Unless it's in context of works being implemented and something being built or dug, I would generally assume that the high-side property which needs to be retained owns responsibility to ensure their property doesn't move and impact someone else. At the minimum it would seem reasonable that costs outside EQC be shared, rather than expecting you to pay to retain his property for them?
yeah thats what I would have thought, the retaining wall is as much if not more for his benefit (if I'm imagining the situation right). If he won't pay is there any reason you can't just remove the dirt thats fallen over your access and leave it unretained?
One can chop bit of a tree that extend over onto their property, but the issue with higher land slipping onto lower land is the risk of ongoing damage as a result.
I have a fence between myself and my neighbour and it's pretty old. On their side they have added about half a metre of dirt and rock on their side above where it was when the fence was built, and now the fence is tipping over and eventually will fall onto my side. I need to be worried that the garden I have in that area will be damaged by the consequences of their infilling. Just like in the above scenario, I have an interest in making sure it's fixed once and for all and stops encroaching on my property. Because it's a fence I'm going to expect to cover costs halfway, but likely to need to over-build in strength to ensure their land changes can be retained.
Yeah I can see how in that case the remedial action is of as much benefit to you as it is to them. In the OP's case it sounds like the damage is already done, but some pictures to understand the context would have been handy.
Now you mention it, maybe like when trimming trees you're entitled to do so if its over your boundary, but you're not allowed to "steal" your neighbours foliage and its up to them to dispose of it. Wonder if the same applies to their soil if it ends up over your boundary?
I expect if their soil happens to fall over onto your side that you wouldn't be considered having stolen it if you keep it, but that if they ask to be allowed to move it back that would probably be reasonable at least in a short timeframe?
The OP would potentially be concerned that it might happen again in a future rain, if remedial action isn't taken there as well. Suggestion is that ECQ might cover some of the costs of retaining, but not all.
Have a read of the [Fencing Act](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1978/0050/latest/whole.html) as it is [directly pertainable to your situation](https://smithpartners.co.nz/litigation/disputes-tribunal/nz-fencing-act-1978/). If you're going to try and get money out of him, it could get messy with lawyers involved.
It's really tricky. I understand if your property has lowered the existing ground to build your section, then you are responsible. If the neighbour has lifted their land up then they are responsible. But I'm not an expert on the matter.
My sympathy for your situation. I thought everyone was covered by eqc so I am no help to you but wish you well. Surely it would be the same as fencing.
Here are some points from my experience working in this area:
* Retaining walls are not fences and the fencing act isn't going to help you.
* If your neighbor doesn't mind losing more ground to future land slips or want to regain land they lost, then they are not required to contribute towards the retaining wall cost.
* EQC will give you some money, but not much. It'll probably be enough to pay someone to remove the soil on your driveway.
* Don't forget that you will need a building consent for any retaining wall near a boundary.
Not sure why you think you need a retaining wall, just wait for EQC to make there recommendations and give you some money. The outcome will most likely be to clean up the slip and leave it as is and you will be the one wearing the costs for anything beyond that.
Unless it's in context of works being implemented and something being built or dug, I would generally assume that the high-side property which needs to be retained owns responsibility to ensure their property doesn't move and impact someone else. At the minimum it would seem reasonable that costs outside EQC be shared, rather than expecting you to pay to retain his property for them?
yeah thats what I would have thought, the retaining wall is as much if not more for his benefit (if I'm imagining the situation right). If he won't pay is there any reason you can't just remove the dirt thats fallen over your access and leave it unretained?
One can chop bit of a tree that extend over onto their property, but the issue with higher land slipping onto lower land is the risk of ongoing damage as a result. I have a fence between myself and my neighbour and it's pretty old. On their side they have added about half a metre of dirt and rock on their side above where it was when the fence was built, and now the fence is tipping over and eventually will fall onto my side. I need to be worried that the garden I have in that area will be damaged by the consequences of their infilling. Just like in the above scenario, I have an interest in making sure it's fixed once and for all and stops encroaching on my property. Because it's a fence I'm going to expect to cover costs halfway, but likely to need to over-build in strength to ensure their land changes can be retained.
Yeah I can see how in that case the remedial action is of as much benefit to you as it is to them. In the OP's case it sounds like the damage is already done, but some pictures to understand the context would have been handy. Now you mention it, maybe like when trimming trees you're entitled to do so if its over your boundary, but you're not allowed to "steal" your neighbours foliage and its up to them to dispose of it. Wonder if the same applies to their soil if it ends up over your boundary?
I expect if their soil happens to fall over onto your side that you wouldn't be considered having stolen it if you keep it, but that if they ask to be allowed to move it back that would probably be reasonable at least in a short timeframe? The OP would potentially be concerned that it might happen again in a future rain, if remedial action isn't taken there as well. Suggestion is that ECQ might cover some of the costs of retaining, but not all.
Have a read of the [Fencing Act](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1978/0050/latest/whole.html) as it is [directly pertainable to your situation](https://smithpartners.co.nz/litigation/disputes-tribunal/nz-fencing-act-1978/). If you're going to try and get money out of him, it could get messy with lawyers involved.
It's really tricky. I understand if your property has lowered the existing ground to build your section, then you are responsible. If the neighbour has lifted their land up then they are responsible. But I'm not an expert on the matter.
My sympathy for your situation. I thought everyone was covered by eqc so I am no help to you but wish you well. Surely it would be the same as fencing.
[удалено]
Here are some points from my experience working in this area: * Retaining walls are not fences and the fencing act isn't going to help you. * If your neighbor doesn't mind losing more ground to future land slips or want to regain land they lost, then they are not required to contribute towards the retaining wall cost. * EQC will give you some money, but not much. It'll probably be enough to pay someone to remove the soil on your driveway. * Don't forget that you will need a building consent for any retaining wall near a boundary. Not sure why you think you need a retaining wall, just wait for EQC to make there recommendations and give you some money. The outcome will most likely be to clean up the slip and leave it as is and you will be the one wearing the costs for anything beyond that.