Originally posted by PTcruza
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Gnarly Issue - Fencing of Dual (Contested) Right of Ways...
Collapse
X
-
A point about neighbour concreting his yard. My downhill neighbour complained to me that in heavy rain a river poured down the side of her house to the road below and what was I going to do about it. I pointed out that she had excavated her section to below mine, and that as there was not a square inch of unpaved yard the water had nowhere else to go.
If there is a similar impact on your property from the concreting, the council might issue a notice to fix, or at least a stern letter. Something for the inspector to look at when checking out the garage LOL. Just a thought.
Comment
-
Comment
-
Originally posted by artemis View PostA point about neighbour concreting his yard.
He is slightly downhill from us, but The Tenants shown in the drawing are partially downhill from him. I think there will be some artificially created runoff from his new concrete to them, but not to us.
However, his removal of the nib wall creates problems for virtually everyone, as our RoW runoff was directed into a drainage pit by that nib wall. His new concrete now directs some of that flow onto the Tenants' land.
Of course, he removed the nib wall (which was outside the boundary line and not on his property at all), in order to be able to drive through there. His new concrete has been perfectly leveled to the surface of the RoW concrete.
The rest of his artificial runoff goes onto the Council land, but as part of it is an overland flow path, it probably is neither here nor there.
Wouldn't you love a neighbour like this? A hard one to love, that's for sure!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wayne View PostInform the council about the shed - I'm sure it won't have consent to be against the fence (they hardly ever do).
The garage probably doesn't have resource consent to be used as a seperate dwelling - ask the council and they will send an inspector around which will start the ball rolling.
Do this:
As for his encroachment onto your ROW. I get the "I don't want to seem nasty" bit but, as you rightly say. He started it. Why do you need to build a full fence? Just have a row of concrete blocks put onto your side of your ROW. Check your title. You should be entitled to maintain the ROW if needed. Doesn't matter that you don't actually own the land, you should be entitled to maintain it.
Comment
-
YEEE-OOOwwwwWW!!! Little Ms Parry sounds like a nasty piece of work. It all sounds extremely unjust, in the stated circumstances. If it was she who rented out the non-compliant area, should she not have been liable?
Anyway, I wish there was a way to do something similar here but our laws don't seem to work that way...
Originally posted by Keys View PostAs for his encroachment onto your ROW. I get the "I don't want to seem nasty" bit but, as you rightly say. He started it.
Originally posted by Keys View PostWhy do you need to build a full fence? Just have a row of concrete blocks put onto your side of your ROW. Check your title. You should be entitled to maintain the ROW if needed. Doesn't matter that you don't actually own the land, you should be entitled to maintain it.
First, It's a great idea! Just reinstate the necessary nib wall.
Problem is, it has to go on Joe's side of the RoW - see diagram, link here: https://ibb.co/bRVVDa
He may not approve, since he is friendly towards TNFH. I can only ask him.
Second, the terms of the original 1981 RoW state that each party must maintain the RoW over their own land... Again, not my bit, so I don't have the right, have to ask "Joe".
Our lawyer did warn us about buying a property with a RoW... But it just shouldn't be this hard. If the law was clear, it wouldn't be.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Davo36 View PostGood diagram, but I still don't understand why you can't build a fence or put up a wall along your 'yellow' boundary?
On your title, is there a right of way to Joe's place at the rear?
The Yellow-to-Grey line is the middle of our RoW, so I can't fence that. The fence(s) need to go where the white strips (lines) are, between Grey and Red. Grey is "Joe's" land...
And Yes, on our title he has a RoW over our strip, and we have over his, but only to the boundary with "Other Good Neighbours". For future dwellings on the back of our section, this is ideal.
The main objective is to keep TNFH off our RoW, and out of our faces / lives. Both "white strip" fences are required for that. I should have used different colours for the boundary, perhaps.
You can see how beautifully his (wife's?) plan unfolds. Looking from the road, our RoW runs straight to his property, and it's nice concrete. For pretentious people like them, this is much desired.
But this is not the right neighbourhood for them. He reminds me exactly of an obese, unpopular teenager with an old Toyota Starlet, busy adorning it with racing stripes, mag wheels, lowered suspension and a loud exhaust. It's still a Toyota Starlet, but now it looks ridiculous. His section is smallish and south-facing, his house a dog's breakfast of alterations and additions with lousy access and very limited parking. Nevertheless, he's quite prepared to encroach, bully and abuse to get those adornments fitted. Pity he apparently can't afford a Nissan Skyline, somewhere else.
Comment
-
Originally posted by PTcruza View PostHi Davo,
The Yellow-to-Grey line is the middle of our RoW, so I can't fence that. The fence(s) need to go where the white strips (lines) are, between Grey and Red. Grey is "Joe's" land...
And Yes, on our title he has a RoW over our strip, and we have over his, but only to the boundary with "Other Good Neighbours". For future dwellings on the back of our section, this is ideal.
The main objective is to keep TNFH off our RoW, and out of our faces / lives. Both "white strip" fences are required for that. I should have used different colours for the boundary, perhaps.
You can see how beautifully his (wife's?) plan unfolds. Looking from the road, our RoW runs straight to his property, and it's nice concrete. For pretentious people like them, this is much desired.
But this is not the right neighbourhood for them. He reminds me exactly of an obese, unpopular teenager with an old Toyota Starlet, busy adorning it with racing stripes, mag wheels, lowered suspension and a loud exhaust. It's still a Toyota Starlet, but now it looks ridiculous. His section is smallish and south-facing, his house a dog's breakfast of alterations and additions with lousy access and very limited parking. Nevertheless, he's quite prepared to encroach, bully and abuse to get those adornments fitted. Pity he apparently can't afford a Nissan Skyline, somewhere else.
There is a horizontal black line between ROW 1.1 and ROW 1.2, why can't you fence that? Does 'Joe' have ROW over that yellow part as well?Squadly dinky do!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Davo36 View PostSooooo, I'm still confused...
There is a horizontal black line between ROW 1.1 and ROW 1.2, why can't you fence that? Does 'Joe' have ROW over that yellow part as well?
In this case, it seems, they have half a ROW each and allow the other access over each others bit.
Rather than have one person own the whole thing and allow access to the other.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Davo36 View PostSooooo, I'm still confused...
There is a horizontal black line between ROW 1.1 and ROW 1.2, why can't you fence that? Does 'Joe' have ROW over that yellow part as well?
Sorry if my diagram is confusing. Not properly thought out at the early stage...
RoW 1.1 & RoW 1.2 make up the two parts of RoW #1. Similarly for RoW #2.
The thin black lines are generally boundary lines. I could have left them out where the RoWs are concerned, but that makes it harder to fill colours. I should have dotted the RoW easement "boundaries", or cross hatched the RoWs... The fatter lines show where fences are, but many boundaries also have fences that are not shown, but not relevant to the issue in question.
Anyway, ROW 1.1 and 1.2 are "our" RoW. Shared between us and "Joe".
RoWs 2.1 - 2.3 are the other RoW, shared between TNFH, Ak Cncl and Tenants' land.
There is half a fence remaining between the two. The rest has been illegally removed by TNFH. We want to reinstate all removed fences, and keep TNFH off our RoW.
Yes, for each RoW, 1.x and 2.x, all involved parties have easements over the relevant other parts of their RoW.
So Owner of RoW 1.1 (us) has RoW over property of RoW 1.2 ("Joe") and vice versa.
RoW 2.1 has RoW over 2.2 & 2.3.
RoW 2.2 has RoW over 2.1 & 2.3.
RoW 2.3 has RoW over 2.1 & 2.2.
But no one from RoW #1 has rights over RoW #2 and vice versa, as you'd expect, I guess.
Clear as mud?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wayne View PostWithout Joe's permission I don't see that you can do much at all fencing wise.
You can trespass TNFN off 'your' land as he has no right to drive over your bit even if Joe lets him drive over his bit.
Thanks for your comment. You are addressing the crux of the issue!
Yes, I have trespassed him, but I don't know whether that Trespass Notice has effect over only our land, or the whole of our RoW. Fortunately Joe's bit is only 1/3rd for some reason, so it's way too narrow for anything wider than a motorbike.
Do you know where it's written anywhere in statute or case law? The law is so vague!! Doesn't the easement effectively join the two pieces of land, despite having separate owners?
As for the fencing, that's what I have been thinking, which is why it's such a gnarly one, but I don't know if it's right.
If it was ONE RoW alongside ONE piece of land, providing access to three pieces of land behind, wouldn't the fencing costs be divided as follows:
Land beside: 1/2
Each of three RoW parties behind: 1/6 each => 3/6 total = 1/2.
And doesn't the Fencing Act entitle people to erect fences, whether other parties refuse or not? Does the fact that the fence is between the two "middle" strips make any difference?
Yep, I'm confused! The law is an ass.
Comment
-
One thing I have realised as a result of studying all this.
Joe is siding with TNFH over his removal of the Hedge Fence, which allows TNFH access to our RoW, over which he has no rights.
Why would "Joe" want to do that, I have wondered, since it's also his RoW?
Well, what I now realise is that "Joe" and TNFH are birds of a feather.
I realise now that for many years, "Joe" has been routinely encroaching on our RoW rights too. So, they are joining forces, for mutual benefit.
Everyone wants a piece of our RoW...
Comment
Comment