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?!

Legally, you're both responsible. You agreed to let something happen on your property and happily enjoyed the tree and did gardening. Both of you should have checked conditions, and both of you broke them.

I wouldn't have agreed to the tree being planted until I'd double checked in the first place. As soon as you wrote that it was shared and you agreed, I knew this would cause a problem.

Lessons from MN: Never, ever, share property/access/drives/trees with your neighbour. It will not end well.

you're not allowed trees in your front garden?! What the fuck? Why ever not? I've never ward of such a mad rule. How come these people can tell you what to do with your own property?

Who on Earth checks to see whether it is allowed before planting a tree in their own garden? This rule is totally absurd.

I'd ask to see a copy of the legal paperwork which specifically prohibits tree planting before I decided anything else.

I think occasionally despite liability being shared it is the right thing to do for only one neighbour to pay. For example, my boundary wall had a section where the bricks were badly matched and looked very ugly from our side but fine from my neighbour's side. We asked if it was OK with her if we had that part of the wall rebuilt but did not ask her to make any contribution to the cost, despite both sides having equal responsibility for the upkeep of that wall.

Agree that the rules are ridiculous. Apparently it's to avoid root damage but it's a dwarf cherry! Hardly going to destroy the foundations!

The letter doesn't say there is an appeal but it does direct you to an email address if you have 'queries' so will see if there is leeway if the tree is removed. £250 is more than the annual factoring fee!

I don't think we are both being fined, think the factor just didn't know which one of us owns the tree. I'm pretty sure it's real though, it's identical to other letters we have had and it has the right name etc on it.

Agree I was stupid not to check the factoring conditions first! Lesson learned 😭

You are both responsible as you both know the conditions attached to the estate. You are both liable so you pay half each.

Whoever bought the tree should pay the fine, it's their tree.

I'd suggest pushing back on the rules -- perhaps you could get this tree grouped with flowers because it isn't going to cause root damage. it is a ridiculous fee and if you both want the tree it is going to be worth a bit of pushback

Definitely don't pay a fine when you're having to dig up your own asset. That's a complete money making scam by the factor.

Dig up the tree and then fold your arms and don't pay the fine.

I’d be more pissed off at the fine.

Person B is correct. Both parties benefitted from enjoying the pretty tree and it’s on shared ground. If the tree contravened housing guidelines then A should have made themself aware before agreeing.

Not worth losing a good neighbour over, but definitely worth addressing whomever is imposing this fine. Surely more reasonable to allow you to right the so called wrong.

I reckon legally you both need to pay half
But morally person A is right as they would have assumed permission had been sought

As with a couple of other posters I’m disgusted at a fine for planting a bloody cherry tree, when will we realise we need green space and nature to survive on this earth we keep destroying! The More trees the better

"Who on Earth checks to see whether it is allowed before planting a tree in their own garden?"

Well I guess if a factor comes around to check things then that might be a clue that you can't do whatever you want?

Both A and B should split the fine equally. A agreed to it and shares the maintenance. Imagine B is quite annoyed that A is now trying to get out of it when they could have easily said no in the first place.

But agree A and B should check whether fine is actually legal/proper.

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

Legally, wrong wrong and wrong.

I can understand that legally both A & B are considered responsible but morally I think A shouldn't have to pay.

If I was person B it wouldn't have even entered my mind to ask person A to pay.
They're a CF in my book.

Person A is right they merely let person B do what they wanted and were kind to do so they wouldn’t have planted the tree otherwise .

The tree is on both their land whether A likes it or not. A should have told B to plant it on their own land and then it would be B's responsibility and nothing to do with A.

Yes, legally you're both liable. Check the conveyances attached to your title and/or the transfer document you signed before you completed. There should be a list of restrictive covenants amongst the papers. If it's a shared bed it's very likely a shared responsibility.

Person B is a bit shit expecting person A to contribute.

"Person A is right they merely let person B do what they wanted"

How is that any "defence"?

Just dig it up and say ...what tree ?

She was being kind and letting the neighbour continue with their plans , I’m sure she didn’t give a shit about the tree . It’s not a defense but it’s clear the neighbour should take responsibility for the fine .

I'd get together with your neighbour and appeal it, get proof from people who know stuff about trees to confirm it won't cause root damage.

She wasn't being kind. She was letting her neighbour pretty up both of their gardens, and assuming responsibility for half of the tree

Share the fine, it's not worth falling out with a harmonious neighbour for the sake of £125.