375,000 home in Wardington, Oxfordshire, argued their neighbours Richard and Katherine Reid, “narrowed” a path leading to part of their back garden by 40cm.
They said the fence was a “nuisance” and moaned any reduction of their 4ft wide path made life harder.
The path belongs to them, but both sets of neighbours have a right of way over it.
Helen and Dominic claimed they couldn’t carry a “large picnic tray laden with food and drinks…without spilling the drinks” to their patio.
In November 2021 the neighbour row reached boiling point when Dominic became “very aggressive” towards Katherine, a court heard.
Helen took the issue to Oxford County Court where she told Judge Melissa Clarke the fence made a “substantial interference”.
But, the judge did not accept there was any nuisance caused – and instead ruled their patio actually trespassed on the Reid’s property.
Helen and Dominic were also ordered to tear up their central heating system to strip away an oil pipe.
Judge Clarke said: “An oil line running from an oil tank in the Pear Tree Cottage second garden is on, over and under parts of the right of way.
“The claimants now accept that the right of way is owned by Forge Cottage.
“The installation by the claimants of an oil line over the right of way is a trespass on the land of Forge Cottage and the defendants are entitled to an injunction requiring the claimants to remove it.”
She added how the pipeline is “susceptible to damage” and if there were to be any oil leaks, they would contaminate the Reids’ land.
The furious couple then took their case to London’s High Court – where they argued they couldn’t be left without heating and hot water.
And, the determined couple also begged for the fence to be removed once again.
Stephen Taylor, representing the pair, told the court: “The judge was wrong because it cannot be said to be unreasonable for the claimants to insist on being able to use the disputed way when carrying a 1m wide chattel, for example a picnic tray with full glasses thereon.
“The pre-existing fence respected the 4ft width of the disputed way.
“The 2021 fence had reduced the disputed way to 2ft 3in at its narrowest point (and) rendered it difficult to traverse, particularly when transporting logs, garden waste and wheelie bins.”
“A 4ft way can be conveniently used, for example to carry a large box along the way or a large picnic tray laden with food and drinks. If the box or tray is 3ft 11in wide it can just get through without spilling the drinks.”
However, once again they were dismissed and Mr Justice Richard Smith rejected their appeal.
Anya Newman, for the Reid family, argued Judge Clarke was right in her ruling.
She said: “The judge concluded that there was no substantial interference with the right of way, which was specified as a right to pass and re-pass on foot because the right of way ‘on foot’ does not give rise to a right to use bicycles, push-wheeled vehicles, carts or barrows along it.
“The oil line was a trespass…The expert evidence was that the oil line is susceptible to damage and the judge accepted this, ordering the removal of the line.
“It cannot be the case that even if previous neighbours acquiesced to the oil line, they now have a right in perpetuity to site an oil line on their neighbours’ land.
“Due to the decision on the boundary, the patio of the appellants’ which they had used to place patio furniture and a gas canister was a trespass. The raised patio ought to be removed by the appellants.”
Mr Justice Smith, who agreed with the lower judge’s decision, added: “The appellants made clear that they were not asserting on this appeal that the right of way could no longer be used. Rather, they said that it could not be used as conveniently as before.
“The appellants’ point about carrying a metre-wide tray with filled glasses did not advance matters on the appeal.
“Even if there had been any evidence before the judge about the reasonable requirement for, and relative convenience of, this mode of use before and after the installation of the new fence, anyone using the right of way for that purpose would always have to exercise great care in navigating an already narrow path with or without the new dogleg at the end.”
The Top Five Reasons Neighbours Squabble
One study by Compare the Market revealed the top reason British neighbour’s argue
- Broken fences – top of the board was broken fences and whose responsibility it was to fix it
- Parking: one of the leading drivers of neighbour disputes, with 54.1 per cent of people having issues with people parking in front of their house, parking bay or driveway
- Trees – complaints about a neighbour’s tree cracking your garden path was also common with nearly half of participants finding it frustrating
- Bin wars – outdoor bin etiquette continues to ignite the most furious debates between neighbours
- Nosy Neighbours – some people have their eyes and ears at the ready to have a peek causing problems for others
Helen and Dominic also lost their appeal at the High Court[/caption]
