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:
Backscratchesforever · 26/03/2018 21:41

It should be split.

Both have copies of the rental agreement/rules and both parties should have looked at these before coming to the agreement.

Backscratchesforever · 26/03/2018 21:47

If this went to court, you would both be ordered to pay half

MimpiDreams · 26/03/2018 22:00

I'd ignore the fine and leave the tree alone. The factor can take his clipboard and rule book and jog on.

ButDoYouAvocado · 26/03/2018 22:08

A is right BUT I would love to see how that fine would be enforced. Bet it can't be....

ButDoYouAvocado · 26/03/2018 22:08

It would never get to court.

LivininaBox · 26/03/2018 22:09

I don't believe this so called fine would stand up in court. If you remove the tree and put things back how they were then there will be no damage so how can a fine be justified?

Why don't you just say the previous owner did it?

Backscratchesforever · 26/03/2018 22:11

If one person refuses to pay half and the other then also refuses to pay at all, it could easily go to court if the factor wishes to do so.

NFATR · 26/03/2018 22:11

Of course it can be enforced. If you have a management company and a management contract, you've agreed to the system including fines, and its legal and you're liable.

Whitecurrants · 26/03/2018 22:15

They should both deny all knowledge and blame it on the previous occupier of A's house.

NFATR · 26/03/2018 22:16

The factor will know that it wasn't there before A moved in.

PiggyPoos · 26/03/2018 22:19

I can't remember the letters but if someone told me the previous owner agreed to tree did I mind and I said no fine tbh I'd have assumed that the tree person had checked this all out and I'd just be saying yes have a tree if you like.

Whitecurrants · 26/03/2018 22:24

The factor will know that it wasn't there before A moved in.

Will they though? How long has it taken them to notice?

TimesNewRoman · 26/03/2018 22:25

I think it's person b responsibility but no way would I be paying. Dig up the tree, deny all knowledge of how it got there in the first place and hope it all blows over.

buckeejit · 26/03/2018 22:37

Actually &, call their bluff & say you both thought it was the other one or the management company who put it there as neither of you know how it got there! 😬

Pengggwn · 27/03/2018 08:28

A fine isn't representative of costs of rectification. It is a deterrent. They are well within their rights.

ittakes2 · 27/03/2018 16:31

Person A since Person B had no reason to suspect they had not checked the bylaws.

Yesyouarebu · 27/03/2018 16:31

I would definitely challenge the fine. Surely you both should've been given a warning and asked to immediately remove the tree? A fine does not seem like an appropriate first letter

user1474652148 · 27/03/2018 16:37

Person a as b should appeal the decision. You can plead ignorance and if you come out with some sob story such as a memorial tree 🌳 you might be able to avoid the fine by threatening to tell the local papers. Not way shotud anyone be fined for planting a bloody tree!! It is not Singapore!!

user1474652148 · 27/03/2018 16:38

No way should

SweetMoon · 27/03/2018 16:43

I would say person b, but legally you are both liable. If you can afford it I would pay half the fine for the sake of good neighbour relations.

I'd also see about an appeal. It's a dwarf cherry not a weeping willow. It may get to stay if you come across someone with some common sense.

GnotherGnu · 27/03/2018 16:52

I'd want to check the small print to see if there is actually any power to levy this fine. If it's in there and it's valid, both parties are equally liable because they should both have checked their deeds/tenancy agreements or whatever it is.

Rudgie47 · 27/03/2018 17:04

Neither should pay, the housing association are trying it on. If I were person B I would refuse to pay saying I didnt know anything about it not being in the terms and conditions of the tennancy.
Person A shouldnt have to pay as it wasnt their tree in the first place.

RoseTiger · 27/03/2018 17:06

Another vote for person A.

Viviennemary · 27/03/2018 17:12

Hmm. I'd be a bit annoyed to be landed with a fine if I only agreed to a tree to be neighbourly and not make a fuss. So on balance I think the person who planted the tree should pay the fine. Not sure I quite believe that there could be a fine for planting a tree. Surely they would just be told to remove the tree. Seems a bit fishy to me.

Talith · 27/03/2018 17:13

It might be morally right if Person A took the hit but on paper, both have equal responsibility for the plot and Person B has at no point issued an objection to the tree. I think if Person B didn't object before then it's not very neighbourly to do so now. There was ample opportunity to object when the idea was presented.

Obviously yes it's a stupid byelaw but that's a separate issue really.

I'd definitely suggest a letter going WTF for such a ridiculous fine for a bloody tree - almost worth some legal advice for a 250 quid bill.

I'd also get a wall built down the middle!