HM Land Registry mistake

Land_Registry

Jac1963 wrote: »

i contacted HMLR direct & they are less than helpful. There is a 'practice guide' online on HMLR website but it's not in plain english.
My solicitor has never come across this before & I'm hoping that someone out there may be able to point me in the right direction or like me has found themselves in this position. I'm spending all my funding on the works & don't want to incur extortionate legal charges
Thanks

I totally appreciate the frustrations this has caused you, especially as it was wholly unexpected.

Our PG 39 is I assume the guidance you were referred to. And whilst it is written as guidance for conveyancers, so I'd hope they wouldn't be at a loss when reading it, the key is to focus on the parts which directly affect you.

From your post it seems a mistake has been made and acknowledged. That should help so section 4.2 presumably covers next steps for you re making a claim and it states

4.2 How to make a claim
A claim may be made by letter and, where the claim arises out of a mistake, should be accompanied by the following information and evidence.

details of the mistake and any correction of that mistake
what loss has been suffered
an explanation of why the loss is the result of the mistake or the correction
details of the amount claimed, if possible, and how this has been calculated
if the loss includes fees and/or other bills and expenses, evidence that these sums have been paid, for example receipted invoices or tickets
A claim can be made before all the evidence is available, but we will need to see sufficient evidence before a claim can be agreed.

That should help but I'm guessing 'the works' you mention and the solicitor's uncertainty may be muddying matters. Answers to the other posts may also offer some clarity around what help is missing as well

Jac1963

There is a stream between us - approx 8 ft wide. The neighbour owns the land & banks & has right of access to enter my land by foot or vehicle to maintain the drains & also potentially to build a vehicular bridge over the stream (subject to planning) & have right of access for this. To do any of this they would have to pass immediately past the front of my house as this is the only access.

Jac1963

It arose when I asked the neighbour what they did re sewage treatment plant discharge. The property I've bought has never been lived in so there are no facilities. They then informed me that the stream was theirs & I had no right to discharge into it. This is unusual that an individual owns a stream as generally they are owned & maintained by river authorities but in this case it has been confirmed.

Davesnave

I think I'm correct that river authorities look after things like water quality and discharges into streams; in other words they usually own the water, inasmuch as something that is constantly moving and largely unidentifiable can be owned.

So whether the landowner opposite owns the water or not, (Who has 'confirmed' this?) the water authority has an overarching responsibility and say about water quality, discharges etc and the right to test these.

Landowners usually own the river bed, often up to half way, but sometimes with small streams the whole of the bed is claimed. I'm not sure why or how, unless someone sells off land and retains that right, but maybe it's a feature of archaic deeds. Practically speaking, it's very difficult preventing an adjoining landowner or animals accessing the water when they feel like it.

Rights to fish in the stream are seperate and might be owned by landowners or third parties with no claim on the land itself, other than a right of way. So, although it's small, you could, in theory, have another person accessing the stream with a fishing rod.

I believe your neighbour would have rights to enter your land for reasons of maintenance anyway under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act. They would have to ask first, but you could not refuse them, especially for work like clearing culverts etc.

As for building a bridge, it's not clear from your post if the passing right in front of your property would only occur during the building process, or if it would then form a permanent access way. Obviously, one scenario is far less desirable from your point of view and might well impact on the value of the house..

da_rule

So were you not provided with a title plan then, by your solicitors, that showed that the river fell outside of your title? Also, was the lack of easement in relation to your potential use of the river not pointed out? I am not saying that if the solicitor did not point this out that they have done anything wrong, as they may not have reasonably known that you wanted to use the river.

The right of access to maintain the drains might actually be beneficial as it shows that you are not liable to maintain them. Also, maintained drains are far better than non-maintained drains which could lead to flooding etc.

The bridge one is slightly odd however, depending on the exact wording, he may have a right to build a bridge over the river, but that would not necessarily mean he has the right to place the bridge on your land.

pinklady21

If the property is not lived in and has no facilities, does it have proper drainage already installed?
Did you confirm this before purchase? With whom?
If not, how are you going to manage the drainage for the property? Can you connect to mains drainage or will it have to be private drainage to a septic tank? You will need to ensure there is a sufficient amount of land available for the soakaway.

Davesnave

pinklady21 wrote: »

If the property is not lived in and has no facilities, does it have proper drainage already installed?
Did you confirm this before purchase? With whom?
If not, how are you going to manage the drainage for the property? Can you connect to mains drainage or will it have to be private drainage to a septic tank? You will need to ensure there is a sufficient amount of land available for the soakaway.

I think the other party is trying to pull a fast one. While the OP might have no current right to discharge from a sewage treatment plant into the stream, there is no reason I can see why they shouldn't gain the relevant permissions from the appropriate authority.

If they were to have a septic tank and there's enough room for the drainage field, the water would percolate into the stream anyway.

I await the OP's reply, but I simply don't believe that the neighbour owns the water or controls it as implied, as that's impossible under our laws.

Jac1963

The 'bridge building' would be a permanent right of access accessed directly past my front door. This has not occurred yet but is mentioned in the right of access document.

Jac1963

There is no mains drainage in the area so all the properties have a septic tank or similar. This is not an issue as I can directly discharge treated waste & surface water into a ditch that is on my land & owned by me. This then feeds into the stream.

Davesnave

So the main problem is the new access across the bridge, if constructed.

Could there be an alternative, less 'invasive' route that you and the other landowner might agree, perhaps with a financial incentive?

This is what happened on our property, with the neighbour's access drive bring moved well away from our house. It happened prior to us purchasing, but probably involved payment, because the neighbour now cannot drive into their garage.