Retired couple Graham and Katherine Bateson have exhausted their life savings in a protracted legal dispute with their late neighbor over a fence erected on their shared driveway. The Batesons have reportedly spent over $59,000 on legal fees since the fence was installed next to their bungalow in 2019 by their neighbor, Wendy Leedham. The couple had sought legal recourse to have the fence removed, arguing that it obstructed access to their property.
The Batesons purchased their two-bedroom house in Snettisham, Norfolk, in 1987 for approximately $39,000. At the time of purchase, they were informed that the driveway was shared with the neighboring property. They were also told that a boundary existed between the two properties, which should remain free of any construction. However, their neighbor sought legal advice and was told she could erect a fence between the properties.
Katherine Bateson, 73, expressed her frustration over the situation, stating that they had lived there for 32 years without any issues with previous neighbors. She was baffled by the fact that despite all legal checks done at the time of purchase, they were now facing this predicament. The couple felt wronged as their life savings were being depleted over a dispute they believed they were right about from the start.
The legal battle continued for three years until November 2021, when a mediation hearing was held. The hearing concluded that a new deed should be drawn up, aligning the boundary with the fence, thereby allowing it to remain. Unfortunately, Wendy Leedham passed away at the age of 74 in May 2021, months before the hearing.
Leedham’s property, a three-bedroom house, is currently on the market for approximately $496,000. The Batesons fear that a new owner might replace the fence. Despite a surveyor’s report confirming the shared driveway and open boundary after the mediation hearing, the couple still lives in fear of another fence being erected.
In September 2022, Graham Bateson, 75, a retired window cleaner, took matters into his own hands and dismantled the fence. This action led to his arrest for criminal damage, and he was detained for 12 hours. However, the charge was dropped in December as the Crown Prosecution Service deemed it was not in the public interest to proceed. By then, the couple had exhausted their funds and could not continue their legal fight.
The fence has not been rebuilt, and the Land Registry has rejected the revised deed due to issues with the witnessing of the Batesons’ signatures. Both parties bore their own legal costs. The Batesons’ struggle highlights the potential pitfalls of property disputes and the financial toll they can take.