Couple suing neighbours over 'picnic-ruining fence' told to rip up own patio

A complaint by a couple who over their fence backfired when they were themselves ordered to rip up a patio.

Helen Faber and her partner Dominic Miles were left fuming when they to their country cottage in Oxfordshire to find a new fence had been erected in their absence by Richard and Katherine Reid. They claimed it narrowed a path leading to part of their back garden by 40cm which caused a “nuisance” should they decide to take a picnic to their patio. However the move backfired when it was ruled there was no nuisance - and the pair were told to rip up their patio and remove an oil central heating pipe.

READ MORE:

The couple challenged the ruling, which is being heard in the High Court. They argued it was wrong for the judge to order them to remove the pipe, leaving them with no heating or hot water system. Steven Taylor, for Faber and Miles, said: "The judge wrongly concluded by creating the two near 90 degree bends in the right of way and by narrowing it by about 33% there was no substantial interference.

"The judge was wrong because ...it cannot be said to be unreasonable for the claimants to insist on being able to use the disputed way when carrying a 1m wide chattel, for example a picnic tray with full glasses thereon.

"The pre-existing fence respected the 4ft width of the disputed way. The 2021 fence had reduced the disputed way to 2ft 3in at its narrowest point (and) rendered it difficult to traverse, particularly when transporting logs, garden waste and wheelie bins.

"A 4ft way can be conveniently used, for example to carry a large box along the way or a large picnic tray laden with food and drinks. If the box or tray is 3ft 11in wide it can just get through without spilling the drinks. It is submitted that even a small reduction in the width of a 4ft walkway amounts to a substantial interference.”

Anya Newman, for Mr and Mrs Reid, argued Judge Clarke was right in her ruling at the county court and that the fence should stay and the patio and pipe should be removed. She said: “The dispute arose after the respondents (Mr and Mrs Reid) replaced an old fence at the rear of their garden.

"It was agreed the route of the fence was somewhat different to the previous fence, it is now dog-legged instead of running at one angle. After initially being happy with the replacement fence, the appellants raised issue about its positioning.

"The respondents denied the new fence, save for one small section, had changed position from the previous fence. However, they asserted this change did not substantially interfere with the right of way.

"Due to the decision on the boundary, the patio of the appellants’ which they had used to place patio furniture and a gas canister was a trespass. The raised patio ought to be removed by the appellants."

Mr Justice Smith has now reserved his ruling on the case, to be given at a later date.