Music0 min ago
Why Should The House Be Handed Over To The Ali's To Sell?
77 Answers
http://
After all they could sell it to one of theirs at a knock down price.
After all they could sell it to one of theirs at a knock down price.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The recent pictures seem to have clarified things.
In my opinion, the Constantines built their extension first, observing the boundary-line. This meant that whilst the foundations ran along the length of the boundary the actual wall would be stepped back from this.
When the Alis built their extension, rather than leave a 6" gap (3" on each side of the boundary line) between the two extensions, they butted the external leaf up to the neighbouring extension (including an expansion joint as shown).
This is actually sound practice as the gap can cause all sorts of problems; damp, vermin, litter and by it's very natue it it inaccessible and can be to the detriment of 'both' properties.
There may be NO commensurate appropriation of space internally by the Alis. The Constantines now no longer have an inaccesible 3" x however long the extension is at the boundary of their property, which would have been to the rear of the concrete fence posts.
As more information keeps being added to this newspaper article, I may change my mind later on...
In my opinion, the Constantines built their extension first, observing the boundary-line. This meant that whilst the foundations ran along the length of the boundary the actual wall would be stepped back from this.
When the Alis built their extension, rather than leave a 6" gap (3" on each side of the boundary line) between the two extensions, they butted the external leaf up to the neighbouring extension (including an expansion joint as shown).
This is actually sound practice as the gap can cause all sorts of problems; damp, vermin, litter and by it's very natue it it inaccessible and can be to the detriment of 'both' properties.
There may be NO commensurate appropriation of space internally by the Alis. The Constantines now no longer have an inaccesible 3" x however long the extension is at the boundary of their property, which would have been to the rear of the concrete fence posts.
As more information keeps being added to this newspaper article, I may change my mind later on...
If the Alis had been *my* clients, I have recommended that they have a word with the neighbours, explain the reasoning and made sure that everything was agreeable.
It seems the works were carried out without any sort of consultation and left the Constantines feeling aggrieved......even though they'd never again have use of the 3" land had the Alis constructed an extension wholly contained within the boundary-lines.
It seems the works were carried out without any sort of consultation and left the Constantines feeling aggrieved......even though they'd never again have use of the 3" land had the Alis constructed an extension wholly contained within the boundary-lines.
JTT:"If the Alis had been *my* clients, I have recommended that they have a word with the neighbours, explain the reasoning and made sure that everything was agreeable. " - that may have worked for all concerned, instead they waited till the Constantine's went on holiday, comes across as very sneaky.
There are really no limits to some peoples' desire to exercise their 'rights', especially when it comes to property.
Normally intelligent people seem to lose sight of rational thought processes, and consideration of what exactly they are going to gain, and certainly in this case, lose, by pointless bickering over what becomes a 'point of principle' utterly at odds with the material gain from a legal victory.
It's sad for the losing family, I hope the gentleman concerned has thoroughly familiarised himself with the concept of 'chasing your quarry over a cliff ...'.
Normally intelligent people seem to lose sight of rational thought processes, and consideration of what exactly they are going to gain, and certainly in this case, lose, by pointless bickering over what becomes a 'point of principle' utterly at odds with the material gain from a legal victory.
It's sad for the losing family, I hope the gentleman concerned has thoroughly familiarised himself with the concept of 'chasing your quarry over a cliff ...'.
Whilst people may think it is harsh it must be said that the outcome of litigation is "the loser pays". Undoubtedly the parties will have been advised "if you lose you will pay your costs and the other sides". You should only litigate if you can afford to lose.
And why should the winning side be penalised by not being able to recover their costs?
And why should the winning side be penalised by not being able to recover their costs?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.