Land Registry - How accurate are Title Plans?

nordic-viking

Hi,

I have a pretty simple question - are Land Registry title plans always up to date and how accurate are they with respect to boundaries?

Here's a little background info in case it helps. I live in a block of four flats and it was always assumed that one of the flats owned a particular section of the garden. All the previous owners have taken responsibility for it. The new owner of the flat has informed us she doesn't own this bit of the garden, and the title plan from the land registry confirms this. I believe she no longer has the original paper copy of the deeds. Is it possible the land was transferred over to her flat after it was first registered and so may be visible on the original deeds ( if we could find them ) but somehow not reflected in the title plan available from the land registry?

G_M

The LR Plan is most likely up to date, though not very accurate.

Yes, the LR make mistakes but they are few and far between. But the scale of their Plans is not detailed enough for precise drawing of boundaries.

I believe she no longer has the original paper copy of the deeds. Is it possible the land was transferred over to her flat after it was first registered and so may be visible on the original deeds ( if we could find them ) but somehow not reflected in the title plan available from the land registry?

Much more likely the other way round!

The original deeds will show the boundary at the date of those deeds. It will not reflect any later change, so if the land was transfered over to her flat later, it would be reflected in the LR Plan but not the original paper Deeds.

davidmcn

Have you checked whether anybody has a registered title to the relevant bit of garden?

Land_Registry

nordic-viking wrote: »

Hi,

I have a pretty simple question - are Land Registry title plans always up to date and how accurate are they with respect to boundaries?

Here's a little background info in case it helps. I live in a block of four flats and it was always assumed that one of the flats owned a particular section of the garden. All the previous owners have taken responsibility for it. The new owner of the flat has informed us she doesn't own this bit of the garden, and the title plan from the land registry confirms this. I believe she no longer has the original paper copy of the deeds. Is it possible the land was transferred over to her flat after it was first registered and so may be visible on the original deeds ( if we could find them ) but somehow not reflected in the title plan available from the land registry?

Simple answer is yes they are up to date with regards what the registered extent is. And no as to accuracy as they show the general boundaries and are not intended to define the 'exact' legal boundary. No plan will do that though as a plan is simply someone's one-dimensional representation of the reality on the ground.

As G_M posts mistakes can be made but I'd follow davidmcn's advice and check if the actual land is registered and go from there. Once you have the full picture of all the land then it may give you a better idea of who owns what and how, if it happened, anything changed and when.

princeofpounds

The accuracy or not of the title plan is a bit of a red herring here (and I echo the comments above).


The question is who owns the land not included in that title plan.


Three possibilities:


1) It is registered and owned by someone else. This will be apparent from a proper search of the land registry, although the land may not be defined by its own specific title - it may be part of a larger adjacent block.


2) It is unregistered and owned by someone else. This will not be apparent from the land registry. The older the flats and the more historic the last transaction of the land in question, the more likely this scenario becomes, as registration on transaction has been compulsory for a couple of decades now.


The most likely scenario for 1 and 2 is that the freeholder of the flat development would still retain ownership of the land in question, although the leaseholders may have certain rights over it.


3) It is in fact owned by the new owner or maybe the old owner of the flat, but not under the flat's existing title plan.


Firstly, it could be on a totally separate title plan to the one for the flat. This may or may not have been transferred to the new owner by the old owner.


The other likely scenario for that is that the former owners gained rights to the land through adverse possession, but these rights may or may not have been registered. If she abandons the land - perhaps not understanding that she had adverse possession rights to the land - it's theoretically open to occupation and adverse possession by another party.

nordic-viking

OK - thank you to everyone who has taken the time to reply. It's very much appreciated. That's given me a lot of useful information going forward.

nordic-viking

@davidmcn

Yes we have obtained copies of the title plans for the other three flats and none of us own it outright, but it does show up on the title plan for the freehold, so at this stage we're assuming we're all responsible for the upkeep ( as we're all equal shareholder's in the management company that owns the freehold ). The other option that we haven't considered is that it's held in a separate title - @princeofpound thanks for this info

nordic-viking

My next question would be the right of access issue - if the garden is owned by the freehold management company, of which we are all equal shareholders, does this mean all the flats have right of access to the garden, even if it's not detailed on any of our leases? Should I start a separate thread on this?

G_M

No_PLEASE don't start a new thread!

Have you done a 'map enquiry' at the LR?

If it genuinely does not fall within the lease of any of the flats, then none of the leaseholders have any rights to the land.

Since it is part of the freehold, the freeholder has rights over it. If the 'freeholder' is made up of several people, then they have equal rights to the land.


Take one hat off and put another on!

Land_Registry

nordic-viking wrote: »

My next question would be the right of access issue - if the garden is owned by the freehold management company, of which we are all equal shareholders, does this mean all the flats have right of access to the garden, even if it's not detailed on any of our leases? Should I start a separate thread on this?

If such rights are not in their leases or on the register then they are in many ways notional, meaning they can exercise the rights until someone (the landowner) stops them

If the freehold owns the land and you want to give each leaseholder a right of way over it or access to it then you would need to vary each lease accordingly to ensure the rights are legally granted and registered.

princeofpounds

it does show up on the title plan for the freehold, so at this stage we're assuming we're all responsible for the upkeep ( as we're all equal shareholder's in the management company that owns the freehold ). The other option that we haven't considered is that it's held in a separate title

OK, so the land in question is highly likely to be owned by the freehold. If it had been transacted away, outside of the subsidiary leaseholds, that title plan would almost certainly have been adjusted to exclude it.


I suspect that's true of all the gardens actually - the freehold owns all of them - despite the fact that they have been divided up into individual plots on the ground. It's actually the most common situation for land surrounding blocks of flats.


I'm not sure, but I suspect that the other individual leaseholders don't own the plots they have in practice enclosed either, if they aren't demised (allocated) to the individual leases. I suspect a leaseholder can't claim adverse possession against their own freehold! (But I may be wrong).


Yes, you are collectively responsible as the freeholder for maintaining this area. Technically you probably pass these costs onto yourselves as leaseholders, depending on the leases - so, if for example, this lady was refusing to pay upkeep by denying responsibility, it's quite likely she has to shoulder a quarter of the costs ultimately.


Who has what rights over the various gardens is probably defined in the leases, likely under some rather general clauses about access to common areas.


In practice, given you have four leaseholders/share of freeholders who can work together, you can pretty much just agree to run things how you want, as long as you do all actually agree. You can even update the leases to demise individual gardens if you so wish, although I wouldn't do that thoughtlessly in case you complicate future issues around access or building maintenance or reconstruction.