Hello, I am seeking advice please on the best way to proceed regarding a garden wall problem involving three neighbours.
My elderly Mother's house backs onto two other properties (the spacing between the houses is staggered). The other gardens are approx. 1m higher. There is a brick retaining wall along the whole length of the boundary. On my Mother's side the wall is approx 2m high. In one of the other gardens is a large tree close to the boundary of all three gardens. My Mother has a small patio area with table and chairs by the wall.
During Spring 2023, the neighbour cut back the tree to just above the top of the wall. However the tree thrived, putting out vociferous growth and during Summer 2023 the entire length of wall collapsed into my Mothers garden. By good fortune there was a cool breeze that day and my Mother was not sitting on the patio. Her chair was crushed to matchwood.
We cleared the area and most of the bricks could be salvaged for reuse. The insurance company advised that the damage was not covered. At an informal meeting with the neighbours we agreed to split the repair costs equally between the three parties. My Mother made it clear that she wanted it rebuilt using the original bricks to be in keeping with the other garden walls. The neighbour with the tree wanted to rebuild with concrete blocks for cheapness. So we compromised on a composite wall with concrete blocks on the neighbours side and bricks on my Mother's side. The neighbour with the tree was to remove it and properly grind out the stump to enable the wall footing to be rebuilt. They wanted to use their own builders for the wall.
The neighbour with the tree is a landlord who manages multiple properties. They don't live there. It subsequently proved difficult to get any progress on the tree removal. I eventually obtained a quote this Summer 2024 for rebuilding the wall and footings. The bricklayer expressed reluctance to get involved due to three separate parties, and the quote was high. However I forwarded this to the neighbours for comment. The next weekend, workmen for the landlord neighbour turned up and completely removed the tree stump and roots. A few weeks later, the landlord and a bricklayer showed up. They dug out the footings, poured in concrete and rebuilt the wall with concrete blocks up to approx 1.5m. They did a good professional job. However, they gave no indication that they would complete the job by facing with the original bricks on my Mother's side.
The landlord neighbour is now demanding that we pay half the cost immediately and being vey pushy. (Not a third as originally discussed. The other neighbour says he was asked to pay a quarter).
My concern is that the neighbour has changed the original agreement and done the work the way they wanted without further discussion. Whilst we are happy to make an interim payment now, I am not confident that the job will be completed now that the retaining wall is in place. So we will be faced with the full cost of the brickwork. It seems reasonable that we contribute towards a new wall, but this expense was only needed due to the neighbours unmanaged tree.
I don't want to antagonise the neighbours, but I also want a satisfactory outcome for my Mother who enjoys gardening. What would you guys recommend?
Thanks,
who owned the original wall?
I'm struggling to see why your mum or indeed anyone except the tree owner should be paying anything? if his tree caused damage to the wall regardless of whos property it is, then he should be liable to reinstate the wall to at least the condition before the damage. if the wall was your mums and was in disrepair he could counter the claim for betterment.
Hi Mick,
Agreed, but we don't know which party owns the original wall. I did look through the Victorian deeds, but could find nothing useful regarding this. How could we find out? The wall was not in the best condition, although it was definitely the tree roots which forced it over. This is why we thought a three way split between the parties would be the fairest approach. However, the neighbour responsible for the tree is not playing ball.
in which case I am still of the opinion he should be paying it all and possibly seek a contribution for betterment. except.. he hasn't bettered your mums wall. I would be tempted to tell him you're not paying anything as you're not liable and in the position you were before the incident. should he rectify this you may be inclined to contribute
Agreed, but we don't know which party owns the original wall. I did look through the Victorian deeds, but could find nothing useful regarding this. How could we find out?
With a property that old, it's not surprising that the deeds are vague or silent about ownership of the boundaries. How long ago did your mother buy the property? In more recent times, a vendor has to complete a property information form stating (to the best of their knowledge) who owns/is responsible for the boundaries. Is there anything along those lines? Did the solicitor/conveyancer make any statements about it at the time? (This is all assuming there is any paperwork still around to be looked at. Maybe I am just assuming everyone is like my late father who had kept every bit of paperwork from property purchases decades ago, which does help when now selling.)
No such luck I'm afraid. My late Father bought the property in the 1950's. There is a file full of papers along with the deeds, but I couldn't find anything about which wall belongs to which property. We took the pragmatic view that it was shared equally in order to avoid an argument. But it seems this has not helped.
I still think ownership is irrelevant as he caused the damage. with the exception of how he finishes your mums side. if he repairs the wall to a good and safe standard he would have fulfilled his duty of care which I would suggest is all he is required to do if he is the owner. if you mum owns it she's entitled for it to be re finished as it was before.
Does your mum's property insurance provide legal cover? Might be a useful route.
Thanks, I did check the house insurance. Sadly legal expenses not covered.
Regardless of ownership, I would not be entertaining his request for 50% of the fees. Their tree knocked down the wall dividing their garden and your Mum's garden. In what way does that make your Mum liable for half and the BTL landlord and the other neighbour 25% each? Other then one of them being a frail older lady?
Tell him to sling his hook with his request and I believe you are still, by royal decree allowed the stick your boot up the hoop of any BTL landlord who starts to get a bit beyond themselves.
It's a tricky situation. I agree that Mum shouldn't have to pay anything. However, she is itching to pay for fear of upsetting the neighbours. I keep pointing out to her that she has not yet had the wall reinstated with the existing antique bricks as she wanted. The only reason I can see for the revised 50/25/25% split is that is the approximate boundary length for each property. The original 33.3% split was from the initial informal meeting and is not documented. We are happy to honour the original agreement, but the change was decided by the landlord neighbour and not discussed.
Another consideration is that Mum is 95 and we may need to sell the house soon to pay for a care home. I understand that any neighbour disputes are now documented in the sales pack. This may be one of those cases where a party wall surveyor would have been useful. However, I presume it's too late now that most of the evidence has been cleared away?
a party wall surveyor would have been helpful for one thing only, to leach money from your mum. unless waste of time they have no authority to do anything more than your mum can with common law.
facts.
The Landlord neighbour caused damage to a wall.
He is responsible to repair it to a safe (especially due to his land being elevated to your mums) and to a reasonable standard.
if your mum is happy to part with some money then it needs to be on the understanding her side is finished as before.
just tell him that's how it's going to be and you're not going along with his change of plan.
if he doesn't agree tell him you will consider court action to get it resolved at no cost to you.