101-year-old takes on neighbours who ‘gave her more yard’

Nothing divides neighbours quite like a fence, and 101-year-old Nala isn’t backing down from this backyard blow-up.

The great-great-great-great-grandmother says she never agreed to how the new fence was put up and won’t take it lying down.

“I might be 101, but I know what side of the fence I’m on,” Nala told A Current Affair.

Meet Nala Lipp.

She’s a centenarian, sharp as a tack, and she’s not letting her neighbour mess with her turf.

“Well, Mitchell, the builder told me that you called me the old lady. Well, I might be an old lady, Mitchell, but I’m not blonde, and I can see what you’ve done to me,” Nala said.

Nala has called her place on the Gold Coast home for six decades.

Her late husband built the original low-rise wire fence in 1966.

“It was old, but it was still standing up. It’s done a good job all these years. And he said, next door, he wanted to pull it down and have a big fence put up for privacy and security, and he wouldn’t ask me for any money, and I said yes,” Nala explained.

It was meant to be a neighbourly gesture: a new fence paid for by the young man next door, but Nala said what’s been left behind on the boundary line is offensive.

Given her mobility, Nala couldn’t get down to check the job herself.

She said her carer spotted that something was wrong.

A Current Affair helped her take a look.

“Alright, Nala, this is the first time you’re seeing the cement up close. What do you think?” A Current Affair asked, standing next to her on her walker.

“Oh well, I think he’s made a real mess of everything now. Looks terrible,” Nala responded.

Nala said this wasn’t what she agreed to, so she spoke with the builder.

“He told the builder that the old lady next door gave permission to do it. But the old lady next door did not give him permission. It was to put it on the fence line. I gave him permission, not in his own yard,” Nala said.

“He knows I’m Mrs Lipp. He didn’t have to call me the old lady. So I was a bit upset about that as well. I’m 101-plus – third of November I’ll be 102.”

The new fence isn’t on the boundary line where the trail of concrete from the old fence has been left behind.

“And the builder said then, ‘Oh well, the cement on the yard, on the line, meant more work, so more money’.

“I think he just thought, ‘Blow me, this is what I’m going to do. I’m not pulling up the cement fence; it’s going to cost me extra money. I’m just going to put it in my own yard’, which he was entitled to do, I know that,” Nala told A Current Affair.

“It wasn’t a good neighbourly thing for them to do.”

You might think Nala’s scored a bit of extra yard space, but that’s not what she wants.

“So his yard is now in your yard?” A Current Affair asked.

Read more

Swans staff give statements to police as kids’ program dumps Heeney

“That’s right. Don’t I have any right to say I don’t want your yard in mine?” Nala replied.

“Do you reckon there might be issues when selling the house?” A Current Affair questioned.

“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,” she responded.

And Nala can’t afford to fix it.

“If I want to do anything about it, I have to get a surveyor, which will cost anywhere between $1000 and $3000. I just can’t afford to do it,” Nala said.

“I had a fall here worrying about it with my blood pressure and everything, and he still hasn’t done anything about it.”

“If you had known that it wasn’t going to go on the boundary and you’d been left with this cement, would you have said yes?” A Current Affair asked.

“No, I would not. I [would have] just said, ‘No, leave my existing fence alone’,” Nala replied.

Gold Coast City Council told Nala it was not its problem.

She’s sent legal letters to the neighbours and gone through mediation without any success.

“So I think for him to get my message, he’ll get it this way,” Nala said.

“He will get it this way. Don’t mess with Nala,” A Current Affair suggested.

“No, I’m an easy person to get along with, but I don’t like being treated the wrong way like that,” Nala said.

Full statement from the neighbours:

The previous fence was significantly aged and deteriorated. Mitchell discussed replacing it with Mrs Lipp before works commenced and paid the entire cost of the new fence himself, in good faith, with the intention of improving the privacy, security and condition between the two properties.

The new fence was deliberately constructed slightly within our property, rather than directly on the existing concrete edging, to avoid any potential encroachment onto Mrs Lipp’s property.

During construction, there was a period where the old fence had been removed and the new framing and fence position were clearly visible. No concern was raised with us at that time regarding the positioning or alignment of the new fence.

We also do not agree with the characterisation of the remaining concrete as “heavy concrete footings from the old fence” or a “mess” that was left behind to save time or money.

The concrete is existing garden edging which formed part of the established landscaping and garden border. It was intentionally left undisturbed because we did not consider it appropriate or necessary to remove existing landscaping as part of the fence replacement.

We do not accept the premise that the positioning of the fence has transferred any part of our property to Mrs Lipp or created an obligation for her to maintain our land. The fence itself does not determine ownership of the land or alter the property boundary.

We likewise do not accept the suggestion that placing the fence within our own property alters the surveyed boundary of either property. The decision to position it within our property was specifically made to avoid encroaching onto Mrs Lipp’s land.

We have consistently attempted to deal with Mrs Lipp’s concerns respectfully.

When Mrs Lipp subsequently initiated formal mediation through the Queensland Government Dispute Resolution Centre, we cooperated fully with that process.

The matter was ultimately assessed as unsuitable for mediation, and the file was closed.

We remain willing to address any genuine practical concerns through the appropriate channels. Our intention throughout has been to improve the fence at our own expense and deal with any concerns respectfully.