Which neighbour is right here?

[BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz]

Two neighbours live in a pair of flats (like a converted house). Two flats only. Two neighbours only. I'll call them Up and Down.

Up has access to a private yard to the right of the property. Down has access to a separate private yard to the left of the property.

Down has windows which overlook both their own and Ups yard. Ups windows overlook both as well but from above.

Up has repainted their yard, it was white along outer walls previously which have been repainted white, but in addition, Up has painted the walls which belong to Down. So outer walls of Downs property, meaning all walls facing into their yard are now white.

Up thinks this is reasonable as Down cannot see these walls, cannot access them without permission of Up, and the paint is an improvement.

Down thinks this is unreasonable as the walls do not belong to Up and to do so was not on, and that Up should pay to have the walls stripped of paint.

So....who is right in this situation?
YABU - Down is correct, paint should be removed
YANBU - Up is correct, paint should stay

Regardless of what it looks like, you don't paint someone else's property without their permission. If Down wants the paint removed they are completely within their rights to request this, nothing petty about that at all. What if sometime down the line they discover the paint has caused damage to the brickwork? Yes very unlikely... but you see the sort of issue that might crop up later.

@WeaselKnickers

Hi *@TerrapinStation*

I'm definitely right! I'm getting childish about it now. They don't own the leases to the other flat. As I said that makes no sense. Read the website that @BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz linked to.

OK, I see, I as I'd already heard about this type of arrangement I assumed the OP had just made a typo and meant that freehold of the other flat and automatically corrected it in my head.

Maybe she could clarify but the point about there not being any kind of management company or rent payment is still valid.

I'm a bit , meh...
I lived in a shared freehold flat with 2 flats the same house and legally there is not a lot Down can do. They would be suing themselves as the shared freeholder. They both own the fabric of the buildng equally - imagine, if the roof leaked, both have to pay for it even though it is above Up.

It's not polite but as it does not impact Down and shows her Upstairs neighbour is taking care of the shared building it is a positive thing if it was sold.

The Up's and Down's of peoples lives are very interesting to read about, better than reading about lock down all the time.

It's the maintenance of the wall now though isn't it...it will have to be refreshed every so often as the colour will fade, mould will form on the bottom etc etc...which is okay if UP does it, but what about if he moves, will a new owner bother? I would be livid and having words.

If up have painted the previously bare brick walls of down's house without permission that is 100% wrong however you cut it. If the brick was already painted they still should have asked but I can't see it makes any difference.

Sorry I thought you meant it was a garden wall. Now I realise it is the wall of the actual property then that is a hell no!

YABU - I can see Up's point of view, particularly if they feel the paint is an improvement, but they should have asked permission first and, if permission was denied, they shouldn't have painted any area belonging to Down.

If up owns the freehold of down, surely it’s her wall anyway then

Up is being very unreasonable and should pay for the paint to be properly removed.

Painting brick is bad for it. It makes it hard for moisture to escape, will lower the brick’s lifespan and may contribute to damp in the house.

Up is in the wrong - shouldn't have painted Down's wall without their permission. Not their property to paint.

Down isn’t adversely affected by the wall being painted and it It doesn’t appear to devalue their property so I think they’re being ridiculously petty minded and not seeing the bigger picture here, which is about mutual co-operation.

Down should have been asked. Down is also bonkers for wanting paint stripped.

But the wall belongs to both up and down, as leaseholders in the same building. If the roof needed work, down would be just as liable for the cost as up.

It isn't like they live in next door houses and one has painted the other's house. They both own the fabric of the whole building.

Technically down is correct but if you down can’t see them and can’t access them and it HAS improved the property then why do you care? So I’d say technically down is right but really I think up is right (if I’ve understood properly)

It isn't like they live in next door houses and one has painted the other's house. They both own the fabric of the whole building.

Doesn't give one of them carte blanche to do whatever they like to the place - should have asked and agreed it.

They shouldn't have painted a bare brick wall without at least a discussion.

Also if they've only painted half of it then it probably looks crap as well. It'll also need to be maintained, probably by the poor sod who didn't want it painted in the first place.

You don't paint someone else's property without their consent, surely?

Does the person who's wall has been painted mind that it's been painted or mind that they weren't asked?

If they are against having the wall painted then the paint should be stripped off. Suggest that the one who painted it does quite a bit of grovelling and apologising though to try to avoid this.

Why didn't they ask the neighbour first or is that just too obvious?

Or, if they own the freehold to that bit, can they do it anyway? I've never heard of owning opposite freeholds - usually it's someone different who owns the f/h or one of the two neighbours or them both but there are some odd historic arrangements so I'll assume it's one of those - you learn something new every day!!

It’s a Tyneside lease, which makes it much more complicated than just regular leasehold, but the lease should still set out the rights and requirements of both parties. The answer to who is right is likely written in the lease.

The bigger issue is whether or not it is structurally correct for this particular wall to be painted, eg. is it a breathing wall, what kind of damp proof course etc.

Down definitely in the right, and Up should strip the wall back.

What paint did they use? Hope it was breathable and water-based.

You can’t paint other people’s houses

What the hell?

Wtf you can’t just paint someone else’s wall without asking because your doing yours and think it will look better. You wouldn’t spray paint your car and think while I’m there will do the neighbours car parked next to mine without asking them but who cares I think it will look better! LOL

Up should paint the wall a lurid shade of pink or draw some cock and balls on the white wall. Just because they decree it looks nicer than plain white.

Sorry, I mean Down do I? The one who owns the wall, not the CF paint happy one.