View Full Version : Evicted over 3 inches of land
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/05/19/evicted-over-3ins-of-land-115875-22268573/
I'm not entirely sure what to think of this story which I read in yesterday's paper today. I think she was dead right to take it to court, and I think she was right to take it as far as she did, but at any sign of not being successful I would have pulled out facing the spiralling legal fees. But the fact that she has been ordered to pay the legal costs after winning so much simply does not compute. I understand that she's been evicted over the fact that she can't pay - that's what happens. But I just don't understand why she's been ordered to pay the court fees when she was successful.
Thoughts?
callumburns
20-05-10, 18:56
all you can do is laugh at the stupidity of taking someone to court over 3 inches of land :| honestly i know pensioners can moan about stuff but that takes the ****
I think it was more to do with the fact that he tore down her fence.
callumburns
20-05-10, 20:46
well i could understand if the title said that it was over breaking down a fence instead of saying it was over 3 inches of land :lol: its a bit misleading :|
I feel deep sadness for the lady, I also thought that as she won the case then the legal costs would be borne by the other party. There is something seriously wrong with this type of Justice.
On the other end what the newspaper reports may not be the full story, so it is difficult to form a final opinion based on a newspaper story.
However:
1) the neighbour behaved very aggressively towards her and I would be very very angry if my neighbour did that to me.
2) as a judge/auctioneer I would not have the heart to deprive an old woman of her home in the last few years of her life.
3) if I was that woman I would be tempted to burn/blowup the home so as to have the last say and leave the greedy ******** with ashes (it would be foolish though as spending the last few years of my life in a cell does not appeal to me).
Toonshorty
20-05-10, 22:05
My neighbour is awful.
She decided that the current fence was too short and so we bought some trellis which she agreed to be happy with. We put it up and she then claimed it was see through and got the council to ask us to replace it again, we had to fund all of this too. In the end we had to put up some cheap, horrible bamboo stuff and now she's letting leylandii grow up the side of the fence, it's about 7m (legally it can only be 3m). It looks horrible and we were going to ask her to remove it but she's got her house on the market so a large plus there.
Neighbours can be a right bitch ;)
GentleGiant
21-05-10, 00:01
It is a sick ruling; and a sign of how bad things have become in this country.
My neighbour is awful.
She decided that the current fence was too short and so we bought some trellis which she agreed to be happy with. We put it up and she then claimed it was see through and got the council to ask us to replace it again, we had to fund all of this too. In the end we had to put up some cheap, horrible bamboo stuff and now she's letting leylandii grow up the side of the fence, it's about 7m (legally it can only be 3m). It looks horrible and we were going to ask her to remove it but she's got her house on the market so a large plus there.
Neighbours can be a right bitch ;)
Ringbarking is your friend!
I thought if you win the case the other side pays the legal fees?
This is a comment written by someone on another news website. This is their analysis, so I don't know how good it is since I ain't checking up on it.
All the High Court case details are online. Look like Mr Goodfellow employed a builder to lay a driveway. By mistake the builder encroached 3 inches for 15 feet onto Mrs Marko's land.
.
There was no malicious intent by Mr Goodfellow.
.
The case went to Southend County Court in 2001 where the judge ruled there had been a trespass but it was a small triffling amount of land and awarded Mrs Markos nominal £2 damages for the loss of the 3 inch wide strip of land with no right of appeal.
.
Markos took the case and Mr Goodfellow to the High Court in 2001 to overturn the County Court decision and to give them the right of appeal.
.
Looks like Mr Markos represented his mother.
.
Throughout the various court cases the Markoss were warned time and time again of the substantial risks they faced and even if they won they would be left deeply out of pocket because of the costs. The Judges kept repeating this but their advice was ignored.
.
The High Court action wasnt to claim back their missing 3 inch wide strip of land but to overturn a Southend Count Court decision and to allow them to appeal the original decision.
.
In the 2002 court case there does look to have been some sort of procedural error by a Judge somewhere in 2001 and another Judge ruled that Goodfellow had been dragged to the High Court by Marko's for a case that even if an appeal was granted would have very little chance of success then Markos would be responsible for Goodfellow's costs because it was not Goodfellows fault the original judge may have made a procedural error.
.
The Markoses refused to pay Goodfellows costs for dragging him to the High Court.
.
Looks like the case ping ponged back and forward in various courts as Mr Goodfellow attempoted to reclaim the £10k in costs and has ended up where it is today.
.
All because a builder accidently built the edge of a driveway 3 inches into Mrs Marko's land.
.
The High Court decisions can be found here:-
.http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?query=markos+and+goodfellow&method=boolean&highlight=1&results=200&mask_path=ew+wales+uk%2Fcases%2FUKPC+uk%2Fcases%2F UKHL&sort=fdate
1) the neighbour behaved very aggressively towards her and I would be very very angry if my neighbour did that to me).
I didn't see anything anywhere which suggested that this was the case?
To be honest, the bottom line is that she's taken the case to court "more than 30 times" over a 3 inch strip of garden. I know that "there's the principle to consider" but it's also no wonder that the justice system is so slow and troubled when it is possible to clog it up and waste massive amounts of time over trivial issues like this.
Isn't the builder at fault, then? :/
Isn't the builder at fault, then? :/
Well, maybe. But making a driveway 3 inches too long doesn't quite seem like a hanging offence, somehow ;).
callumburns
21-05-10, 15:17
some people take things too far nowadays and this is just a good example of it :chairfall:
some people take things too far nowadays and this is just a good example of it :chairfall:
So do I sometimes, but I do it within reason, if that makes sense! ie. If I had my own house with a garden with a fence round it and sombody tore down my fence to accomodate 3 inches of driveway, I wouldn't be too bothered about the 3 inch loss of land. I'd just insist that he pays to put up a new fence.
Even though I feel sorry for the woman, but taking it to court 30 times? Maybe go for an appeal then let it drop after that. Looks like to me the court lost patience with her and her son.
callumburns
21-05-10, 18:48
So do I sometimes, but I do it within reason, if that makes sense! ie. If I had my own house with a garden with a fence round it and sombody tore down my fence to accomodate 3 inches of driveway, I wouldn't be too bothered about the 3 inch loss of land. I'd just insist that he pays to put up a new fence.
thats exactly what i would do instead of going throught all the hassle that this woman did :|
I didn't see anything anywhere which suggested that this was the case?
To be honest, the bottom line is that she's taken the case to court "more than 30 times" over a 3 inch strip of garden. I know that "there's the principle to consider" but it's also no wonder that the justice system is so slow and troubled when it is possible to clog it up and waste massive amounts of time over trivial issues like this.
In the OP there is a link to the Mirror's article that says:
She first took her neighbour Alan Goodfellow to court in 1999 when he tore down her rear fence and laid a 15ft concrete driveway, which encroached three inches into her garden
Wouldn't you call it an act of aggression tearing down your neighbour's fence?:rolleyes:
I also mention in my post (as I hope you're aware):
On the other end what the newspaper reports may not be the full story, so it is difficult to form a final opinion based on a newspaper story.
The kind update of cjac05 to the other side of this story (that i was unaware of) was posted after my comment.
Even then that may not be the full story.
Well, maybe. But making a driveway 3 inches too long doesn't quite seem like a hanging offence, somehow ;).
But smashing down another person's fence in order to accomodate those extra 3 inches is not a light ball either. (See my previous post or read this thread from the start):thumb::)
Isn't the builder at fault, then? :/
Probably yes!:thumb::p
So do I sometimes, but I do it within reason, if that makes sense! ie. If I had my own house with a garden with a fence round it and sombody tore down my fence to accomodate 3 inches of driveway, I wouldn't be too bothered about the 3 inch loss of land. I'd just insist that he pays to put up a new fence.
I certainly think that this is the most sensible thing to do!:thumb::knock:
Unfortunately we can only speculate on what really happened, reporters often tend to exaggerate or omit part of the story.
wonderlust
22-05-10, 07:58
Avatar FYI you can multi quote in one message!
Avatar FYI you can multi quote in one message!
Yes I though that would have been too long a post.:thumb:
I could have put all andyn quotes together though.:rolleyes:
Thanks for mentioning it.:cool:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.