Tweet
Received the attached summons, have prepared a reply, could someone give an opinion on the quality of the Denial and any pointers please?
Negligence
Interference
Trespass
Claim No.
Denial
The Defendant denies all allegations made against them by the Claimant as set out in the Particulars of Claim. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the amount claimed, or any portion of it.
Background
The Claimant and Defendant are known to one another as neighbours. The partially adjoining rear gardens are separated by a 6ft timber fence along the back perimeter.
This case began as a boundary dispute concerning the rear fence, initiated by the Claimant in April 2019. It is the Defendants understanding that the position of the existing boundary was decided upon and defined by the Claimant, and has been in-situ for some twenty years.
The Defendant along with partner and young family moved into their property in October 2018, and commenced improvement works to their garden in April 2019. The positioning of all boundaries enclosing the Defendants garden is historic and no fences have been moved by the Defendant at any point.
The Claimant has pursued the Defendant with intent to the move the rear fence thus encroaching on the Defendant’s garden and compromising the Defendant’s legal Title. This claim has to date remained unsupported and unproven by the Claimant.
The Defendant First notice of alleged property damage. August 2019, some four months after works carried out. Mounting accusations of damage. Diminished boundary case
The Claimant replaced the entire length of their rear fence in March 2020. This was erected in the same position as the original fence.
Defence
I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.
Date signed: 17/7/2020
Negligence
Interference
Trespass
Claim No.
Denial
The Defendant denies all allegations made against them by the Claimant as set out in the Particulars of Claim. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the amount claimed, or any portion of it.
Background
The Claimant and Defendant are known to one another as neighbours. The partially adjoining rear gardens are separated by a 6ft timber fence along the back perimeter.
This case began as a boundary dispute concerning the rear fence, initiated by the Claimant in April 2019. It is the Defendants understanding that the position of the existing boundary was decided upon and defined by the Claimant, and has been in-situ for some twenty years.
The Defendant along with partner and young family moved into their property in October 2018, and commenced improvement works to their garden in April 2019. The positioning of all boundaries enclosing the Defendants garden is historic and no fences have been moved by the Defendant at any point.
The Claimant has pursued the Defendant with intent to the move the rear fence thus encroaching on the Defendant’s garden and compromising the Defendant’s legal Title. This claim has to date remained unsupported and unproven by the Claimant.
The Defendant First notice of alleged property damage. August 2019, some four months after works carried out. Mounting accusations of damage. Diminished boundary case
The Claimant replaced the entire length of their rear fence in March 2020. This was erected in the same position as the original fence.
Defence
- Trespass by the Defendant has not taken place. The Claimant’s garden is clearly marked and enclosed by the 6ft timber fence. The fence has not been breached and the Claimant’s property has not been entered upon by the Defendant at any time.
- The Defendant is not liable to the Claimant for the replacement of any trees. The Defendant possesses legal entitlement of their garden and its contents. Two small trees removed by the Defendant in April 2019. These trees were positioned within the Defendants garden towards the rear border, with the tree trunks being entirely on the Defendant’s side of the fence9.
- The Defendant has not caused damage to the Claimant’s fence. First accusations of damage made in August 2019, some 4 months after Defendant carried out works. Damage to a section of fence that does not border with or overlap our garden. The numerous contributory factors giving rise to the Claimant deciding to replace their fence are not in any way attributed to the Defendant. Primarily it is the obvious age of the fence, and failure of the Claimant to carry out maintenance and repair. The end side panel of the Claimants fence blew down in January 2019 during bad weather. Furthermore an adjoining section of the Claimants rear fence was evidently damaged during storm Brendon in January 2020. Around this time also the Defendant witnessed seeming deliberate action by the Claimant to compromise the stability of their fence. Positioned on unstable ground and the fence is inadequate for retaining the Claimants garden which is a higher level to that of the Defendants.
I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.
Date signed: 17/7/2020
Comment