06-05-2025
Accountant forced to rip out central heating after neighbour row backfires
An accountant was forced to rip out the central heating from her Oxfordshire cottage after a row with her neighbour backfired, a court has heard.
Helen Faber sued her neighbour over a 'nuisance' fence which she claimed had encroached on a shared path by 40cm.
But the legal action had a counterproductive result when a judge threw out her claim and instead found she had herself encroached on the path with a patio and oil central heating pipe.
Ms Faber and her husband, Dominic Miles, were ordered to rip up the patio and the pipe – rendering their central heating useless – at Oxford County Court.
The couple are now challenging the ruling at the High Court.
Mr Justice Richard Smith heard last week that Ms Faber and Mr Miles own the £375k Pear Tree Cottage in Wardington, Oxfordshire, which has right of way on a footpath owned by Richard and Katherine Reid, who live next door at Forge Cottage.
In 2021, the couple returned to the countryside cottage from France to find a fence put in by Mr and Mrs Reid had 'narrowed' the 4ft-wide path by 40cm.
They said the fence was a 'nuisance' because it would make it more difficult to carry a 'large picnic tray laden with food and spilling the drinks' to a patio at the rear of their garden.
Ms Faber and Mr Miles brought a claim at Oxford County Court claiming that the new fence was a 'substantial interference' with their use of the shared right of way.
But the move backfired when judge Melissa Clarke ruled there was no 'nuisance' and also found they had installed a patio and oil pipe that constituted 'trespasses' on the footpath.
'An oil line running from an oil tank in the Pear Tree Cottage second garden is on, over and under parts of the right of way,' judge Clarke told the hearing.
'The claimants now accept that the right of way is owned by Forge Cottage. The installation by the claimants of an oil line over the right of way is a trespass on the land of Forge Cottage and the defendants are entitled to an injunction requiring the claimants to remove it.'
She said the pipeline is 'susceptible to damage' and that, if damaged, any oil leaks would contaminate Mr and Mrs Reid's land, which is a risk they 'should not have to tolerate from trespass'.
Last week, Stephen Taylor, for Ms Faber and Mr Miles, argued that Judge Clarke made the wrong decision. He said that the couple had informed their previous neighbours at Forge Cottage before installing the heating system and they had not objected.
He insisted that means their current neighbours cannot now demand its removal.
The court heard that there is no gas supply in the village and that Mr Miles and Ms Faber claim 'modern' heating systems such as heat pumps are 'not suitable for use in a stone-built property more than three centuries old.'
He also claimed the judge was wrong in defining the boundary so that part of Ms Faber and Mr Miles' patio was on their neighbours' land and deemed a 'trespass' which would have to be removed.
However, Anya Newman, representing Mr and Mrs Reid, argued that 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.
'The dispute arose after the respondents (Mr and Mrs Reid) replaced an old fence at the rear of their garden,' she said.
'It was agreed that 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.'
