Who is unreasonable in this situation?

[Catspaws]

I'm presenting this as fairly as I can. Once I've seen some responses I'll let you know if I'm Person A or Person B! It's long and probably quite petty but bear with me...

Person A and Person B live in side by side detached houses. In front of the houses is a square of garden. Each house owns exactly half of the square.

Person A moved into the house last year. On the date of moving in, there is a large, empty, circular flower bed in the middle of the shared garden. It crosses the boundary between the gardens.

Person B pops round to Person A's house within a week of Person A moving in to say that the flower bed was going to have a weeping cherry planted in it and that the previous owners of Person A's house had agreed to this, as it would look nice. Person B wants to know if Person A has an issue with it. Person A says no, that's fine.

Tree duly planted, small border of bricks, flowers under tree in bed. All good. Person A and Person B have no formal agreement but more or less share any minor gardening required (e.g. weeding). Neighbourly harmony is free flowing.

However... the houses are on an estate with a factor who does occasional inspections. Following a recent inspection Person A and Person B receive a notice from the factor addressed to 'the owner of the plot with with tree' informing them that it breaches the conditions of the estate and that there will be a £250 fine plus tree needs removed.

Person B visits Person A and suggests the fine is split down the middle. Their reasons: both parties agreed to tree, both have maintained it, both have benefitted from it looking pretty in the front garden and adding to the curb appeal of the properties.

Person A refuses. Their reason: they only agreed to be polite, it is very much Person B's tree which just happens to be on a bit of their garden, they took no responsibility for it when saying it could be planted.

So... who is right here?!

Person A is right. The tree was person Bs idea and therefore their responsibility.

I think person A is right.

Person B bought and installed a tree without the required permission.

Person A probably assumed permission had been sought.

I would say it is the responsibility of the person who bought and put in the tree but for the sake of £125 probably wouldn't want to fall out with my neighbours so would just pay up.

I'd go with Person A as they should have checked if it was allowed before approaching you as if it as a done deal.

Share the fine, person A was asked about the tree and agreed to it being on their property.

A £250 fine for a cherry tree! That’s the unreasonable right there. Is there no appeal?

Another for person A being right.

Person A is right. The tree was not a shared decision, it was Person A not objecting to something Person B wanted to do.

Person A is in the right.

Shared garden, shared costs.

Person A is right I think - I would see B consulting with them as a “I hope you won’t dig it up” check rather than a “we’re both responsible for this tree” thing

Person B should pay because it was their idea and they had made arrangements with the people who lived in the house before Person A. Person A did not object to Person B's plans - person A did not decide to plant the tree. Person B should have checked that they were not breaching the conditions of the estate before approaching person A.

Person A for sure. Unless it was explained at the beginning that permission for the tree wasn't sort from the factor, then person B should really fork up the whole cost.

Person A did agree to the tree. Therefore both parties breeches the conditions.

Why doesn’t person B take an axe to it to save person A paying the fine?

I would say that both would be liable for the charge as it’s shared ground and it doesn’t matter who’s idea it was. Both parties should have been aware of any covernants in their deeds.

Person A is right but for the sake of continuing good neighbour relations they should contribute something.

Agree with T2517 and others. Definitely Person A.

Person A agreed to and allowed the tree to be planted on his/her own property and so should be equally liable to pay the fine and removal costs. It's no defence for Person A to say that they didn't know it would breach the rules or that they had assumed that Person B sought the necessary permission. It will be interesting to see who actually receives a fine notice though.

I would split this, you both agreed. I certainly wouldn't fall out with my neighbour for 125 quid and it's reasonable they suggest splitting it.

Technically I think b is right, because it's on both your land, you both agreed to it and you both benefited so both should share the fine.

If I was person A, I would assume B already had permission from the factor and had it all sorted before A moved in, and that you'd B popped round to check their plan could still go ahead with A having now moved in. I certainly wouldn't pay a fine for what was B's idea.

Person A but I’d split it just to maintain friendly relations. I’d also make sure I didn’t agree to anything similar again

Person A was reasonable to assume that Person B had cleared the tree with the council first.

Person B should pay the whole fine.

Person A is in the right and I wouldn't be paying half the fine either!

And as you both received a letter, I'd check it's not 250 each.

I do think 50-50 is fair, I don't think Person A or B probably realised it was breaking the estate rules, and Person B did ask for agreement to it. Person A didn't check if it was allowed, or make any mention of it to Person B. And half/half keeps the neighbourhood vibes good.

BUT could you sell it to offset the fine, or give it away if someone will dig it up? Is it too big to put in a pot?