East Midlands
Mediation

This boundary dispute got so acrimonious that the neighbours were not even on talking terms any more. Having to post letters through each others doors. “We are writing to you rather than knocking on your door, because we feel that we can’t approach you to talk about the obvious issue of the boundary to the front of our properties. It seems obvious to us that you do not wish to communicate with us.”

The complaint was white spray paint that was found in the claimant’s (C) front garden. The positioning of the spayed marks seemed to indicate that the defendant (D) had been in the C’s garden to spray these marks. The C’s did not understand the purpose of the marks and failed to understand the point that the D was trying to make.

The C’s waited for the D to approach them to explain his actions, but he did not. They felt they were made in retaliation for C’s accidental paint spraying which went into D’s garden. Or for his intention to replace the old fence that the C removed.

C felt his deeds clearly showed the boundary line was not and never have been where D’s brick edgings and conifers were positioned. Possibly because his property was rented for so many years and the question of the front boundary was never raised, D may not have been aware of where the boundary actually was. C wanted the boundary reinstated to the correct position because they found it difficult to see past D’s end conifer when they were entering and exiting their driveway.

C claimed whey he bought his property he was very careful to look at the boundary lines and noticed at the time that an old rickety, badly maintained picket fence was within his boundary. He remembered having a conversation with D about his reasons for removing it. Explaining at the time he would be putting up some privacy trellising which he subsequently done within his boundary.

C remembered D stating his concern about the “postman & children” would be walking between the conifers. It was C’s suggestion that D planted prickly shrubs in between the conifers on his side of the boundary to stop this occurring.

C felt he had tried to be neighbourly and considerate with regard to the improvements he was making to his home. Feeling that he had given D fair notice along with all of the other neighbours as to his intentions.

The mediation took place on site at the parties’ homes, took seven hours and settled.