Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
Mynewnameforabit · 27/03/2018 18:26

Either

  1. you were told about it before you moved in, so should have said no,
2.or your solicitor messed up, and you need to contact them and tell them to finish the checks they should have done for you, find out what other crazy terms and conditions you have unknowingly agreed to, and probably pay the fine as their job was to inform you,
  1. Its not written down anywhere, so probably unenforceable. I'd suggest you make sure the tree goes quick, then appeal e.g stating that you didn't agree to this system, and the fine is punitive (there's been no cost incurred from the tree, they're trying to fine you purely as a punishment). But I'm not a legal expert, so check that with someone who is!
LetsSplashMummy · 27/03/2018 18:32

Move the tree to the back garden, replace the one in the front with a plastic tree and claim "lack of roots, does look real... ha ha ha." I don't usually break any rules but £250 for a dwarf cherry tree with no warning or discussion with you is awful. The warden could easily have had a word if they cared about root damage, but they don't, just taking money from people, horrible.

TheFirstMrsDV · 27/03/2018 18:36

Bloody hell imagine living somewhere you get fined for planting an ornamental tree in your own garden.

Saffronqb · 27/03/2018 18:48

I think Person B is right.

Yes it was Person B's idea and she planted it, Person B would not have been able to do any of that without Person's A express permission, which she gave. If both have agreed to have the tree on their shared land and have contributed in some way to maintain it over time, then both have assumed responsibility.
Both Person A & B had responsibility to check they have permission to put the tree no matter whose idea it was, as they both have responsibility for the land itself.

A lesson to learn by Person A, don't just say things politely, check what you're saying 'Yes' to first.
Person B, you've lived there longer so you should know better, check you have permission with the grounds/estate keeper first.

jellyjellabi · 27/03/2018 18:51

I think person B is cheeky to ask for half the money in the first place as it was their idea to plant it in the first place. However seeing as they have asked and that person A agreed then I think the cost should be split equally. If person A had queried the planting of the tree but person B still went ahead without agreement then it would be entirely person B’s responsibility to pay. Shame to quibble over the amount now though - I would say just pay half each and forget about it. Mind you if the tree is going to be replanted who is going to keep it???!

Ravenesque · 27/03/2018 18:56

I think person A is right, but there is no way I would pay £250 for having planted a lovely cherry tree, which is a lovely thing for everyone on the estate. I'd chop it down if that was necessary, but that should be enough and the fine is bloody ridiculous.

ConstantReminder · 27/03/2018 19:02

Person who planted is responsible (and who’d asked previous tenant before you!)
However - fight the Factor. Say it is getting dig up and no more would be planted. (But then I would have said a previous tenant had planted it - they won’t be any the wiser). Your local counsellor will probably back you up.

lizzlebizzle33 · 27/03/2018 19:02

So is the OP person A or person B? Do we know?

MoodyTwo · 27/03/2018 19:06

Op is A

Namechangemum100 · 27/03/2018 19:09

Person a is right. In your position I would assume that this type of thing had been checked in advance and if not then it's person b responsibility.

JediStoleMyBike · 27/03/2018 19:15

Wondering if this is a new build estate or recently built estate where the company is still trying to flog houses? We looked at a new build and were advised of all the covenants - couldn't have a caravan or van on our drive or parking spaces, couldn't plant front gardens or put little fences up, couldn't hang anything from front of the house like ornamental pots, hanging baskets etc. It was nuts.

Furiosa · 27/03/2018 19:16

Neither of you you should pay this ridiculous fine! It IS a fine right? Not an invoice for damage caused?

Join forces with your neighbour, removed the tree but demand to know what the £250 is for. Demand an itemised list of pain, damage and misery that this wee tree has unleashed.

HeedMove · 27/03/2018 19:19

Person b is absolutely out of order. They had planned it before a even moved and id imagine paid for it too? They also should of checked if it was allowed as id imagine a wouldnt know having just moved. They were fairly nice to help maintain it but it wasn't necessary.

Toooldtobearsed · 27/03/2018 19:20

A and B should chain themselves to the tree in protest!

FGS, no doubt a weed filled overgrown wilderness would have been acceptable - where has common sense gone? Yes, there are often covenants, and for good reason. But a well tended garden???
I despair......

Boysnme · 27/03/2018 19:21

I wouldn’t pay but would remove the tree. Our factors are useless, I begrudge every penny I pay them so would not be willing to pay anymore!

himynameiss · 27/03/2018 19:26

I would appeal against the fine and keep the tree!

TheWK · 27/03/2018 19:27

I’d also argue about the ‘fine’

As I understand it only a court or council (for parking) can impose a fine.

If you had ignored repeated warnings that you were breaching your obligations, a £250 claim for damages/ costs might be reasonable...but I don’t think a factor can just levy a fine like that

It all sounds very feudal

blueluce85 · 27/03/2018 19:48

What is the actual consequence of non payment?! I'd seriously challenge it and as you say, remove the tree, or prove what it is to demonstrate that it won't cause the damage the fine is set to protect against

Chewbecca · 27/03/2018 19:53

Firstly I would fight the fine, it sounds unreasonable. What will happen to the ££?

Secondly person A is morally right.

Thirdly, subject to arguing the fine and losing, I would pay half to keep good relations.

Maursh · 27/03/2018 19:55

Person B is morally and legally right. Legally because even if the previous owner had agreed to the planting of the tree, person A would still be responsible, but also morally since person A should have recently read the deeds and raised the question about a restriction.

Those of you who are expressing surprise should probably read your own deeds if you own property. Houses built within the last 20 years often have a managing agent attached to them. This was a sneaky deal developers have done because typically councils do not want to adopt the roads which the developers have created on new estates. This means the managing agents changes an annual fee for maintenance of roads of public spaces. This is on top of your council tax of course. The developers / managing agents also put a long list of restrictions on your property and the land, some of which are to keep the estate tidy and some require you to seek permission from the MA for changes, such as planting trees, repainting the exterior and so forth. Of course, there is a fee with every application you make - it is a complete con.

How do I know this: we were in the process of buying a house last years and it came through with 13 pages of restricted convenants and a restriction on the sale of the property without the MAs permission. Of course they need this to ensure that the next owner signs up to their fees. We pulled out of the purchase, it felt like we were tenants rather than freeholders. One restriction I remember with great anger is that the MA had the right to enter the property to rectify any breaches.

Take care

JessicaJonesJacket · 27/03/2018 19:55

Check your title deeds and your factoring agreement. I doubt they have the right to impose a fine.
Move the tree. Don't admit liability. Ask the factors to provide any signed paperwork that says they can impose arbitrary fines.

squeezylemons · 27/03/2018 20:02

A

Icanttakemuchmore · 27/03/2018 20:20

Person B should pay it. It was person Bs idea and person B that approached person A. Person A probably just said yes to keep the peace seeing as they had only just moved in. Suck it up and pay, person B.

Teacher22 · 27/03/2018 20:25

I think person A is in the right but £125 is not much in the scheme of things to pay for neighbourly harmony. Niggles fester into outright hostility and disputes with neighbours have to be mentioned when the house is sold and devalue the property. Also, you have to live with neighbours for a long time and I have seen the misery caused by ill will. If you are person A pay £125 and, if you are B cough up the full amount.

Sometimes you just have to pay your dues to the party god.

Motoko · 27/03/2018 20:31

I would try to get round the rules by digging it up and replanting in a large pot the planting the pot into the ground.

I was going to suggest this. It seems the obvious thing to do, because then you still get the benefit of the tree, but the pot will restrict the roots.

@Catspaws you haven't said much. Are you sure that it's a single fine, that you're not both being fined £250? Although most people agree that it's your neighbour who should pay the fine, do you not think that it would be a shame to sour neighbourly relations for the sake of £125?
Were you not informed of this restriction when you moved in? If so, perhaps speak to your conveyancing solicitor for their take on it. (Assuming you bought the house, not renting.)