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?!

A £250 fine is ridiculous. A warning and a request for you the move the tree immediately would have been a more proportionate first step. By agreeing to let your neighbour plant the tree you have put yourself in a difficult spot, but the factor is being completely unreasonable fining you that much. Did your neighbour not query the amount of the fine?

Persons A and B should agree to step up and fight the power - what a mad amount of money for a breach of the "conditions".

What is a factor? Are you inEngland?

What happens if one of you just gets the plant out?
How will the fine get enforced if there's no plant?

person A, tell B to dig it up and stick it in a pot

No disrespect to people, but this is not the first time I've read the like of 'it's only £125 just pay it!'. To some people, myself included, it's a lot of money. No idea if that applies to the OP, but paying unexpected costs like this is not an option for some people.

Person A and Person B are both grown ups who have purchased houses with all the responsibility that that entails and so they are both liable.
It's normal for the solicitor to go into detail with the purchasers before they sign to establish exactly what they are buying and also if any quirks involved in their use of the property which I suppose would include planting trees in your front garden or not.
Either both A and B didn't listen in their respective meetings at the time of purchase or they listened but decided it didn't apply to them or alternatively it's a mean scam and the letter is a load of utter petty nonsense.
Personally I'd ignore the letter and see what happens - it's not exactly the crime of the century ffs.
And I love cherry trees, they are so pretty.
Oh and if the fine does stand then £125 is an extremely small price to pay to maintain good neighbourly relations op - have you read some of the neighbour threads on here.

That’s a very fair point, Eve, sorry : (

Can they enforce the fine?

I would have thought that any "breaches" would have the option to just be rectified first.

Just out of interest, are there no trees in front of any of the houses?

Person B wants to know if Person A has an issue with it. - to me, morally, this is key. Person A didn't say oh yes lovely I'd like that, please please do it. They say they didn't mind. However, legally I think person A will end up paying though.

If you don't both fight the charge - tell the estate management they can do one they are mad - then legally, they are still both responsible.

Both should have known if it wasn't allowed & therefore both responsible equally

If it's a tiny print in T&Cs then appeal & say you'll sort it but think the fine is ridiculous

I would definitely challenge the fine. If you are in breach of the covenants applying to your properties then remedy it by removing the tree. Can't see that the fine would apply unless you had refused to remove the tree when warned.

You need to look at the precise wording of the restriction to check if they can actually levy this fine and since it is such a ridiculous amount for this issue, even if they are, I would challenge it anyway.

I'd love to see this one go to court.

I’d be pretty pissed off if by accommodating Person B’s request it then cost me money through a fine. Person B should have done due dilegence before hand and should accept 100% responsibility.

On a new estate, there is usually some sort of homeowners alliance, they set rules, or follow rules set by the developer of the estate - this is policed by a factor.

Often the alliance will have set a series of fines for offences under the restrictive covenants. People will have signed up to this by buying the house - the solicitor will have/should have pointed out any restrictive covenant during the searches before purchase.

We cannot remove a tree, unless diseased, cannot fence off front gardens, cannot get rid of lawn areas at the front of the house or park any vehicle on the lawned areas. No caravan or motorhome parking etc etc - it is all designed to keep the uniform nature of the frontages.

Who on earth has issued this fine for a cherry tree?

Either way, person A is being unreasonable because by agreeing to planting and sharing maintenance for the tree, plus benefiting from its loveliness, they're just as responsible for said tree. Also it's a bit disingenuous to agree to it then say they only did it to be polite

A and B need to stand together against the power mad, short sighted people fining tree owners

Of all the bonkers "rules" this takes the biscuit. Having said that, I think A is right. B planted the tree and it was their idea. .

Person A is right but the fine is unreasonable in itself!

Person B is BU and so is the fine!

I presume it is an estate in Scotland with a land factor. Either run on behalf of a developer if homes are fully owned or a landowner and the homes are leasehold? or rented?

I'd agree to help appeal that fine, at least. That's ridiculous. Remove tree I could accept, but fine is outrageous; who receives the £250 fine??

Exactly. Who gets the fine money?
They don't know who is responsible hence two letters being sent.
Remove the tree and neither pay a 'fine which is probably bollox. The covenant will be in place but the fine sounds odd.

If the factor isn't sure whose land the tree is on they're not v good at their job!

What sort of estate is it that you can't plant a tree without permission? Are you supposed to keep all the flower beds empty or something? That sort of control over what I can do with my garden would worry me more than who should pay the fine TBH.