Contradicting Land Registry boundaries

G_M

lizards wrote: »

"(23.08.2013) A notice dated 1 December 2011 by X and Y of X and Y Limited, liquidators of ZZ Homes Limited stated that the registered estate in this title was
being disclaimed under section 178 of the Insolvency Act 1986."

What does this mean??

Not sure. The Land Rep may comment tomorrow, or ring them and ask in the morning.

Or contact the Liquidators.

But sounds to me like no one will be very interested in this land. The owner has no access method so can't use it even if they wanted to. I'd just leave my greenhouse there & and quietly make use. Watch out for whoever did the tree cutting: they are possibly doing the same thing.

And read about adverse possession

davidmcn

The disclaimer means the liquidators didn't want the land.

If the company has since been dissolved (check on Companies House) then (assuming it was registered in England or Wales) you may be able to buy the land from the Government Legal Department.

lizards

Thank you both!

That's an interesting thought about whoever is maintaining the trees. I can't see why anyone would want it as it is so steep to the gardens at the rear, but that's not to say they might fancy the idea of a ladder and a secret hideaway place. I would! But not everyone thinks like me and I suspect for most people it would be a liability.

If somebody has been maintaining it with a view to adverse possession, if I tried to buy it from the Government Legal Department as mentioned, what would happen if they hadn't yet claimed it? Even if 10/12 years has passed since they began maintenance?

Edit: I just had a more detailed nose over the fence. It looks like the people at the rear are using it as part of their garden, albeit a not that easily accessible or much used part of their garden. I also noticed some discarded chain link fence in a corner as well, but not enough to go all the way along. I'm going to assume it is them who have been cutting the trees.

silvercar

It could be that the neighbours have been pruning the trees to allow light into their garden rather than any intention to claim the sliver as theirs. They may be very happy for you to claim ownership - and further obligations to prune the trees.

lizards

That would be good if it was!

I suppose if I approach them and ask, if they want the land it might spur them into putting in a claim themselves which I can only assume they'd have the upper hand as they've been maintaining it for years. That said, I don't feel I could morally try and take somebody's land they'd been using for years anyway if they actually really wanted it.

Our greenhouse bit takes up just under a third of the available width up to the fence, and the "wood" bit takes up just over two thirds. I wonder if at some point many years back, the property owners got together and said "you have this bit and I'll have that bit" informally? Hoping and assuming that the original land owner would never come looking for it.

Then again it seems like the greenhouse bit comes up to the boundary between the two rear houses. Maybe one owner was willing to give it up, and the other wasn't, hence the odd shape? Actually that would make a lot of sense.

Land_Registry

I'll do my best to add something extra to what others have posted here although I think you have already arrived at the way forward.

When a property is first registered we use the Ordnance Survey detail available to us at that time as a base map for the registered extent (red edging). As you already appreciate the 4th plan, the property to the rear was mapped on different (and I assume earlier OS detail).

I think it's safe to assume it is earlier detail for a few reasons, namely the line definition and the fact that you refer to the development of your own property and the adjacent ones also. That development will have triggered a fresh survey by OS and new detail for their map based on the newer detail on site.

It is interesting to note that the OS fence line on the older plan ends 'well short' which probably reaffirms that there is quite a slope as it's not always easy to fence such gradients. It is though relatively easy to draw a line on a plan to define the extent and as mentioned the pecked (dotted) line is then added to enable the registration to be completed. It can also be an OS marking to show a change in type e.g. path edging or kerb which is less than a foot in height but I suspect in this case it was added by us to complete the red edging.

It is also possible that the developer left this bit of land alone simply to avoid any issues with adjoining landowners to the rear. Developers will often fence inside an existing boundary line (you mention a chain link fence) to avoid any boundary issues.

You have already established the owner, the developer, and they have ceased to be. Nowadays they tend to try and sell off every part of a development to avoid any later issues but historically such slithers of land can remain in their ownership for ever more.

If they go into liquidation for example then as posted the land can pass to the crown and the liquidator can disclaim it as per the entry you refer to.

Our advice is always to seek legal advice to understand what rights you (and others) have re such matters. You refer to wanting to stay a long time but things can change and it is also important to understand what needs to potentially be done during that 'long time' to resolve such matters if ultimately you are seeking to register ownership.

lizards

Thank you very much, that's very helpful! Especially the explanation for the dotted line. The first few metres immediately behind our (non-greenhouse!) fence have only a slight gradient, then it becomes very steep, then it's regular garden (well, some overgrown bushes and a greenhouse) It's always nice to have potential explanations for these things even if they're not necessary of any legal use :-)

I'm actually surprised this didn't come up when we bought the place, although I suppose the solicitors would have no way of knowing the garden layout didn't match what was on the documents they saw. Although there was a question on the seller information form about boundaries (I can't remember exactly what it was now, and I've filed it away again) but the seller answered suggesting there were no issues which is clearly not the case.

Since I last posted, we have good reason to believe (an old aerial photo) that the greenhouse was probably put in place by the seller, unless the trees were covering it completely which seems unlikely and an odd way to have a greenhouse!

I also looked more closely at the tree maintenance - it's only been done on the greenhouse side, not the strip of land we'd want. I suspect then that the trees that have been maintained do actually legally belong to the greenhouse-side neighbours as if our greenhouse is on the sliver, then their garden must start right behind it.

So that means the remaining part of the sliver isn't being looked after and they have no huge interest in it as the trees there are untouched. Also there's quite deep ivy on the floor with no human-sized pathways etc through it, so that's quite promising - the neighbour may not care if we (somehow!!) get to have it. The remains of chain link fence are on this side.

It seems our seller got lucky that we never raised any questions when buying - not helped by the fact we only saw the Land Registry title after our final viewing and it never occurred to either of us that it might differ. Especially as the photos the EA took that I looked at over and over didn't show the greenhouse area so we forgot it was a funny shape at the bottom of the garden. We might not get so lucky ourselves when selling so it does need to be sorted, whether we go for the sliver or not, because of the greenhouse.

I do feel out of my depth with this so we probably will try and get some legal advice but I'm not entirely sure where would be a good starting point. Presumably a solicitor who specialises in this sort of thing? Would they need to be local? Is there a proper term for the specialism?

tealady

Hi
I would use the link above to the Government Legal Department and read what it says there 1st. It looks as if the Government would put the land up for auction. Then think about talking to a solicitor

Land_Registry

Any conveyancing solicitor should be able to advise on this for you. Local is often best simply because you cna have a face to face chat if needed

I think you probably now understand far more about it than you realise.

It looks like you need to separate out the two things to some extent re the land the seller had been occupying and which is not included withint your own registered extent and the remaining land which you are now 'interested in'. Ultimately the approach may need to be the same to both but the facts to support that approach will differ perhaps.

When you buy a property, and as you rightly state, your solicitor won't take a look but they would normally ask you to check the actual layout with the title plan and identify anything that does not match. 99% of the time a property has clearly defined boundaries which match the plan but where they don't it is worth double-checking such things as your solicitor can then raise it with the seller.

As you also rightly state the next buyer may spot it and you then have to unravel it so getting it sorted as far as possible now when you are not looking to move on is the best thing to do.

And of course the other thing to consider is whether you speak to the adjoining neighbours to let them know what you plan to do - neighbours can react in a variety of ways so something to get legal advice on as well just so you know what your legal position is and what you can or cannot do depending on the neighbour's reactions

lizards

Oh good - that's a relief we won't need a specialist solicitor! The one we used for our house purchase seemed to be pretty good (they're fairly local) and they already have everything on file so I may contact them.

I agree there are definitely two issues here, even though they are linked. I am regretting not checking things out more but we were so keen to move quickly (in rented and the landlords were selling) I think even if we had noticed, we may well have turned a blind eye just so we didn't end up homeless if things got delayed.

I did email the seller and ask about it, as we had been in contact pre-purchase to arrange a few things. She hasn't replied yet and it's been several days! Perhaps she is afraid we'll try and sue given her answers on the form, which we wouldn't - we just want to know the history so we can work out what best to do. I'm hoping it's just that she's busy or away, and she will reply in time.

Funnily enough, whilst digging through land registry entries I realised that the land backing onto the greenhouse part of the sliver is owned by somebody I know, only she doesn't realise we are now neighbours as far as I know. The trees, steep bank and lengths of the garden means we don't overlook each other. Given I see her most days (we're both parents of children in the same class at school) I really don't want to upset the applecart there! I'm definitely not planning on saying anything to her, even saying we're a neighbour, until I've got proper legal advice just in case she's been fuming about it for years or something..

Thank you for all your help :-)