A 101-year-old grandmother has been presented with a £1,500 bill after a bitter row with her neighbours over the location of a new fence. Nala Lipp, who has lived at her home on Australia's Gold Coast for nearly 60 years, agreed to a replacement fence for privacy and security, but the structure has been placed in her neighbour's garden rather than on the boundary line.
Dispute over fence placement
“I might be 101, but I know what side of the fence I’m on,” Nala told A Current Affair. Although the positioning may appear to give her extra space, it leaves a leftover patch which she claims was not part of the deal.
Nala said she was happy to agree when her neighbour offered to replace the old fence at his own cost, describing it as a practical fix to improve privacy and security between the two homes. The original low-rise fence was built by her husband in 1966 and, despite signs of wear and tear, still served its purpose.
Mobility issues prevented inspection
“It was old, but it was still standing up. It’s done a good job all these years,” she said. At the time the work was being carried out, Nala was unable to inspect it due to mobility issues.
“It was to put it on the fence line. I gave him permission, not in his own yard,” she said. Central to the dispute is the exposed concrete line from the original fence, which Nala says has been left visible because the replacement was built away from the boundary.
Surveyor costs and neighbour response
She added: “Don’t I have any right to say I don’t want your yard in mine? It is not mine, it is still his. That’s why he has to maintain it, and it will never be mine, it’s his. And I don’t want it.”
To properly challenge the position of the fence, Nala said she would need to pay for a surveyor. “If I want to do anything about it, I have to get a surveyor, which will cost anywhere between $1000 and $3000 (around £1500). I just can’t afford to do it,” she said.
The neighbours provided a statement to A Current Affair, saying the previous fence was “significantly aged and deteriorated” and that the replacement fence was paid for in full by them in good faith. “The new fence was deliberately constructed slightly within our property, rather than directly on the existing concrete edging, to avoid any potential encroachment onto … the property,” the statement said.
They added that during the building process the location of the new fence was clear and no concerns were raised at that time. They rejected claims that the remaining concrete was a “mess” or that it had been left in place to save time or money. Instead, they urged that it was existing garden edging that formed part of the established landscaping and garden border, and was not touched because it was not considered necessary or appropriate to remove it.
