Land registry mess up

Olliesuz

Thank you all for such helpful information. To clear up some of the queries, when the completion went through for my purchase the title registration included a map which was compatible with the boundaries to the land, but it had nothing on the map to correlate with neighbouring land areas. It was only when the land registry map came back to me a couple of months after the sale went through, their map indicated the neighbouring boundaries and it was then clear that the plot registered to me fell short of the actual boundaries by 6 feet or so. Unfortunately contained in that 6 feet is the water supply, hence the problem is a significant one for me. Subsequent investigation by my conveyancing solicitor indicates that the error in boundary registration dates beck to when the seller bought the land originally as it was incorrectly registered to him with this plot also missing on his registration. He didn't notice, however, so it was only when he sold that the problem was picked up by my solicitors but only after I had paid for it. The missed off portion is a nonsensical triangular portion which would be of no benefit to the original owner who has a tenant farmer using the land -tractors do not do small triangles well I gather! Also, rather than just give up on this area, I would like to get it correctly registered to me or the whole song and dance will start again when I wish to sell, and I also have no legal access to my water standpipe as things stand. The sellers original conveyancing solicitor has been retired any years, so I do not think I can access his purchase legal paperwork at this stage. My solicitor advised my that the statement of truth was not the way forward but didn't give a reason why, so I do not quite know what went wrong with that paperwork. Will look into the guidance on the previous post regarding why that might not have been accepted. It just leaves me with full use of the plot but not the legal ownership, which seems a bit of a nonsense. I am also open to exploitation by the current registered owner of the land who might expect me to pay to transfer over the last 6 feet, effectively meaning I have had to buy it twice and they have gotten paid for it twice. Surely that cant be right?

Land_Registry

Thanks for adding some additional clarification. The key pieces from my perspective are

Olliesuz wrote: »

... when the completion went through for my purchase the title registration included a map which was compatible with the boundaries to the land, but it had nothing on the map to correlate with neighbouring land areas

The map you refer to initially sounds as if it may have been a title plan based on Ordnance Survey details which existed at the time that the property was first sold by the developer. Any OS detail which existed at the time may have been fairly limited and therefore did not include what may exist now.

However you refer to 6 feet as missing so presumably something has now enabled you to identify that distance so assume that has come via other detail/information subsequent to when your solicitor posed the question as to whether it matched what you were buying or not?

and

Olliesuz wrote: »

Subsequent investigation by my conveyancing solicitor indicates that the error in boundary registration dates beck to when the seller bought the land originally as it was incorrectly registered to him with this plot also missing on his registration.

So where was the error? In the deeds and application as submitted or in the actual registration? If the registration was completed base don the deeds/application as submitted (and what you have so far stated suggests that it was) then it was 'incorrectly conveyed' rather than incorrectly registered.

I am not trying to be overly-protective of any registration but unravelling or resolving the situation and any advice given will need to cover what is actually the case as the solutions are likely to be quite different.

So, if the conveyancing was wrong on the first sale, namely the deeds/application included for example an inaccurate conveyance plan then trying to rectify the title by providing evidence as to the original intention e.g. contract showing the larger extent would be the way to go. However that is clearly now no longer possible for reasons already posted.

If so then there are perhaps two choices remaining
1. Identify the owner and get it transferred to you with the question of whether they then try to sell it to you needing to be raised/answered or
2. You continue to use and occupy the land and at some point in the future seek to register it under your own claim

I am assuming that these are the two most likely options based solely on the information provided and on the basis that the errors have been conveyancing ones and not registration based.

Note - if you decide on option 2 then I would recommend speaking to a solicitor asap especially if you have or intend to contact the owner of the land as such contact and subsequent action may negate or affect any future claim in some way

moneyistooshorttomention

The thing that strikes me here though is that OP IS the owner of the land, but it just isn't on their Title...hence I'm a bit puzzled by reference to contacting "owner of land". Guess OP has a session of literally talking to themselves there??:rotfl:

If OP were out to steal the land (ie via adverse possession) then I know that indeed the legal advice given would be "Don't ever admit to the owner that you know very well they are the owner. Just carry right on lying and stating that you are the owner"....but OP is the owner by the sound of it.

I would think, from my own experience in similar situation to date, that OP would need to ask for First Registration of their own little bit of land. That's what I'm having to do myself (though my own situation is complicated by the fact that I've got a squatter sitting on mine at the moment and OP is fortunate enough not to have a "human obstacle" sitting there in the way being awkward).

davidmcn

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

but OP is the owner by the sound of it.

They're not. They thought they were. Somebody else is the owner. So OP either has to buy it or grab it (bearing in mind that in these situations the true owner may be impossible to trace).

It's possible that the OP's solicitor has been negligent, depending on what the instructions were at the time of the purchase.

moneyistooshorttomention

Olliesuz wrote: »

The plot registered missed off the end of the area that I had actually bought. When I queried this, my solicitor discovered that part of the plot had not been correctly registered to the seller when ho purchased it originally.

That's what I am taking as being OP saying "But I AM the true owner".

I think what we need to know is why the LR didn't accept that "statement of truth". I know that thieves put in "statements of truth" in support of applications to grab land courtesy of "adverse possession".

I wasn't aware that true owners also put in "statements of truth" in support of the fact that they really DO own the land?? Do "true owners" have to do this?

Either way, we need to know the LR's reasoning at that point in time.

Land_Registry

Not too sure that this thread really relates to your own example too closely but

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

The thing that strikes me here though is that OP IS the owner of the land, but it just isn't on their Title...hence I'm a bit puzzled by reference to contacting "owner of land". Guess OP has a session of literally talking to themselves there?? as davidmcn explains they are not otherwise I doubt if the issue would have been raised

........

I would think, from my own experience in similar situation to date, that OP would need to ask for First Registration of their own little bit of land......the OP appears to have already attempted to do so but has been unsuccessful

Land_Registry

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

That's what I am taking as being OP saying "But I AM the true owner".

I think what we need to know is why the LR didn't accept that "statement of truth". I know that thieves put in "statements of truth" in support of applications to grab land courtesy of "adverse possession".

I wasn't aware that true owners also put in "statements of truth" in support of the fact that they really DO own the land??

Either way, we need to know the LR's reasoning at that point in time.

It may help here but it is important to note that in any given situation not supported by a registered title/unregistered deeds then any claim to ownership in this kind of example would rely on someone 'claiming' ownership in this way, namely the facts as they see them.

Whilst I can sympathise with the emphasis of 'DO' the law and indeed the registration process will view such things on merit for the very simple reason that nobody, often other than the claimant, knows that they 'DO' own it so the emphasis is on demonstrating that by stating the facts as they know, see or understand them.

In this case it is possible that those facts as provided were deemed insufficient to support their claim. If so then it is perhaps looking forwards and not back that may be of greater assistance here in trying to ensure that any claim is sufficient at some time in the future and does not trigger any counter-claim or other action by another party.

moneyistooshorttomention

Gotcha...so anyone wanting Title to land needs to submit a Statement of Truth (be they a squatter or the "true owner").

Am guessing that that Statement of Truth submitted by OP was accompanied by the full thing then? - ie form FR1 and whatever evidence OP has that its his then. I was just taking him saying he submitted that Statement on face value of that was all he submitted.....

Presumably the LR would have had to give OP a reason why they didn't accept the "whole deal thing" then (ie Statement/form FR1/evidence)? rather than just saying "...and the answer is No"??

Olliesuz

Just to add - on the subject of evidence, the statement of truth was completed by the seller (to me) confirming the land boundaries have been indicated by fencing for the last 30 years, so there is not any real doubt that the whole plot was intended to be sold and bought by both myself and the previous owner. The previous owner was the land owner for 8 years but the immediate neighbour of the plot since 1986, so can testify to the boundaries as they are in practice, as it were. Hence my conclusion that the initial purchase was erroneously registered, by the LR or the conveyancing solicitors, who knows now? I am very grateful for all the advice and comments - my land purchase was October last year so as you can imagine I am getting very anxious about the situation now.

Land_Registry

Olliesuz - knowing what we actually gave as the reason might help others here

The further information mentioned is useful but and whilst on the face of it there may be no doubt it might be better to know the stated reason(s) here.

These may also help understand what you may or may not need to do yourself from here on re putting in place what is required to register your own claim.

Whether you are then in a position to apply to register or not prior to any possible future sale will be one thing but even if not a future buyer and their solicitor are most likely to want suitable evidence so that they might register their own claim at a later date and/or get indemnity insurance (if appropriate) as well.

Finally you mention 'erroneously registered by LR or the conveyancing solicitors' - whilst you may be unable to check with the original conveyancers you or your solicitor should be able to raise the point with us to check although that may have been covered already hence the subsequent application to try and register of course.