buying land, boundary not defined, and land been put into a new title from original

Frankbrek

davidmcn wrote: »

It will probably be easier if you just have a chat with your solicitor about this. It sounds like you're reading too much into things which are actually benign.

I could indeed be reading into things.

But I know the LR when it talks about the boundaries of a line, its a guide and could be 5-15ft out either side, and because neighbour made a point saying his land goes over a bit from the fence already in place, I just noted it done that he may want to dispute the boundaries.

Thats why asked about boundaries and if seller should survey the land for boundaries before sale.

Regards to the title change, apparently there was a covenants on the large piece of land.
But the large piece of land was shoved into the newly piece of land that was tiny, so it took that new first registration.

Wiping out its old title with the covenants on....

I found this old thread you previous commented on so im glad you commented Davidmcn, as i wanted to jump in on the thread.

obviously its fine to amalgamate land into one, but if its purposely done to strip away restrictive covenants, giving a new title, is that dodgy or ok, and could there be issues later challenged against me, say land ownership issues or anything

old thread number 5384034 i saw you comment in - about Restrictive Covenant Removal Council Cost

Frankbrek

G_M wrote: »

As explaied,the LR do not show historic Titles. They record currently existing Titles and their ownership and related matters.

Your issue is hard to understand so I would refer you to your conveyancer (hopefully you are not attempting to DIY the conveyancing?).

Ideally I'd pop in to their office for a face-to-face chat where you can raise your concerns and receive proper legal explanations and advice.


Note: my light-hearted suggested that you return to the pub was in response to

By your own admission
* you'd been drinking
* this was a 'random person'
* it was a 'brief' conversation which
* you can't remember
* involving 'Land ownership issues, countenance' which makes no sense


Hence I suggested trying to acually formulate a meaningful question based on known facts and a specific issue.

*

Yea i know the LR do not show historic Titles. but i feel i need to see the original title and info of the land before amalgamated because of the covenants thats been wiped from existance by the land being put into the new title.

I dont know much about LAnd ownership issues so i dont know exactly what that is, but if there is a covenants and the seller has purposely done this all with intent to hide it, could it still apply or be challenged later, or someone claim the land was actually theres if land ownership issues

AdrianC

Frankbrek wrote: »

Yea i know the LR do not show historic Titles. but i feel i need to see the original title and info of the land before amalgamated because of the covenants thats been wiped from existance by the land being put into the new title.

If they aren't on the current LR title, then LR have never had them. They would have been lost before the registration - which means they're ancient, which almost certainly means they're irrelevant.

They may still exist on old paper deeds somewhere, but good luck in tracking those down.

davidmcn

Frankbrek wrote: »

Thats why asked about boundaries and if seller should survey the land for boundaries before sale.

And we've answered that question.

old thread number 5384034 i saw you comment in - about Restrictive Covenant Removal Council Cost

(this thread) Yes, that was a situation where there actually were convenants in the registered title. Here, you don't appear to have any evidence that there have ever been covenants, other than (literally) what a bloke in a pub has suggested to you. As AdrianC has said, if there were covenants in the registered title, the Land Registry doesn't just "lose" them when transferring title.

AdrianC

davidmcn wrote: »

Here, you don't appear to have any evidence that there have ever been covenants, other than (literally) what a bloke in a pub has suggested to you. As AdrianC has said, if there were covenants in the registered title, the Land Registry doesn't just "lose" them when transferring title.

It may well be that the LR title refers to them, but there's just nothing saying what they were, because the covenants themselves got lost before registration - there's a portion of our land where that's the situation.

markin

You could pay a survey to mark out the land to make sure you are getting what your paying for, Or get a tape measure reel, or measure on google earth for a rough idea, it would not be good if the fence was in fact 50ft on you new land.

Frankbrek

davidmcn wrote: »

And we've answered that question.


Yes, that was a situation where there actually were convenants in the registered title. Here, you don't appear to have any evidence that there have ever been covenants, other than (literally) what a bloke in a pub has suggested to you. As AdrianC has said, if there were covenants in the registered title, the Land Registry doesn't just "lose" them when transferring title.

The guy down the pub just mentioned land ownership issues and covenants.

But as mentioned also, the neighbour who sold the small piece of land, had the larger lands original info and title from the land registry, and said there was a covenants restriction.

But because the large land has been moved into small parcel, that title now no longer exists.
And i have contacted the land registry and they have nothing, or cant help unless i have exact original title number and few other pieces of information.

If i dont have that info then the records have gone from the public, like mentioned, as if didnt exist.

Frankbrek

AdrianC wrote: »

It may well be that the LR title refers to them, but there's just nothing saying what they were, because the covenants themselves got lost before registration - there's a portion of our land where that's the situation.

the neighbour said on the large piece of land was a restrictive covenants, but because amalgamated into the small piece, thats the new title.

Its hard to understand, as im giving a back story to it all, and somewhat lose understanding.

But if take it this way.

If you saw the land, and then looked up the title, all you would know is it was recently registered land thats it.

You wouldn't know about the small piece of land, or the amalgamation.

But because the neighbour showed me the small piece of lands title has he had it, and from what he is saying, you now have a picture that the owner, amalgamated the land into the small piece.

ANd YOU CANNOT get the info at all on the original large piece unless you have it from before the amalgamation.

This is why was asking if thats concerning, others taking on the face value of whats been done, but there is a history that no one would know unless had of asked neighbours, and if this was all intentional to remove covenents because its a new title, could it come back and bite someone

AdrianC

It may well be that the covenants are only on a part of the larger plot.
Practical example: We have a smallish sub-plot in the NW corner which has different covenants (and the ruin of a house). We don't know what those covenants are, just that there are some, dating back a century or more.

If I sell a bit of the plot that doesn't include that NW corner, then the covenants on that land are irrelevant, because they don't apply to the newly-titled sub-plot.

Any covenants that are relevant should get transferred across to the new title. Ones that aren't won't. Ones that don't aren't enforceable.

Slinky

Have you downloaded the title plans of your other neighbours to check to see what covenants may be on their titles? These may give some clue as to whether there were covenants on the larger part of your intended purchase. For example, you may find out that all the surrounding land was originally part of a larger parcel to which covenants applied/or didn't.