My mother retired a few years ago and rents out her old house in England.
While she still lived in her house, she asked her old neighbour whether he owned the fence on his side and he said he owned it. Since my mother didn't own it, she left it alone.
New neighbour has decided he thinks the fence may be dangerous for his kids and says we aren't sure who owns it. Since legal boundaries do shift, my mother and I discuss the likelihood of the old neighbour being mistaken. All the evidence on the ground suggests that the fence was very probably the neighbour's and there is nothing written down, but my mother is not the one making a fuss, even though she thinks the neighbour owns the fence. My mother's tenants have expressed no opinion on the fence.
Neighbour says he needs a high close fence as he wants 100% privacy over his entire garden "so his children can play naked if they want to" (despite the fact that he has a further section of garden behind a massive hedge that is private).
The new neighbour has suggested they pay halves for a new fence and obtained a quote that is completely out of my mother's budget. Mum has said she cannot afford it, and she doesn't need a high fence anyway. I suggested they could go halves on a shared hedge on the boundary (they could each maintain their own half that way). New neighbour wasn't interested and again suggested going halves on a new fence of a design he thinks is suitable. Mum doesn't care what he does, provided he pays for it and doesn't encroach on her land.
The way I see it is that they cannot possibly compromise. My mother's neighbour has no interest in her clematis and can't be expected to contribute towards it, so why should she contribute towards building a fence she doesn't want?
I'm obviously biased as it's my mother we're talking about, so would appreciate any thoughts others may have.