It is even better when your neighbours also take care of their gardens by cutting away any overhanging trees or shrubs that start making their way into your garden.

Sometimes your neighbours’ plants can start growing in your garden or even ruin your fence.

A lawyer has revealed exactly what your rights are if your neighbours’ plants start to grow on your property.

You do have the right to cut them down but there are some rules you should follow. (Image: Getty)

What are my rights if my neighbours’ plants are growing on my property?

A property expert from HBC Widdows Mason has shared advice on how to deal with neighbours and their gardens.

You do have the right to cut back any branches that are crossing into your garden but there are a few rules you should keep in mind.

Natalie Welsh, the head of property lawyer at HCB Widdows Mason, has shared advice on how to keep the peace when someone’s shrubs and trees are growing in your garden.

She said: “It can be really frustrating when branches or plants from your neighbour’s garden start to spill over into your space.

“In England and Wales, you’re allowed to cut back any branches that cross onto your property, but only up to the boundary line.

“Just make sure you don’t step onto your neighbour’s land or damage the tree itself.

“It’s always best to have a friendly chat with your neighbour first.

“Let them know what you’re planning, especially if you think you’ll need a tree surgeon.

“If the branches are overhanging onto your side, you’re responsible for the cost of having them removed, not your neighbour.

“Once you’ve cut them back, you’re also responsible for getting rid of the branches properly.

“The cut branches belong to your neighbour, you can offer to return them, but you mustn’t just throw them back over the fence – that’s fly-tipping, which is illegal.”

If your neighbour says they do not want to cut branches, then you have to get rid of them yourself.

This can be done by putting them in your garden waste bin or by taking them down to your nearest recycling centre.

Natalie added: “The obligations for maintenance can change over time and responsibility is often poorly documented.

“If any plans associated with the property show ‘T’ marks on the title documents (your conveyancer can advise you), then this is usually an indication of the boundaries that you are to maintain and repair.

“If there are no such ‘T@’ marks and the title is silent as to boundaries, then it is usually the case that the boundaries are considered party boundaries.

“This means that the responsibility to maintain the boundaries is shared evenly with adjoining properties.”

Natalie mentioned how talking to your neighbour can help you get a clearer understanding of boundaries and avoid any disputes in the future.

If you are still unsure of your rights, it can be good to speak to a legal expert first.

Have you ever had problems with your neighbours’ plants growing in your garden? Let us know in the comments.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has been accused of sending a ‘deeply troubling message’ by posing next to the fully-covered wife of an Islamic cleric who honoured Osama Bin Laden.

Dame Sarah Mullally was pictured with Hafiz Tahir Ashrafi, a 68-year-old Pakistani cleric, and his wife, who wore a niqab that concealed the entirety of her face apart from her eyes.

Critics say the Archbishop, who pledged to speak out against misogyny when she took up the role in January, had effectively ‘condoned’ the repression of Muslim women and caused ‘serious reputational damage’ to the Church of England. 

Mr Ashrafi was handed the Hubert Walter Award for Reconciliation and Interfaith Co-operation, having allegedly promoted harmonious relationships between different religious groups.

Yet just days after the awards ceremony took place at Lambeth Palace, the first female Archbishop of Canterbury found herself under fire for including Mr Ashrafi, who it was revealed had bestowed an honour on the Al Qaeda chief while he remained a fugitive following 9/11.

The fact the ceremony took place last Friday – on the 25th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks – only exacerbated matters further. 

Lambeth Palace subsequently withdrew the award, but the Archbishop has since been accused of not issuing a formal apology – or of acknowledging concerns around the ‘dignity and freedom of women’ conveyed by the photograph. 

Notably, Mr Ashrafi’s wife was not named in any caption attached to the image. A second woman seen in photographs from the event, believed to be his daughter, has also remained anonymous.

Shadow Home Secretary Nick Timothy has criticised the Archbishop for ‘condoning’ the repression of Muslim women

An extract from the letter sent by Nick Timothy and shadow culture secretary Rebecca Paul 

Advertisement

Now Nick Timothy, shadow home secretary, and Rebecca Paul, shadow culture secretary, have formally written to the Archbishop to complain over the matter. 

They wrote: ‘The Church of England teaches the equal dignity and worth of men and women. Yet you presented the award alongside Mr Ashrafi’s wife, whose face was concealed by a niqab so that only her eyes were visible and Lambeth Palace subsequently published that image.

‘This could appear to condone one of the most repressive manifestations of Islam, one that denies women basic freedoms over how they dress, whether they may show their faces and how they interact with others.

‘At this very moment, women in Afghanistan face violence for refusing to cover, while women in Iran have been imprisoned and brutally attacked for resisting compulsory veiling.

‘Nor is coercion confined to other countries: many women and girls in Britain also face coercion and cultural pressure to veil themselves too. 

‘It is important for you to reflect on what message this conveys to women fighting for the freedoms that we take for granted.’ 

Posting the image of the Archbishop with Mr Ashrafi and his wife wearing a niqab to his X account, Nick Timothy commented: ‘When I see a woman in a burqa, I see a human being in a ball and chain.’

After the incident came to light, Tory MP Neil O’Brien said: ‘I think the niqab is oppressive and makes women second class citizens. It is clearly not required in Islam. While this is a free country, it should be discouraged at all levels.’

Meanwhile Tory leader Kemi Badenoch wrote on X: ‘Yes, the church might have been ignorant of some facts, but the presence of a woman with a full face veil, covered head to toe, in an outfit widely known as a visible symbol of female oppression should have given pause for thought.’

She added that the choice to bring Mr Ashrafi to Lambeth Palace amounted to a ‘significant lapse’.

In the hours after receiving his award, video emerged of Mr Ashrafi praising his wife – who is seen in one image wearing the honorary medal – for her ‘support’.

He said: ‘And because the lady – the Archbishop – is a woman, I said it’s been 32 years since I got married, and if my wife hasn’t supported me in all my highs and lows, and my daughter too from one point, maybe I would not have reached this stage today. And that’s why I got my wife to collect the award.’

But just days later, Lambeth Palace contacted Mr Ashrafi to inform him the award had been withdrawn after it emerged that the group of Islamic scholars he chairs in Pakistan had previously given its highest honour to Osama Bin Laden. 

The Ulema Council gave Bin Laden a religious title meaning ‘Sword of Allah’ in retaliation for Britain awarding a knighthood to Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie.

Mr Ashrafi said in June 2007: ‘We are pleased to award the title of Saifullah to Osama bin Laden after the British government’s decision to bestow the title of ‘Sir’ on blasphemer Rushdie. This is the highest title for a Muslim warrior.’

He added: ‘If a blasphemer can be given the title ‘Sir’ by the West despite the fact that he’s hurt the feelings of Muslims, then a mujahid who has been fighting for Islam against the Russians, Americans and British must be given the lofty title of Islam, Saifullah.’

Other evidence of Mr Ashrafi’s questionable views also came to light. 

Earlier this year, at the start of the Iran war, the cleric shared an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that the US and Israeli missile strikes were part of a plot to eventually take control of his own country.

‘Under the cover of Iran, the target of the Jews and Christians is nuclear-armed Pakistan,’ he said, before praising Iran’s ‘mujahideen’, or religious warriors, who were ‘standing like a wall of lead against Jews and Christians’.

According to the Times of Karachi, he also called the assassinated Ayatollah Khamenei a ‘martyr’, while following the devastating attacks of October 7, 2023, he described the Hamas terrorists as ‘Palestinian freedom fighters’.

Evidence of Mr Ashrafi’s other questionable views came to light, as it emegerd he previously honoured Osama bin Laden while he was a fugitive following 9/11

Mr Ashrafi said of those who oppose blasphemy laws: ‘We will break that hand, if you used your tongue against Islamic clauses, we will cut that tongue, if you directed your eyes towards Islamic clauses, we will take your eyes out.’

A spokesperson for Mr Ashrafi said: ‘Regarding Osama bin Laden, Ashrafi’s remarks have been presented without their proper context. 

‘His comparison was not an endorsement of bin Laden; it was made in the context of explaining the hurt felt by many Muslims over the British honour given to Salman Rushdie. 

‘His longstanding record against terrorism and violent extremism should be considered when assessing such remarks.’

The spokesperson added: ‘The decision of Ashrafi’s wife and daughter to observe hijab is their personal and religious right.

‘Ashrafi also dedicated his recent Hubert Walter Award to his wife, acknowledging her support and contribution throughout his work.’

A spokesperson for Lambeth Palace said: ‘We fully recognise the widespread concern caused by the inclusion of Imam Ashrafi in last week’s Lambeth Awards ceremony.

‘After his previous comments came to light we rescinded the award as quickly as possible. 

‘Lambeth Palace is reviewing how this particular award came to be given – and our wider nomination and vetting processes – to ensure that lessons are learned for the future.’

ITV’s two-part documentary about an unsolved murder from 40 years ago is the latest true crime offering to hit the Netflix TV top 10.

The Real Unforgotten – whose title, perhaps unnecessarily, refers to ITV’s hit crime drama – retreads the chilling murder case of Carol Morgan, attempting to mount a fresh investigation into her death. 

The series reveals numerous police blunders in the initial investigation in 1981, when the 36-year-old convenience store owner was found brutally murdered in the stockroom of her shop in Linslade, Bedfordshire.

A killer, who has never been caught, used an axe or machete to attack Carol before stealing £435 in cash and 1,400 cigarettes.

Carol’s husband, Allen, was on a cinema trip with their two children. The documentary details how the police went on the working assumption that this was a robbery gone wrong.

Allen and his mistress, Margaret Spooner, were not formally questioned under caution at the time.

Instead of eyeing up Allen, the police chased down a reported sighting of a man with carrier bags getting into a car – even though Carol was seen alive after this man was spotted in the vicinity. 

Years later in 2018, the case was given a pair of fresh eyes and all the existing evidence re-examined. They were starting on the back foot because all the forensic evidence had somehow gone awry. 

Former Detective Superintendent Carl Foster, who was the senior investigating officer and saw the case through to his retirement, told the BBC it was ‘old-fashioned detective work’ they had to rely on, with the lack of a forensic breakthrough in the offing.

‘Knocking on doors, re-interviewing people and seeing what changed,’ he recalled in a 2025 interview with the Beeb. ‘We always had a really strong circumstantial case, but you need direct evidence.’

So the team started looking into long-unanswered questions, like why did Carol’s husband Allen report the murder to police using a neighbour’s phone when he had his own? What about the life insurance policy linked to their shop? 

And would a legitimately grieving widow sell up shop posthaste and tie the knot with his mistress?

One new piece of evidence ‘blew the case wide open’ – a woman called Jane Bunting, who was a teenager when the murder took place, recalled being asked by Allen if her ex-boyfriend knew anyone who could kill.

She later told Luton Crown Court: ‘He’d say, “I hate Carol”, “I don’t want to be married to her”, “I wish she’d die”, “Wouldn’t an accident be nice?”.’

Cut to 2024, when Allen was found guilty of hiring a hitman to murder his former wife Carol. His current wife Margaret was found not guilty of the same charge.

Allen was jailed for life with a minimum of 22 years. Former Det Supt Foster has since said that he remains hopeful Allen will one day reveal who he hired to kill his wife. 

He said: ‘I feel hugely proud of what the team achieved just through their tenacity and that old-fashioned police work. We just kept grinding away and eventually we got there.

‘What was in my thoughts were Carol’s biological children, who have to come to terms with the fact that the man they called dad murdered their mother… Where do they start putting their lives back together?’

The Real Unforgotten is available to stream on Netflix.

MORE: First look at The Inbetweeners 3 reveals one boy’s wedding – and who the bride is

MORE: Netflix’s true crime horror soars to number 1 despite being labelled ‘ridiculous’

MORE: Big Brother star brands fellow housemate a ‘cow’ after fat-shaming row

The incident happened during the first day of the summer holidays

A mum claims she was forced to quit her job after her car was crashed into by a lorry. Chantelle Sandy says her car was crashed into by a DHL vehicle outside her Trumpington home, leaving her without a way of getting to work.

The 33-year-old single mum claims her BMW car was parked outside her house on a pavement when the HGV hit it at the start of the school summer holidays. The BMW was damaged significantly and was written off.

Chantelle says she was offered a courtesy car for two weeks, but was then left without a vehicle for the rest of summer, which she says “ruined a lot of our plans for the holidays”. The mum, who works as a school caterer in the Thetford area relies on her car to get to work.I

She said the stress of it all, combined with not having a car led her to quit her job. She said: “I was off for the holidays luckily, but trying to work out a plan to go back to work and the amount of stress it caused me, I just didn’t feel like I could return to work. There was no way I could get where I needed to be with public transport in time to do my job.”

Ms Sandy had spent five years paying off her car and claimed she received less than half the money she had paid. When the payout came through, she was able to get new car but not in time for the start of the school year.

She added: “I worked really hard to get that car and the car I have got now, yeah it’s a car, but it’s not the car that I should have or that I worked for.”

A spokesperson for DHL Supply Chain said: “We apologise for the inconvenience caused to Ms Sandy. We managed the incident swiftly and it is now being handled by the relevant insurers.”