Complaint backfires for accountant who sued neighbour over fence that ‘interfered with picnic’ | EUROtoday

An accountant who sued her neighbours, claiming their new fence interfered together with her again backyard picnics has been ordered to tear out the central heating system and patio from her and her husband’s £375,000 cottage after the complaints backfired.

Helen Faber and her accomplice Dominic Miles noticed crimson in 2021 when returning to their idyllic nation cottage in Oxfordshire after a interval dwelling in France to discover a fence put in by subsequent door neighbours, Richard and Katherine Reid, had “narrowed” a path resulting in a part of their again backyard by 40cm.

They complained the fence was a “nuisance” as a result of any narrowing of the 4-foot vast path would make it troublesome for them to hold a “large picnic tray laden with food and drinks…without spilling the drinks” to their patio and second backyard space on the finish.

After offended scenes, together with an incident in November 2021, “during which Mr Miles was very aggressive towards Mrs Reid,” they sued their neighbours asking Judge Melissa Clarke at Oxford County Court to rule that the brand new fence created a “substantial interference” with their use of the shared proper of manner.

But the transfer backfired after the choose not solely dominated that there was no “nuisance” brought on by the fence, however moreover ordered them to tear up their again patio and take away an oil pipe feeding their central heating system – rendering it ineffective – after discovering that each constituted “trespasses” on the Reids’ property.

The two {couples} at the moment are going through off in London’s High Court, with legal professionals for Ms Faber and Mr Miles interesting and arguing that it was improper for the choose to get them organized to take away the pipe – leaving them with no heating and sizzling water system – and the patio, in addition to persevering with to insist the fence is moved.

But Mr and Mrs Reid say the county courtroom choose received it proper when ordering their neighbours to scrap their patio and heating system and dismissing their gripes concerning the fence.

High Court choose Mr Justice Richard Smith final week heard that Mr and Mrs Reid’s house, Forge Cottage, in Wardington, Oxfordshire, adjoins Ms Faber and Mr Miles’ home, Pear Tree Cottage subsequent door, which on-line sources estimate to be price £375,000.

The fence which sparked the row lies alongside a part of a path which runs up the facet of Pear Tree Cottage earlier than turning and working alongside the again of each neighbours’ essential again gardens and ending on the second backyard belonging to Pear Tree Cottage.

The path itself belongs to the house owners of Forge Cottage, however each units of neighbours have a proper of manner over it.

Ms Faber and Mr Miles complained that due to the “narrowing” of the shared proper of manner they had been unable to “conveniently” use the trail while carrying “a large picnic tray laden with food and drinks” to their second backyard.

At the top of the Oxford County Court trial, Judge Melissa Clarke, whereas noting that “Mr Miles was very aggressive towards Mrs Reid” at one level through the row, dominated that the brand new fence “did not substantially interfere with the right of way”.

Going on to get them organized to take out the oil pipe, disabling their heating system, she stated: “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 settle for that the proper of manner is owned by Forge Cottage. The set up by the claimants of an oil line over the proper of manner is a trespass on the land of Forge Cottage and the defendants are entitled to an injunction requiring the claimants to take away it.”

She said the pipeline is “vulnerable to wreck” and that, if damaged, any oil leaks would contaminate the Reids’ land, which is a risk they “shouldn’t should tolerate from trespass.”

Last week, arguing that Judge Clarke made the wrong decision, Stephen Taylor, for Ms Faber and Mr Miles, said that the couple had informed their previous neighbours at Forge Cottage before installing the heating system and they had not objected.

He insisted that means their current neighbours cannot now demand its removal.

The court heard that there is no gas supply in the village and that Mr Miles and Ms Faber claim “trendy” heating systems like heatpumps are “not appropriate to be used in a stone-built property greater than three centuries previous.”

Mr Taylor told the judge that previous owners of the Reds’ house had done nothing when the oil system was installed and “acquiesced” in Mr Miles and Ms Faber’s actions.

“In these circumstances an estoppel arose, estopping the neighbours on the time from later elevating an objection,” he argued. “That estoppel binds Mr and Mrs Reid in the identical manner.

“By thanking the claimants for telling them about and not objecting to their plans regarding the installation of an oil pipe, the defendants’ predecessor in title created an expectation in the claimants that they could lay their oil pipe under the right of way and not later face any complaint.

“It was their neighbours’ tacit illustration that laying an oil pipe was ‘okay’. The defendants’ predecessors created the estoppel which stops the defendants from complaining concerning the oil pipe now.”

In relation to the fence, he added: “The choose wrongly concluded that by creating the 2 close to 90 diploma bends in the proper of manner and by narrowing it by about 33% there was no substantial interference.

“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 revered the 4ft width of the disputed manner.

“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.”

He argued {that a} 1944 plan confirmed that the proper of manner needs to be 4ft vast all alongside.

“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.

“It is submitted that even a small discount within the width of a 4ft walkway quantities to a considerable interference…It can’t be described as unreasonable for the claimants to insist on having the ability to use the disputed manner conveniently…when carrying a chattel.”

He also claimed the judge was wrong in defining the boundary so that part of Ms Faber and Mr Miles’ patio was on their neighbours’ land and deemed a “trespass” which must be eliminated.

But Anya Newman, for Mr and Mrs Reid, argued that Judge Clarke was right in her ruling at the county court and that the fence should stay and the patio and pipe should be removed.

“The dispute arose after the respondents (Mr and Mrs Reid) changed an previous fence on the rear of their backyard,” she said.

“It was agreed that the route of the fence was considerably completely different to the earlier fence, it’s now dog-legged as a substitute of working at one angle.

“After initially being happy with the replacement fence, the appellants raised issue about its positioning.

“The respondents denied that the brand new fence, save for one small part, had modified place from the earlier fence. However, they asserted that this transformation didn’t considerably intrude with the proper of manner.

“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.

“In any occasion, the factual proof…was accepted {that a} wheelchair consumer might considerably and virtually use the proper of manner as conveniently as earlier than.

“There is an oil line running from the appellants’ oil tank in their secondary garden to the appellants’ property. The line runs under and over the right of way, on the respondents’ property.

“The oil line was a trespass…The professional proof was that the oil line is vulnerable to wreck and the choose accepted this, ordering the removing of the road.

“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.

“Further, the appellants had additionally commandeered the top of the proper of manner, elevating and re-paving it to be used as a patio to their secondary backyard. The respondents additionally claimed in trespass to take away the patio.

“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 has now reserved his ruling on the case, to be given at a later date.