A homeowner who wants to install two 6ft fences in their garden has asked property experts who is responsible for paying, after discovering the boundaries between properties on their road are not defined on the title deeds.
The reader recently bought the house and contacted the Land Registry, which said the neighbours could jointly hire a solicitor to define the boundaries, but not everyone on the road agreed to this. The brick walls between the houses are about 70 centimetres high, which the reader said leaves no privacy.
The neighbours to the right of the property recently moved in and support the plan, agreeing to pay half the cost of the fence. The neighbours to the left have lived there for 15 years, say they do not mind the low walls, and have offered only a small contribution. The reader also asked who would get the better-looking side of the fence, and who would pay to replace it if it blew down in the wind.
Jane Denton, of This is Money, said a title plan is the official map of the land a house is built on, while the title deeds or title register is the written record of ownership, rights and obligations relating to the land. Both documents are produced by the Land Registry in England and Wales and are typically obtained together when a house is bought.
Denton said a 'T' mark on one side of the border on a title plan shows that the homeowner on that side is responsible for maintaining any fence or wall there. However, a title plan shows only general boundaries, and title deeds and the title register usually carry greater legal weight over ownership, mortgages, easements and restrictions.
Denton said neither document alone proves the exact legal boundary, which matters in disputes involving adjoining land, and it is a common misconception that title deeds always dictate who is responsible for upkeep. She said it seems likely the fence would be built on the reader's side of the existing wall, meaning the reader alone would be responsible for the cost of buying and installing it. Neighbours would not have to contribute anything if they did not want to, and the reader would need to agree separately who gets the better side of the fence. Denton added that if the reader installs or maintains the fence, they would likely be legally liable for future upkeep or replacement if it blows down.
Olivia Egdell-Page, a partner and head of property at Joseph A. Jones and Co, said boundaries can be a real sticking point with the potential to cause disputes between neighbours. She said there are two separate issues at play: who is legally responsible for the existing boundary feature, and who should pay for a new fence installed for privacy. The two questions are related but not the same, she said.
Egdell-Page said the Land Registry will sometimes record responsibility for boundary features on a property's title, but where the title is silent, there is no general legal presumption that one neighbour is responsible because a boundary is on the left, on the right, or shared. As the reader had already been advised, she said the only way to define a boundary and confirm responsibility is to apply to the Land Registry for a formal determination.
Can neighbours be forced to pay?
Egdell-Page said the owners of two or more properties may agree between themselves on the position of a legal boundary, the maintenance of a boundary feature, or both. Absent such an agreement, neighbours can informally agree to share the cost of replacing a fence, which works well as long as everyone agrees. She said there is no mechanism to require a neighbour to contribute 50 per cent of a fence replacement, or to make any contribution at all.
Egdell-Page said another consideration is that a property's title may contain restrictions on the height of fences that can be erected, and there could be planning concerns if fences exceed 2 metres, or if they are adjacent to a public highway or footpath, where the maximum height is 1 metre. She said she did not believe this applied in the reader's case based on the description given, but it was worth bearing in mind. She said costs could increase significantly if the matter escalated to formal legal discussions, and advised keeping an open dialogue with neighbours on both sides to resolve matters amicably.
Joanne Ellis, a partner and land dispute specialist at Stephensons, said that in most cases boundaries are not defined at the Land Registry. She said the boundaries shown on title plans indicate only a general boundary and cannot be relied on to identify the true boundary position, and a defined boundary is usually only needed where there is a dispute about its precise location.
Ellis said title deeds are different and are the starting point when considering any boundary, and are often mistaken for Land Registry plans, which are usually all that is used to buy and sell registered land. She said the deed that sets the boundaries from the original sale of the land out of a larger plot is called the root conveyance, and the reader should have been given this, or at least a copy, when they bought the property. Before assuming there are no boundary provisions, Ellis said the reader should find that document and review the plan and wording carefully.
Ellis said defining a boundary at the Land Registry is technical and generally an unnecessary cost, but neighbours can still agree between themselves on who should maintain the boundaries. She said the root conveyance may or may not set out maintenance provisions, and other factors should be considered too, such as who put the walls up originally and any historic agreement between neighbours.
Who should pay for the fence
Ellis said it was helpful that the neighbours to the right had already agreed to pay half the cost of the fence, and her first advice would always be to try to reach an amicable agreement. She said the reader is looking to build the fence on their own side of the existing brick wall, and the true boundary position is most likely either the far side of the wall or directly down the middle.
As the fence is most likely to sit on the reader's side, Ellis said it would belong to the reader, and any contribution from a neighbour would be optional. She said the neighbour would also technically be unable to do anything to their side of the fence, such as paint it or attach anything to it. Even if the wall were a party wall and the reader wanted to build a fence on the centre line, Ellis said a neighbour cannot be compelled to alter the boundary structure unless there are very specific provisions in the deeds.
Ellis said who gets the nicer side of the fence will depend entirely on the reader's agreement, or lack of agreement, with the neighbours, since it would be highly unusual for deeds to set this out and there are no true presumptions a court would apply. Because the fence would be new rather than an original boundary feature, she said the reader can make any agreement they wish.
Ellis said responsibility for future issues technically follows ownership. She added there is no obligation to replace the fence on either side, and neighbours could refuse to contribute towards the cost of reinstating it.
