On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 10:32:06 +0100, Kay wrote:

I don't know. A football remains my property, even though you don't have
to let me cross your land to get it. My cat belongs to me. Maybe it's
different if the thing is fixed as opposed to moveable. But then, the
apples on the branch I allow to hang over your property still belong to
me.

There's a legal principle that structures become part of the land
they are affixed to. If that principle is applicable in this
instance, as seems possible, then regardless of who paid for it,
the fence belongs to whoever owns the land it is actually sited
on. Of course there are exceptions where leases are written that
specifically give the tenant the right to remove structures he's
erected, but the default is otherwise

I don't know if this principle is part of the law in the UK,
though at a guess it is, since it's pretty old and pretty
fundamental to the legal definition of "land".

And therefore, presumably, I must allow you access to your property. But
if you remove my fence to get access to the annexed bit of property I
would guess that you have to give the fence back to me. You can't then
take it and re-erect it on the other side of your property.

I've been told that here in BC, the law gives property owners the
right of access to adjoining properties for the purpose of
maintaining fences. I don't know if this is true, but it seems
like a reasonable provision to made in law.

But I must admit that when I read the ferocious fights you guys
soemtimes get into over these issues in the UK, my conclusion is
that the UK is simply overpopulated and overcrowded. These spats
over fences resemble nothing so much as rats fighting when
overcrowded in a cage.

I'm sure we too have these kinds of disputes from time to time,
but I really can't think of an instance.


--
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
[change "atlantic" to "pacific" and
"invalid" to "net" to reply by email]