Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Who is unreasonable in this situation?

199 replies

Catspaws · 26/03/2018 14:26

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?!

OP posts:
Trinity66 · 26/03/2018 14:47

person A definitely, no question at all

Original poster
Catspaws · 26/03/2018 14:49

Thank you everyone! I am person A so I'm relieved most of you think I'm not being unreasonable!

I have been thinking I'll suggest that I pay a contribution to the fine, but not as much as half (for the sake of good relations, and because person B has been a good neighbour). We will see how that goes!

OP posts:
TeenTimesTwo · 26/03/2018 14:49

I'm going against the grain here.

If A had recently moved in then surely they should have been aware of any restrictions on alterations to front gardens as it would have been in their rental/tenancy/purchase information.

Therefore provided they had had the information they are equally at fault and should pay half.

However, are A and B sure this isn't some dodgy scam? Paying a fine rather than just making good seems a bit OTT to me.

Dippysnowoman · 26/03/2018 14:49

Another for person A but I'd prob go 50/50 if I liked the tree and for the sake of neighbourly harmony.

Aprilmightmemynewname · 26/03/2018 14:49

The person who planted the tree should have checked regarding permission so should pay.

Trinity66 · 26/03/2018 14:50

I meant Person A was right btw not unreasonable!

AllisLost · 26/03/2018 14:56

A and B are both responsible. I would challenge the ruling though and if necessary remove tree

CornyCollins · 26/03/2018 15:01

If it were the other way around and the garden had been awarded a £250 prize because of the beautiful tree, would you/Person A expect half of the winnings?

If you can afford it I wouldn't fall out with the neighbours, that can turn into a long term nightmare which will be far more stressful. Whole things seems a bit sad though, I get why these things need to be regulated but seems a shame to rip out a lovely tree.

ConciseandNice · 26/03/2018 15:03

What a shame to sour relations with a good neighbour over what is actually a small sum in the grand scheme. Plus if it is on shared ground, the expenses should be shared equally, and this makes even more sense if the tree were agreed to.

BeyondThePage · 26/03/2018 15:03

Both are responsible - we were given (by our solicitor) a list of restrictive covenants placed on our estate by the developer.

We checked ours before getting rid of a cherry tree - only to find that we needed proof it was diseased BEFORE getting rid, or we would have been in breach of the rules.

The rules will have been there and should have been consulted before going ahead.

NFATR · 26/03/2018 15:05

I think Person B is right, though I'd be annoyed as Person A.

But you agreed to the tree being planted and you therefore entered into a common ownership of the tree. The fine applies to you as much as person B, half the tree is on your property, half the fine belongs to you.

UnicornRainbowColours · 26/03/2018 15:09

it Depends how much you like your neighbour and how much you want to get on with them. Yes it was person B’s idea but it’s a shared garden so actually I think you both should pay.

That said what a miserable sod making you rip up a perfectly lovely tree

montenotte · 26/03/2018 15:12

do NOT pay this fine at all. what a lot of nonsense (and probably a scam)

UnicornRainbowColours · 26/03/2018 15:13

@montenotte they got a letter each from a inspector.,

diddl · 26/03/2018 15:15

I would say both are responsible.

I would have thought that having to get rid of the tree within a certain time would be enough.

A fine as well seems overkill.

How come noone seemed to know that it wouldn't be allowed?

Original poster
Catspaws · 26/03/2018 15:15

@CornyCollins I agree - it is a lovely tree! I'll suggest that I pay a smaller contribution to the fine and that my neighbour digs up and plants the tree in the back garden instead.

OP posts:
AnnieAnoniMouser · 26/03/2018 15:17

Morally, Person B should take full responsibility for this. Person A should have been able to trust Person B & previous owner to have made sure it didn’t contravene any rules.

Sadly, lots of people are stupid and aren’t trustworthy, so person A (you) should have checked the rules before agreeing to it.

I think Person B has a bloody cheek asking for half the money. Cockwomble shouldn’t have planned to do something which goes against the rules.

DeathStare · 26/03/2018 15:18

I think person B is right. It doesn't why person A agreed to the tree, they still agreed it to it. It's on a shared plot, and they shared the (minimal) upkeep of the plot. If they didn't want the tree, or the responsibility of it, then they should have said so initially. But they can't say "yes" at the time and then later on say "when I said yes I wasn't really feeling it, so I don't think I should be held to it"

diddl · 26/03/2018 15:19

" Cockwomble shouldn’t have planned to do something which goes against the rules"

Well Op also doesn't seem to have realised that it would be against the rules...

stellarfox · 26/03/2018 15:20

Agree person A is correct but in order to maintain a good relationship with your neighbour I think it would do you good to make a contribution. They should have checked it was allowed so it is really their fault. Definitrly check if there is an appeals process and if you really have to pay the £250. Who is asking for it?

Eveforever · 26/03/2018 15:20

Is there no way to appeal the fine? Why didn't you know about conditions of the estate? Since you've both received a notice are you sure they aren't trying to fine you too?

Redpony1 · 26/03/2018 15:20

In what world is a beautiful maintained tree in a front garden ever worth a fine for breaching the conditions?! Who thinks of these 'conditions'??!

A & B should appeal....

WorldofTofuness · 26/03/2018 15:24

I'm with the other posters re scepticism about a "fine" in the first place. It's been a while since I've been involved in unfair contract terms stuff, but would be surprised at a levy that seems to be punitive (ie goes beyond the cost of simple admin to produce the admonishing letter--and clearly isn't the cost of actually dealing with the tree). Is this in England/Wales?

montenotte · 26/03/2018 15:26

It's fairly easy to forge a letter. £250 is not a reasonable fine for planting a tree.

DO NOT PAY !

NFATR · 26/03/2018 15:26

Don't listen the paranoid penelope.