Easement problem

EachPenny

Is your house the one with the gold coloured car? And the path under discussion is the concrete coloured strip alongside the house?

In which case you may have another headache as it appears the roof of your house overhangs the path. Unless you can demonstrate this land is yours then the true owner could ask you to modify the roof to remove the overhang, or else come to some kind of 'air rights' type of agreement.

I'm not suggesting the path isn't yours, only that the overhanging roof adds a complication that previous posts wouldn't have taken into account.

Edit: BTW Google Maps has the 2008 Streetview showing the garages as well

AnotherUserName

Not quite:

https://www.lyonsdavidson.co.uk/can-homeowners-overhanging-eaves-gutters/

I looked into that when I bought the place. Seeing as my solicitor confirmed that the path was within my legal boundary it was a non-concern.

I need to find out on what basis the adjoining general boundary was placed where it was by the Land Registry. It conflicts with everything else I can find. The OS site states that:

The legal boundary:A legal boundary deals with the precise separation of ownership of land. It is an invisible line dividing one person's land from another's. It does not have thickness or width and usually, but not always, falls somewhere in or along a physical boundary feature such as a wall, fence or hedge. The exact positions of the legal boundaries are almost never shown on registered title plans and are not shown on Ordnance Survey maps.


My solicitor stated stated that the path is within the legal boundary, the edge of the path is therefore that invisible line.



The LR plan for the adjoining land is right up against the property wall. My rear garden is wider than the property, hence the red line on the LR plan goes through my rear garden. It makes no sense at all.


The LR plan for 'my' plot goes down the outside edge of the path, where it should be. All agreed and no objections either when the property was built, or since. The bottom of the path adjoins another garden area, that one has been fenced off but their fence does not cross the path, for obvious reasons.



The deeds for my property state that I am responsible for maintenance of the boundary, which can only be the path as there is nothing else there.


It's difficult to describe in words, I may have to travel to Glos, sit down, put the documents in front of someone, and ask for an explanation. I have been going round in circles for almost 12 months. It's a myth that the RICS offers free advice, the first thing they said when they answered the phone was that they don't. They give you the number of a local surveyor who will charge £500 to look at the site, and prepare a report, which has no legal status whatsoever. If anyone disputes the report, it will then cost £150 a letter with solicitors. It means nothing to the LR, and they won't act on it. It's easy for anyone to acquire small parcels of free land this way, they simply play the game until the victim runs out of money. The LR simply records the winner. Strange but true.

EachPenny

AnotherUserName wrote: »

Seeing as my solicitor confirmed that the path was within my legal boundary it was a non-concern.

I don't see anything on that link that contradicts my post.

If your solicitor made a mistake and the path isn't yours, then your roof is overhanging someone else's land.

If, as some posters have suggested, you resolve the issue with the neighbour by giving him the path but retaining access rights, then the overhanging roof (and its maintenance) would need to be included in the agreement.

The neighbouring plot also looks quite narrow, so the owner might also want to develop as close as they can to the boundary. In which case if it went to court the judge may not regard it as a trivial trespass as referred to in the linked article.

I'm not commenting on whether or not you are right about the path ownership, I'm just saying the stakes are higher than was indicated in your original post.

AnotherUserName

He doesn't want shared access, he wants sole access, thus cutting off my rear access completely. The last time I heard from him was around last July I think, apart from an email that he sent that destroyed my house sale. That email was sent via his solictor, who put a disclaimer at the top stating that they were 'not' acting for their client, merely acting as a forwarding agent.

The email was telling 'me' to tell my buyer that he owned everything beyond my house wall, rather than providing any evidence that he does. I have a background in company law. The letter not only broke the Companies Act regulations on several fronts, it also claimed trespass rights that don't exist under tort. It was no wonder his solicitors wouldn't put their name to it.

He hasn't lodged any type of boundary claim, so I can't dispute it. He has had several years to do that. The planning consent was granted in September 2015, and even though he must have been aware of the conditions regarding use of the path, he did not approach me until mid-2016 when I put my house on the market. I had a buyer so could not change what I was selling, I made them aware that the developer may wish to discuss shared access, which was true at the time.

If he ever convinces everyone that he has a rightful claim to the path using the LR plan, then I should have a case for legal action against everyone involved in selling my plot, the builder, architect, surveyor, estate agent, and conveyancing solicitor, as I asked specific questions, and have written responses.

In reality, if he can claim title to the land as shown on his LR plan, then he can also claim all of the land on which mine is built. I can't afford to dispute any claims, the LR will just record him as the owner, they won't ask any questions and wouldn't get involved at all. I can't sell it, and I don't want to live here any more. I'm over 60 so my life is done, I honestly couldn't care less about walking away and accepting that I did everything that I could, but it wasn't to be. It's just fate, and life has taught me that is the one thing that cannot be altered.

EachPenny

Looking at the 2008 Google streetview pictures there is what appears to be an identical type of concrete path on the other side of your house to the building plot side.

If I didn't know any better I'd be looking at the piece of land and saying there are three strips of land, each with a concrete path running along the left-hand side (as viewed from the road). The strip of land nearest the cottages doesn't have a concrete path along the right-hand edge. Therefore it would be a reasonable assumption (in the absence of any other evidence) that the path 'belonging' to each piece of land is the path on the left-hand side.

I might also make an assumption that all three plots of land were at one point owned by the person who also owned the piece of land the three (or 4?) cottages are built on. The strips of land (/allotments) were available to the tennants(?) of the three/four cottages and it therefore makes sense to have easements allowing the residents of the cottages to cross the allotments of their neighbours to access their own allotment, and access around each one.

That - if I were the owner of the building plot - would be the start of my claim that the path next to your house is actually my land.

The question is, do you have robust evidence to rebut my claim?

If not, then you need to find a new solicitor as you may end up making a claim against the one you used before.

Land_Registry

AnotherUserName - many thanks for providing the specific title numbers and explaining the situation as you see it.

I can see that we have had previous correspondence with you on the subject since July last year. And I can appreciate the frustrations you have expressed here and in the thread as a whole.

I will not look to cover matters which have already been explained in our correspondence with you as they have sought to set out and explain how a registered title is created and how boundaries are defined bith for registration purposes and legally. The distinction between the general boundary, which we register , and the legal boundary, the invisible line is quite clear but can and does create issues for neighbours where they cannot agree on where that invisible line runs.

The key point in every scenario is that no plan will ever define the exact posiiton of the legal boundary unless neighbouring landowners agree and either fix it's position or register a determined boundary.

If that does not happen then it is open to interpretation an no one individual, no surveyor, no solicitor and no HMLR can categorically state where the legal boundary lies.

Looking at the registered titles referred to it is evident that the crux of the issue lies with the plans used to define the transferred extents.

For example, your title was registered in 2010 on the basis of a Transfer of part which defined the transferred extent using a 2009 copy of the title plan for the seller's title, namely GR330750.

You will have seen that TP1 I am sure and note the OS detail provided on that plan inc the position of the building on the land you were buying. Neither the 2009 title plan or TP1 define the exact position of the legal boundary.

Whilst I can understand your solicitor stating 'that the path is within the legal boundary, the edge of the path is therefore that invisible line' it is a view only although you appreciate that already, hence the possibility of traising it with them and taking action.

Roll on a few years and we then have the registration of title GR402277 in 2016 out of title GR383758. This TP1 relies on a copy of that parent title's title plan, which although bearing no date on it within the deed, will have been created in 2014 when that title was first registered.

The title plan for GR383758 was mapped on later OS detail to that used for your own property. You are already aware that the title plans for your own title and your neighbour's differ and it is important to note that a) they only show the general boundaries so can differ, from a registration perspective and b) the size and shape of your own building, as surveyed by OS, has changed.

From purely a registration perspective a) and b) go hand in hand here as they again reinforce the difference between a general and legal boundaries.

It does not solve the issue for either you or your neighbour but may provide some additional insight that may be relevant to resolving the matter but that will very much depend on your neighbour's attitude and understanding as clearly they are viewing the issue from a quite different perspective.

Eachpenny has added some useful additional points here, which again emphasise the point that this is very much an issue only you and your neighbour can resolve.

I can't see, based purely on what you have shared to date, on what basis your neighbour would be able to make a claim to alter either registered title as the position for him is exactly the same for you re the title plans and how they show the general boundaries only.

If for example he starts to build on land that you believe you own then there is a legal process to follow to defend/secure your own land. Yes, that can be expensive, but it is the law that is your only recourse here. And that is the same for both parties depending on how each reacts. The title/deed plans can influence such decisions but the reality on the ground and neighbouring points of view are far more crucial.

On the issue of making an appointment 'at our Glos office so that I can put them on a desk in front of someone, and ask them to explain to me how all of these plans can be correct?' there is in my view no point in doing so.

All the plans are correct as drawn at the relevant time and for the purposes intended. None of the plans were drawn to define the legal boundaries so all are correct. Yes they can and will differ but that is because general boundaries can and will differ also.

In essence what both you and your neighbour need to agree and decide upon is where the legal boundary lies. Your motives for doing so are quite different, you wish to sell and move on whilst he wishes to develop the site, so the issues, as you already appreciate will and can be interpreted quite differently.

But the crux of the matter is that whilst a solicitor, a surveyor, a planning officer and a Land Registry representative can offer a view. But the views count for little if your neighbour disagrees.

I apologise if any of the above seems harsh but I do appreciate the issues you are facing and recognise that the plans you are referring to differ from one another. But they are all correct for the reasons explained here and in the correspondence you have already had with us.

The key now is what happens next and to what extent you both want to resolve the issue. If your desire is to sell then resolving the disupte seems to be the only way forward here.

AnotherUserName

Let me say that you have confirmed everything that my research revealed. There is no such thing as a boundary, and that where a division of title is required, the position of that division depends on who the neighbour is, and how much money they have. In reality no plan, deed, line, agreement, surveyors report or solicitors opinion has any bearing on the existence or position of a boundary. It matters not what anyone purchases, nor what they are shown or told. The land to which they have title is determined not by the title holder, but by anyone with an adjoining title that wishes to dispute it.

In my case there is no official dispute. I haven't lodged a claim for adverse possession, nor has the owner of the adjoining land, I haven't applied for a determined boundary, nor has the owner of the adjoining land. What has occurred is that the owner of the adjoining land has decided, for reasons best known to himself, to decline my invitation for him to pursue either of those options, and instead to simply claim the land as his, and demand that I agree.

Nothing recorded, nothing in writing, no surveys, nothing at all. Unless I agree to proceed on that basis he will continue to disrupt any house sale.

The only way that I can force him to make anything 'official' is to erect the fence along the site boundary, the legal boundary, as shown in the planning consent for my build. If he wants access to the path then he will have to embark on a legal route to do so.

From my perspective, I purchased a house with a side access and a concrete path. This was what was described to me in the sales particulars, and was confirmed to me by my solicitors at the time, and by the company that built the property, and has been confirmed by the owner of the land prior to the build. I cannot change those contractual details. Either they were all right, or, they were all wrong.

Having ploughed through numerous Crown Court judgements, I have been unable to find anything that would place my boundary anywhere other than where everyone involved tells me that it is. Wibberley states that the general boundary is inadmissable evidence, so all other evidence comes into play, and I appear to have evidence of the type that has been acceptable to the courts in all cases. Physical evidence, documents, photographs, witness evidence etc. If I had been able to find anything at all that supported any claim to the contrary, I would not have embarked on this journey.

May I thank you for clarifying the position regarding boundaries, I am sure that it has been useful not only for myself, but to anyone else who owns property in the UK.

I should add that my neighbour to the west recently sought to purchase an odd plot of land from his neighbour to square off his plot. After many months of negotiations he was advised by the Land Registry that he already owned it and sent out a surveyor to confirm the boundary. He could have paid out several thousands of pounds to buy land that already belonged him?

C'est la vie.

DoaM

So you're now just going to get a fence erected? Seems like the best way forward and puts the ball back in the other party's court to prove you've done something wrong - forces his hand.

AnotherUserName

Absolutely. He can still disrupt a house sale, but that will work both ways. If he proceeds with the build, which he can do regardless of the fence, the build does not encroach upon the path, he will face two problems.

Firstly, no builder in their right mind is going to do anything that either touches the fence, or contravenes the restrictions laid out in the planning consent. This quite clearly states that any footfall upon the path is not permitted. It makes no reference to boundaries, it refers to the path. The same issue arises on the other side of his plot. A fence has also already been erected alongside a path at the bottom of his plot by the owner of adjoining land.

Secondly, if he tries to sell his new build, he has to declare the self proclaimed boundary issue, and no one in their right mind will buy.

He also has the flood drain to contend with. To redirect it will require 4 gardens to be dug up, it will be a very major project, and not one of us has any intention of agreeing to that.

He is a complete fool in all honesty. If he had kept quiet the new buyers for my place would have probably agreed to a shared path, I discussed it with them. By sending the threatening and badly worded email he frightened them off and shot himself in the foot.

If he makes any stand with me, he will have to decide whether the legal costs are worth it, or compensate me, and pay for the fence that will have to be removed. He assumed that like most people I was moving because I had a need to, and would therefore agree to his demand rather than lose the sale. Completely the wrong way to go about it, I come from a business background where ethics were absolutely paramount, my word is my bond etc, and that kind of thing goes totally against my grain.Absolutely. He can still disrupt a house sale, but that will work both ways. If he proceeds with the build, which he can do regardless of the fence, the build does not encroach upon the path, he will face two problems.

Firstly, no builder in their right mind is going to do anything that either touches the fence, or contravenes the restrictions laid out in the planning consent. This quite clearly states that any footfall upon the path is not permitted. It makes no reference to boundaries, it refers to the path. The same issue arises on the other side of his plot. A fence has also already been erected alongside a path at the bottom of his plot by the owner of adjoining land.

Secondly, if he tries to sell his new build, he has to declare the self proclaimed boundary issue, and no one in their right mind will buy.

He also has the flood drain to contend with. To redirect it will require 4 gardens to be dug up, it will be a very major project, and not one of us has any intention of agreeing to that.

He is a complete fool in all honesty. If he had kept quiet the new buyers for my place would have probably agreed to a shared path, I discussed it with them. By sending the threatening and badly worded email he frightened them off and shot himself in the foot.

If he makes any stand with me, he will have to decide whether the legal costs are worth it, or compensate me, and pay for the fence that will have to be removed. He assumed that like most people I was moving because I had a need to, and would therefore agree to his demand rather than lose the sale. Completely the wrong way to go about it, I come from a business background where ethics were absolutely paramount, my word is my bond etc, and that kind of thing goes totally against my grain.

I was moving because at the time I could get a good price my property and had a bargain lined up to buy. The poor souls I was buying from had been let down three times already, I was the fourth. My heart went out to them. I can sit here till the cows come home if need be.

His planning permission expires in Sep 2018. What none of us in the area knew in 2015 was the existence of the anti-garden grab legislation. If we had all objected on those grounds the consent would have stood a better chance of being refused.

I was moving because at the time I could get a good price my property and had a bargain lined up to buy. The poor souls I was buying from had been let down three times already, I was the fourth. My heart went out to them. I can sit here till the cows come home if need be.

HB58

What an absolute nightmare for you - and an eye-opener for many of us who believe we 'own' a certain plot! I am sorry that you are going through this, especially at a time when you had hoped to slow down and enjoy a stress-free retirement