Browse Forums General Discussion 1 Oct 09, 2010 3:55 pm Hi all, Am new to this site and have had a read through a number of posts and while some are similar to my question I was just hoping for a bit of advice in regards to my situation. We bought our house in 2003 (NSW) and have a 5 Ft brick wall round most of the property. I recently had a survey done and it shows that our land stretches approx 40CM over the other side of our brick wall & 40 meters down the property border which the neighbours have built their backyard outdoor area on (Paving, pool etc) right up to and against the wall itself. I normally wouldn't bother doing anything about it as it doesn't really affect me however the neighbors in question have caused us a bit grief over the past couple of years in relation to the wall etc and I have now found out it is built completely on my land and my land extends a little beyond the wall which they have decided to build on. My house was built in the 70's and their's was vacant land until they built on it early 80's. I relaise to do anything about it I would need to involve a Land & Env lawyer however am wondering if their is any timeframe where they can claim the land as their own. They only did up their backyard and put in the pool & paving about 2 years ago but am concerned they may try and claim the land now that they have built on it and am interested to know my options. I also have a feeling that they are aware of the boundary and hoping I don't realise. Any advice would be greatly appreciated... Thanks in advance, Slim Re: Boundary laws?? 2Oct 09, 2010 4:17 pm Quick google brings up this: "ADVERSE POSSESSION If a person has occupied a part or all of a parcel of land not belonging to them, the owner of that land may have lost the right to remove them under a legal principle called ‘adverse possession’. Under the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), if the period of occupation has continued for more than 12 years, the owner of the land may have lost the right to possession of the land. There are also all kinds of exceptions and qualifications to this rule." http://www.legalanswers.sl.nsw.gov.au/h ... hbours.pdf You would need to look further into it, I am (obviously!) not a lawyer so don't take my word as gospel viewtopic.php?f=31&t=37229 - our Iris 4! Re: Boundary laws?? 4Oct 09, 2010 9:54 pm If nothing else at least have it recorded (dated letter) that they have been advised they are on your property, by sending them a letter from a solicitor, then it either removes or at least restarts the possession law. Further to this i would seek professional advise. Re: Boundary laws?? 5Oct 09, 2010 10:28 pm I remember this story in the news a while ago, it didn't go the way of the original land owner - (i think) http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/mp/story-e6frea83-1225830045192 Quote: IT'S a curly tale about a wonky fence that has ramifications for swathes of our suburbs. The Magistrates Court awarded Labor MP Vini Ciccarello, of Norwood, an estimated 23sq m of her neighbour's property without having to pay any compensation. The court ruled the fenceline had been in the wrong position for such a long time that Ms Cicarello was entitled to the land. But neighbour Dr Haydn Bunton is now appealing to the Supreme Court over the unusual land swap with the matter to be heard later this month. He discovered last year that Ms Ciccarello's concrete driveway and their boundary fence overlapped his property when he went to sell the family home, near The Parade. Dr Bunton, a GP, is the grandson of Haydn Bunton Sr, who won three Brownlow and three WA Sandover medals, and the son of Haydn Bunton Jr, who played for Norwood and coached South Adelaide and Sturt in the SANFL, and twice coached Subiaco to WAFL premierships. According to court documents, a potential buyer - a builder - requested a survey that found the fenceline had shifted into Dr Bunton's property by about half a metre. The sale was subsequently made dependent on the fence being moved back to the correct position, which would have widened the narrow driveway on Dr Bunton's property but rendered Ms Ciccarello's driveway largely unusable. He started court action last May seeking to have the original fence line reinstated plus $40,000 damages. The court heard when Ms Ciccarello brought her property in 1984, the houses were divided by a corrugated iron fence and she later concreted the gravel driveway and laid pavers up to the fenceline. Ms Ciccarello submitted sworn affidavits to the court by herself and her brother-in-law Mario Marcuccitti saying the work was done in 1990-91 and a new Colorbond fence put up about the same time. That date became crucial to the case, as it then emerged Ms Ciccarello's other neighbour, Assunta Porcaro, had alerted her in the mid-1990s that the fences between their properties were significantly misaligned. In the court case, Dr Bunton produced a birthday video filmed in 1994 that showed the old corrugated iron fence was still in place, as well as aerial photographs that appeared to show Ms Ciccarello's driveway was not concreted and paved until at least September 1999. In response, Ms Ciccarello, the former mayor of Norwood and Kensington, submitted new affidavits acknowledging the Colorbond fence must have been put up after the 1994 video but that the driveway was concreted at an unknown time prior to this date. Magistrate Kym Millard accepted Ms Ciccarello's changed testimony because she was a busy person and her explanation was a genuine error of recollection. He said "on the balance of probabilities the slab was laid some considerable time after the defendant became aware of the potential boundary anomalies". But the court found that just because Ms Ciccarello was aware of boundary anomalies with Ms Porcaro that did not necessarily mean she knew there was a problem with her other neighbour's boundary. As the decade-long discrepancy over the boundary unfolded in court, the sale of Dr Bunton's property fell through. He then sought compensation of $154,500 for the lost strip of land under the Encroachment Act. But Magistrate Millard ruled the fence should not be moved back to its true boundary, that the disputed land should be transferred to Ms Ciccarello's ownership and that no compensation should be paid to Dr Bunton. He found Ms Ciccarello was not negligent or intentional in concreting Dr Bunton's land, that she had bought the property in good faith, that the fencelines were correct and that those fencelines had been in place for at least 55 years. He also warned that if the original fenceline was reinstated it would impact on hundreds of homeowners in older suburbs. Magistrate Millard was critical of Dr Bunton in his summing up, saying: "He appears more interested in endeavouring to reach the maximum financial return for the sale of his property than a neighbourly resolution of the matter." Dr Bunton has appealed to the Supreme Court and the case will be heard from February 25. Both he and Ms Ciccarello declined to comment further. thanks Chippy, i hope they have applied sealer but i am doubt to be honest, so i am gonna do this job after handover. 8 16295 You should be able to encase the sewer but you will need it designed and approved and access to lot 580 to do the work 2 17168 In WA zero lot is actually zero lot. We build 10mm in from the boundary. My house and my neighbours house have garages that sit only 20mm apart. When I had our roof done… 3 7075 |