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

It it’s not a fence they painted, it’s the actual house. We don’t really see the back of our house, but my neighbors behind see it out their back garden. I’d be really shocked if the just painted the back of my house one day to improve their view. It would affect the price of your house. It is a big deal, I think.

But surely a bit of paint makes no difference?

Painting a brick wall can damage the building. Brick walls are designed to let moisture out through the mortar, which is “sacrificial” (i.e. it is expected to deteriorate over time because of this and that’s part of why walls need repointing from time to time, but that’s better than having the bricks crumble). If you paint over the mortar, with most paints, the moisture can no longer get out that way and remains trapped in the bricks causing them to deteriorate, or comes out more on the inside potentially causing issues in the house.).

So up owns the freehold on downs. Whilst they probably should have mentioned it, that's the part of the wall they have responsibility for so can do so. They'd be within their rights to demand removal of downs paint on the other side too. But then tit for tat, down could paint on the outside of ups walls, so not worth getting into a war over for either of them I'd have thought.

I think some people are missing the point, you can’t paint someones wall without asking just because you want to and think it looks better.

A blind women goes to the hairdressers for a trim, the hairdresser decides to dye their hair (without asking) because they think it looks nicer and the blind women can’t see it anyway. Is that ok also?

@Jen4813

I think some people are missing the point, you can’t paint someones wall without asking just because you want to and think it looks better.

A blind women goes to the hairdressers for a trim, the hairdresser decides to dye their hair (without asking) because they think it looks nicer and the blind women can’t see it anyway. Is that ok also?

Apparently

It is if the hairdresser own the freehold of the woman's hair.