MachsSelbst
2025-04-25 18:13:17
- #1
Let's summarize this.
The neighbor is planning an extension and asks you if that's okay. You say yes. Then construction starts and you think, "Oh dear, that's going to be big, I don't want that anymore!" That's not how it works, you can't just withdraw your approval after a certain revocation period.
By the way, it is also said right away that the new solution is better than the old one, because the old shed didn't even have a gutter. That's a pretty dangerous statement if it goes to court. Because apparently, no one was bothered by the rainwater from the old shed for decades, and the neighbor can't do anything about increased heavy rainfall.
Now you went to a lawyer who says, "Okay, everything seems fine, I don't see any leverage, except for one trick."
And you want to use that trick now, hoping that the neighbor will tear down their expensive built extension and rebuild the old wooden shed without the gutter? Because apparently that was fine all those years.
I suspect a court in such a case will first come up with the wider gutter, whether that helps or not.
And in the end, the question is also, did the water only come from the neighbor's roof? Why doesn't it drain on your side?
And so on.
You imagine something like this, especially in court, way too simply... these things can drag on for years and almost always end with a compromise in the end. You can only prevent such extensions if you file a lawsuit before they are built.
PS:
And because it was portrayed a bit contemptuously that he apparently just wants to have peace at last. I think he has better things to do than to bother with the disputes of old stubborn people.
The neighbor is planning an extension and asks you if that's okay. You say yes. Then construction starts and you think, "Oh dear, that's going to be big, I don't want that anymore!" That's not how it works, you can't just withdraw your approval after a certain revocation period.
By the way, it is also said right away that the new solution is better than the old one, because the old shed didn't even have a gutter. That's a pretty dangerous statement if it goes to court. Because apparently, no one was bothered by the rainwater from the old shed for decades, and the neighbor can't do anything about increased heavy rainfall.
Now you went to a lawyer who says, "Okay, everything seems fine, I don't see any leverage, except for one trick."
And you want to use that trick now, hoping that the neighbor will tear down their expensive built extension and rebuild the old wooden shed without the gutter? Because apparently that was fine all those years.
I suspect a court in such a case will first come up with the wider gutter, whether that helps or not.
And in the end, the question is also, did the water only come from the neighbor's roof? Why doesn't it drain on your side?
And so on.
You imagine something like this, especially in court, way too simply... these things can drag on for years and almost always end with a compromise in the end. You can only prevent such extensions if you file a lawsuit before they are built.
PS:
And because it was portrayed a bit contemptuously that he apparently just wants to have peace at last. I think he has better things to do than to bother with the disputes of old stubborn people.