ᐅ The post of our driveway gate extends about 10 cm onto the neighboring property.
Created on: 29 Jun 2020 20:33
M
Medvedev
Hello friends,
I’m new here and hope that this is the right forum area for my concern and that you can help me.
We own a two-family house in Cologne, where we live as a family. Our future neighbor has had the neighboring house demolished and is now building new on the property. We have owned our house since 1995. Our house was built in 1984. We have a driveway gate with two masonry pillars.
The architect of our future neighbor verbally informed us today that he intends to build a 1.5 m (5 feet) high wall on our property line. For this purpose, he has already had an existing wooden fence, which belonged to us, removed without our consent. When we addressed this, he said he thought the fence belonged to the client, his principal.
He now also claims that the masonry pillar of our driveway gate (seen from the street on the left) is built about 10 cm (4 inches) onto the property of our future neighbor and must therefore be cut back or removed so that a flush wall can be erected.
The same applies to three wooden posts of our carport, which also protrude about 10 cm (4 inches) onto the neighbor’s property on the side.
Both would have to be dismantled as soon as possible, at our expense, so that construction can continue.
He said he would provide us with his demands in writing, which we would then have to sign accordingly.
Until now, we have always assumed that our gate pillar fully stands within our property boundaries (40 x 40 cm (16 x 16 inches)).
As proof, the architect handed us a copy of a city-approved drawing from Cologne (stamped), which is supposed to show that the pillar and posts protrude onto the neighboring property.
However, the pillar and posts in question are not marked on the site plan.
According to what I found online, a neighbor’s right regarding dismantling or similar claims expires after three years. What do you think about this?
Hopefully, you can give us some expert advice. We are grateful for your help!
Best regards,
Medvedev
I’m new here and hope that this is the right forum area for my concern and that you can help me.
We own a two-family house in Cologne, where we live as a family. Our future neighbor has had the neighboring house demolished and is now building new on the property. We have owned our house since 1995. Our house was built in 1984. We have a driveway gate with two masonry pillars.
The architect of our future neighbor verbally informed us today that he intends to build a 1.5 m (5 feet) high wall on our property line. For this purpose, he has already had an existing wooden fence, which belonged to us, removed without our consent. When we addressed this, he said he thought the fence belonged to the client, his principal.
He now also claims that the masonry pillar of our driveway gate (seen from the street on the left) is built about 10 cm (4 inches) onto the property of our future neighbor and must therefore be cut back or removed so that a flush wall can be erected.
The same applies to three wooden posts of our carport, which also protrude about 10 cm (4 inches) onto the neighbor’s property on the side.
Both would have to be dismantled as soon as possible, at our expense, so that construction can continue.
He said he would provide us with his demands in writing, which we would then have to sign accordingly.
Until now, we have always assumed that our gate pillar fully stands within our property boundaries (40 x 40 cm (16 x 16 inches)).
As proof, the architect handed us a copy of a city-approved drawing from Cologne (stamped), which is supposed to show that the pillar and posts protrude onto the neighboring property.
However, the pillar and posts in question are not marked on the site plan.
According to what I found online, a neighbor’s right regarding dismantling or similar claims expires after three years. What do you think about this?
Hopefully, you can give us some expert advice. We are grateful for your help!
Best regards,
Medvedev
Scout schrieb:
Just because I park my vehicle illegally on your private parking space doesn't mean it belongs to you or is under your control.The fence is firmly attached to the property, the vehicle only if it has been there for a very long time. But the answer from @Escroda makes sense.Mycraft schrieb:
Correct.We agree, but for professional reasons, I advise against DIY; how else am I supposed to feed my children... Jokes aside, because locating boundary points is no fun, and in case of disputes over 10cm (4 inches), it's not helpful either.
Especially because the markers are not always placed exactly at the boundary point. Sometimes the marker is located exactly 1 meter (3.3 feet) away, because something was in the way or for some other reason. This can be seen in the documents, but not on the marker itself.
For the new points related to my subdivision, this is exactly the case. One marker should have been placed directly under the remaining corrugated asbestos sheet, but the surveyor probably didn’t want to get near it...
Another marker is on the overgrown neighboring property where no owner can be found. Both markers are therefore 1 meter (3.3 feet) away from their actual points.
So it could even be that something like this has happened here. A supposed marker was found on your property. The neighbor or architect assumes the wall is on their property, but in reality the wall is exactly on the boundary line, and the marker was therefore buried in a shifted position...
For the new points related to my subdivision, this is exactly the case. One marker should have been placed directly under the remaining corrugated asbestos sheet, but the surveyor probably didn’t want to get near it...
Another marker is on the overgrown neighboring property where no owner can be found. Both markers are therefore 1 meter (3.3 feet) away from their actual points.
So it could even be that something like this has happened here. A supposed marker was found on your property. The neighbor or architect assumes the wall is on their property, but in reality the wall is exactly on the boundary line, and the marker was therefore buried in a shifted position...
...and there are many examples where the boundary markers are exactly where they should be, and have always been.
...and there are markers that were originally placed incorrectly, and so on.
...and some property owners even remove the markers entirely.
So, what now?
But let's put aside this constant pessimism and negativity... if the markers are actually exactly where they should be (and the likelihood that they are there is generally higher than otherwise), then for the original poster this is truly the easiest way to straighten everything out without spending a lot of money.
...and there are markers that were originally placed incorrectly, and so on.
...and some property owners even remove the markers entirely.
So, what now?
But let's put aside this constant pessimism and negativity... if the markers are actually exactly where they should be (and the likelihood that they are there is generally higher than otherwise), then for the original poster this is truly the easiest way to straighten everything out without spending a lot of money.
Mycraft schrieb:
..if the stones now suddenly are exactly where they should beAnd how is a layperson supposed to assess that? In the end, he believes he is right, offers a discount, and the neighbor is actually correct. Or vice versa, if there is a stone on his side, he thinks the neighbor is right, but in reality, he even has 10 cm (4 inches) more. Then he is giving away land. In my opinion, a specialist is definitely needed in such cases.
First of all, the question is whether the original poster needs to prove that the post is located on their property, or if the new neighbor has to prove that the boundary lies elsewhere. It depends on how official and precise the submitted documents are and what exactly they state. If boundary markers are found, it may be possible to draw conclusions from them, but they do not eliminate doubt.
If the neighbor or architect bases their opinion on this, it will likely be necessary to carry out a formal boundary survey.
If the neighbor or architect bases their opinion on this, it will likely be necessary to carry out a formal boundary survey.
Similar topics