Neighbours extension appears to be on my land

keystone

Leif wrote: »

Keystone, you are clearly trying to be offensive, but don't call me Leify. I see no reason to be rude to you in return.

Of course I'm not trying to be offensive. Thats absurd - its more a term of endearment because I have respect for you but if you don't want it then thats fine but I'm certainly not being rude. If it offends you I apologise and put myself on the norty step for 10 minutes.

Secondly, although you might enjoy a rather fruitless argument, in reality - assuming the original description is accurate, and assuming I have not missed something - the neighbour satisfies the requirements of adverse possession

No I'm not interested in a fruitless argument. The neighbour may satisfy the requirement if the land belongs to the OP which has not been established and yes I do think you have missed something. Just because the OP thinks the neighbours wall is on his land does not make it so. If it were to be shown to be on his land categorically so then you would be right but it hasn't been so you can't be - yet.

Anyway you specifically told the OP that the land no longer belongs to him. That is a quite incorrect conclusion based on the information presented. If my correcting you on that is indulging in fruitless argument then to be honest you really need to be less sensitive to criticism especially when you are wrong. Your words suggest that aquisition by adverse possession is automatic - it isn't.

The OP needs to think what they will achieve by engaging a surveyor (which is probably the only realistic way to establish the most likely position of the boundary)

I agree. Except in this situation(as I already mentioned) the houses are a certain distance apart and if the line on the page is plumb down the middle then simple measurement across the corners will show where it is. That won't need a surveyor.

The problem is that boundaries are purposefully not specified to any degree of precision on deeds.

Yes I know although its mostly down to the width of the pencil mark on the scaled plan as much as anything. I did cover that at the top of the thread.

And I'm not sure this was mentioned earlier, but the OP moved in knowing the situation so in a sense they have acquiesced to the facts on the grounds.

You are correct.

Cheers

Leif

keystone wrote: »

No I'm not interested in a fruitless argument. The neighbour may satisfy the requirement if the land belongs to the OP which has not been established and yes I do think you have missed something. Just because the OP thinks the neighbours wall is on his land does not make it so. If it were to be shown to be on his land categorically so then you would be right but it hasn't been so you can't be - yet.

Anyway you specifically told the OP that the land no longer belongs to him. That is a quite incorrect conclusion based on the information presented. If my correcting you on that is indulging in fruitless argument then to be honest you really need to be less sensitive to criticism especially when you are wrong. Your words suggest that aquisition by adverse possession is automatic - it isn't.

I did state "Had this been recent, you could have used a surveyor to establish the likely lie of the boundary,".

In practical terms the OP has no title to the land beneath the extension unless you can see how it could be otherwise. Either it was built on the neighbour's land, or the neighbour has in effect established a right to that land.

Saying that the land no longer belongs to the OP is in the literal sense incorrect, but in practice it is as good as true, and debating the point is an academic exercise.

In my own case the neighbour was trying to move a fence to take land, which they did successfully during the sale of the property. Even if you involve surveyors and solicitors, it does not guarantee anything, as people can ignore them. I am told that even if you go to court, judges hate boundary disputes, and a bad egg at breakfast can have expensive consequences.

Land_Registry

jonnyb1978 wrote: »

Hardy a professional answer. The house next door to us is empty. Shall I just move the fence over 3 feet. New owners wont query as stated above the boundary has been defined by my fence. People do unknowingly do move boundaries you know.

jonnyb1978 - it is a fair point you make and apologies. I was merely trying to direct you to the guidance we provide in more detail in the guide mentioned but admit I could have done this a little better.

The OP originally mentioned a difference of some 8-10 inches which would simply not show up on a scaled plan at 1:1250. My point re the existing boundary structures simply related to the fact that in most cases with properties in England & Wales you have a well established and clearly defined boundary in place - issues tend to arise as to where the exact line might be

Boundaries do get moved as you suggest but often such changes are quite obvious and immediately spotted by the adjoining owner e.g. new fence, old posts, relandscaped area and so on.

In your own example if you did move the fence and the new neighbours did not query it then over time that land may well become yours if you then apply to have it registered as such. That though is a separate matter to simply acknowledging where a boundary line might be.

New neighbours are often asked to look at the plans and confirm whether they match the reality on the ground i.e. what they are buying. Some may simply accept the situation as you suggest whilst others may ask questions such as 'that fence looks like it has been moved' or 'the plan suggests a much wider gap and that fence looks like it might be 2 or 3 foot over our way' - such questions may then cause the matter to be investigated.

Similarly other neighbours can have a tendency to noticing such things and raising them with an absent owner.

jonnyb1978

Land registry rep: Thanks for the response

Dimey

Land Registry Rep - in which case if we notice a change of border line, should we write to the Land Registry to tell them?

Or if we ourselves change the line of the fence to erect a new fence to run inside some trees but the original fence line runs along the boundary outside the trees. Should we tell the Land Registry that the boundary is still outside the trees where the old fence posts are and not inside the trees where the new fence is?

keystone

The position of a fence and the position of the boundary are not necessarily connected. Just because you put a new fence up it doesn't mean that you move the boundary accordingly.

Cheers

Land_Registry

Dimey wrote: »

Land Registry Rep - in which case if we notice a change of border line, should we write to the Land Registry to tell them?

Or if we ourselves change the line of the fence to erect a new fence to run inside some trees but the original fence line runs along the boundary outside the trees. Should we tell the Land Registry that the boundary is still outside the trees where the old fence posts are and not inside the trees where the new fence is?

I would not expect people to write to Land Registry to tell us that they have noticed a change in a border line or that they are putting up a new fence in a position different to where the legal boundary is.

Keystone is quite correct in that just because a fence (or any other structure) is put up does not automatically change the legal boundary.

Changes to the extent of registered ownership occur through application to change the land register together with appropriate evidence to either confirm agreement or to confirm that you have taken legal ownership of someone else's land over time.