A homeowner has asked consumer lawyer Dean Dunham whether they can force a neighbour to remove bamboo planted close to their shared boundary fence, after a gardener warned the plant could be an invasive species that pulls up paving. Dunham, who writes a consumer rights column for the Daily Mail and This is Money, said the neighbour cannot simply be made to remove it because of where it is growing.
"You can't make your neighbour remove bamboo simply because it is close to your boundary, but if it starts causing a nuisance, the position may change," Dunham said.
Clumping bamboo versus running bamboo
Dunham said the key distinction is between clumping bamboo, which typically spreads slowly, and running bamboo, which spreads through underground rhizomes and can travel considerable distances. Some species, he said, can cause damage by forcing their way through paving, patios and other structures.
At this stage, if the bamboo is entirely on the neighbour's land and has not interfered with the reader's property, Dunham said they generally cannot force its removal simply because of worries about what might happen in future.
When a nuisance claim can be made
If the bamboo's roots or shoots cross the boundary, however, the reader may have a claim for private nuisance, Dunham said. There is also a limited right of self-help over vegetation that has encroached onto a neighbour's land: generally, a homeowner can cut back vegetation to the boundary line, but must take care not to trespass onto the neighbour's own land.
Dunham advised the reader to first establish exactly what type of bamboo has been planted. He said they should take photographs, keep a dated record and, if the bamboo begins crossing the boundary, tell the neighbour in writing and give them an opportunity to deal with it.
If the bamboo is already causing damage, or there is strong evidence serious damage is imminent, Dunham said the reader should get specialist legal advice before taking matters into their own hands. An injunction may be available, he added, but to obtain one an applicant must show the court there is a serious issue, that damages alone would not be an adequate remedy, and that it would be fair and proportionate for the court to intervene.
Theatre seat moved despite knee problem
In a separate question, a reader identified as G.B. from Coventry told Dunham they are 6ft 4in tall with long legs and a knee problem, and deliberately books theatre seats at the end of a row for extra legroom. At a performance last month, the theatre changed the reader's seat without asking, causing bad leg pain throughout the show. The theatre refused a partial refund, saying the seats were moved for fire-safety reasons.
Dunham said the theatre may well have been entitled to move the reader if there was a genuine fire-safety issue, but that is not necessarily the end of the matter. He said the location of an end-of-row seat was an important part of what the reader paid for, particularly since it was chosen because of a long-term physical condition.
Rights under consumer and equality law
Dunham said the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires a service to be provided with reasonable care and skill, and that information given about a service before a contract is agreed can become binding. If the theatre could not provide the booked seat, he said, the question is whether the replacement seat was of the same value: if it was not, the reader may have a claim for a price reduction under the Act.
Dunham also raised a potential issue under the Equality Act 2010. If the reader's knee condition has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out day-to-day activities, he said, it could amount to a disability under the Act, and a service provider may have a duty to make reasonable adjustments.
He advised the reader to write to the theatre's general manager, acknowledging the fire-safety reason for the move but explaining that the alternative seat substantially reduced the value of the service purchased and caused significant pain. Dunham said the reader should ask for an appropriate partial refund rather than presenting it as a claim for compensation simply because they were moved. If the reader had told the theatre about the knee problem before the performance, he said, they should make that point clearly, as it could strengthen the Equality Act argument.
Readers with a legal question for Dean Dunham can email [email protected] with brief details of their question or problem. The Daily Mail and This is Money said no legal responsibility can be accepted for answers given.
