Property developer trying to take land back from young family

UnderOffer

Side note, why are your parking spaces outside the red outline and excluded? I’d have expected the red box to be around the property boundary and drive/garage, gardens etc,  Is it because the drive is maintained by the development ie service charge? 

Chelsea_Blue

We had a similar problem many years ago. We bought a new build on a site where more than one builder was operating. Part of our boundary was dividing the two sites. Although when we moved in, we had our suspicions that this dividing fence was in the wrong place, as it didn't marry up with the Land Registry drawing, but as it made our garden bigger we said nothing. Fast forward a couple of years and there was a knock on the door from the other builders site agent explaining that a mistake had been made.
We showed him our garden and he said that everything would be reinstated to our satisfaction, and they would also compensate us for their mistake.
They asked us to appoint an independent surveyor to confirm that it was indeed in the wrong place and to confirm where the exact boundary should be. The builders also asked us to appoint our own landscaper to rejig our garden to allow for the small reduction in size. The surveyor worked with our solicitor to draw up an agreement to resolve the issue. This was all drawn up into an agreement including financial compensation of around 4% of our house value. Everybody was paid prior to  commencement of any work and it all ended well. 
The key to your issue is what is held at the Land Registry. I remember our surveyor also obtained the actual plans from the builders, which were huge, to calculate measurements and compare the deeds.  Looking at the images earlier in the thread it is clear to me that Bovis have indeed messed up with the position of your fence.
I kind of agree with the sketch that the Bovis manager has drawn up as it appears the fence between 39 and 40 should not be parallel to the rear of 39.
We chose not to enter into litigation with the builders as 1) we knew it was in the wrong place 2) the advice of the surveyor confirmed this 3) didn't want the stress.
I'm shocked by the the way the Bovis site manager has approached this situation as our experience was very different (builders were not Bovis). Clearly times have changed as our builders were genuinely sorry for their mistake and allowed us to nominate and fund whoever we wanted to oversee the rectification work along with some financial compensation.
If my memory serves me correctly, they paid for our holiday to Gran Canaria that year!!! and after a while we never noticed our garden was slightly smaller.
I wish you good luck with whatever action you chose to take.

Pshpp1

Hello again,
Thank you to everyone for the replies to this initial post. There's been some really good advice and equally importantly for us right now, the support is appreciated. Unfortunately I haven't had a great deal of time available and so haven't replied to each post individually but I thought I would provide the following by way of an update and in doing so perhaps answer some of the common questions. Spoiler alert - it's not resolved yet.

Summary of the situation as it stands is, Bovis continue to assert that because they allege the real fence line does not sufficiently match the Transfer Plan fence line and the Transfer Plan is more important than anything else and must be matched perfectly, then it is imperative that the rear fence must move. However, they also simultaneously allege that the left and right fences do not match the Transfer plan either, but for those two fences "oh it's ok, we're not going to change them". So... what sort of logic is that? They tell me they have "come to an agreement" with the (allegedly) affected buyer to the left, and they are content with the fence remaining where it is. OK... so even if that's true... where is it written, and how am I supposed to feel safe with that boundary if I buy into and believe Bovis' allegations?

I have written to my lender with details (with all emotion removed of course) of the situation not dissimilar to this thread. As someone suggested, I do think there is a fair chance that they will write back and say "ensure that your fences match the legal boundary and do it by whatever means necessary" because they will only be interested in protecting their investment. But having read my mortgage T&Cs I think it's probably best that I told them anyway and, you never know, there might be a human somewhere in the process.

I have written (emailed) Bovis and asked them to provide something actually in writing detailing what they are proposing to do, when it would happen, what it would involve etc because, while I totally reject that it has to happen, I think having some details written down of what they're actually wanting to do would be good. I expect they haven't thought at all about the work required or the phasing of it. We've never had anything that I consider formal. Half-arsed emails with screenshots of their CAD systems, it's pathetic. They really act as if they don't care in the slightest. 

@Chelsea_Blue thank you for sharing your story. The primary difference for me is that I entirely reject that we have any more or less land than we are entitled to. We bought the land that we currently have. Regardless, your developer's resolution of the situation is what Bovis should have proposed to us in writing before the first knock at our door ever arrived. I particularly like the independent survey, as I had already contacted a couple of surveyors myself, planning to have a survey done at our expense. 

I have rather shamelessly sought initial views from a number of solicitors, and perhaps unsurprisingly received a range of responses from "you sent us a lot of stuff, you have to pay us to look at it" to "i've looked through your email and here's what I think you should do". Of those that were intrigued enough to read for free what I sent them, I received generally consistent views that a strong case could be made in court, and in every case their initial advice was the same: do nothing, permit no change, wait, see what happens.
I have requested that Bovis indemnify our legal costs because I cannot possibly consent to any changes that could impact my mortgage agreement and any changes I should have reviewed by a conveyancer at the very least. As I have it in writing (email) from Bovis that they claim this is their mistake, I don't see why we should be out of pocket at any point during the process. I doubt they will go for it. I have shortlisted solicitors either way. 

Bovis claim they have exchanged contracts with the people buying the property behind - and state that they are only interested in moving the fence because they can't Complete without doing so. At the moment, if you believe Bovis and my fence is on their land, then they can't offer Vacant Possession. At what point does this become a problem? If they knew about the issue prior to contract exchange, is there recourse for either the seller or the buyer?

We are getting landscapers round to quote for doing all the work, from fence replacement, border replacement, decking alteration and new shed installation, just so I have firm figures to go back to Bovis with if the situation arises where they actually get their way.

Oh by the way, I didn't mention, Bovis have also promised both the new buyers (the left hand side fence and the rear fence) that there will be a new fence installed regardless of whether any moves have to happen or not. They never discussed this with us. So basically they've made promises in our name. Again, "don't worry we'll pay for it". Hmmm.

Meanwhile, written to local papers, Watchdog, national papers, begun filming the youtube extravaganza "Why you shouldn't buy a Bovis Home". Have a couple of interviews lined up, local for now. It all feels very real though; I'm so disappointed that we have to do this.

FInally, for those of you who kindly pointed out that I had left the street name on my plans and therefore you could find me... I view it that for £3 you can find out who owns this house from the Title and given that it's clearly a residential area it's very likely that the owners live here, so I'm not particularly concerned. Perhaps let me put it another way; we're being bullied by a building company, and that company are still building all around us. From 0730 to 1700 their employees are all around us, wandering about, or driving heavy machinery. We already feel uncomfortable in our own home. I'm not worried about you guys.

Please keep the comments and criticisms comings in. I am spending every spare moment trying to fathom out why anyone would choose this path over the multiple, easier routes available to them. I can't do it. I can't see the logic. It's just causing me grief so telling me what else I should do or what I'm doing wrong is very helpful, thanks

brianposter

Have you read the Consumer Protection regulations - all the way through ?

JamoLew

Chelsea_Blue said:

The key to your issue is what is held at the Land Registry. I remember our surveyor also obtained the actual plans from the builders, which were huge, to calculate measurements and compare the deeds.  Looking at the images earlier in the thread it is clear to me that Bovis have indeed messed up with the position of your fence.
I kind of agree with the sketch that the Bovis manager has drawn up as it appears the fence between 39 and 40 should not be parallel to the rear of 39.
We chose not to enter into litigation with the builders as 1) we knew it was in the wrong place 2) the advice of the surveyor confirmed this 3) didn't want the stress.
I'm shocked by the the way the Bovis site manager has approached this situation as our experience was very different (builders were not Bovis). Clearly times have changed as our builders were genuinely sorry for their mistake and allowed us to nominate and fund whoever we wanted to oversee the rectification work along with some financial compensation.
If my memory serves me correctly, they paid for our holiday to Gran Canaria that year!!! and after a while we never noticed our garden was slightly smaller.
I wish you good luck with whatever action you chose to take.

This is a good spot - when viewed with the same rotation - there is an obvious difference:

Pshpp1

JamoLew said:

This is a good spot - when viewed with the same rotation - there is an obvious difference

Just to be clear, I've never said that the fence line matches the plan perfectly.
My objections are that
a) it doesn't have to
b) we were sold what we could see, and told this repeatedly
c) if it points a and b are invalid, there are better ways to solve this problem than actually moving the physical fence (like changing the plan, for example)
d) the way this has been handled, with nothing in writing, staff peeping into our property, and threats, is completely unacceptable.

Bovis are now demanding that we have a solicitor, but have not offered to pay for one. So if you follow their logic though, they've made a mistake, and we (their customer) is going to be out of pocket as a result of it.
They are beyond pathetic. 

steampowered

brianposter said:

Have you read the Consumer Protection regulations - all the way through ?

Have you read them all the way through?

If you have, you will know that the consumer rights in those regulations do not apply to property sales, as set out in  section 27C of the regulations: 

27C.—(1) In this Part “product” does not include immoveable property other than a relevant lease.

(2) In this regulation “relevant lease” in relation to England and Wales means—

(a)an assured tenancy within the meaning of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1988, or

(b)a lease under which accommodation is let as holiday accommodation.

Section62

Pshpp1 said:

Just to be clear, I've never said that the fence line matches the plan perfectly.
My objections are that
a) it doesn't have to
b) we were sold what we could see, and told this repeatedly
c) if it points a and b are invalid, there are better ways to solve this problem than actually moving the physical fence (like changing the plan, for example)
d) the way this has been handled, with nothing in writing, staff peeping into our property, and threats, is completely unacceptable.

a) It might have to (although not "perfectly"). Planning consent would have been given on the basis that each dwelling had sufficient outdoor space and boundary features adjacent to roads didn't impact on sightlines, or create other safety problems etc.  If the position of the fences means Bovis wouldn't be complying with a requirement of the planning consent then their hands are - to an extent - tied.

b) "As seen" is usually used as a warning to the buyer that what they are getting is imperfect and to proceed with the transaction carefully. In this case, if you went to court you would presumably be relying on the checklist in your first post which says "Garden size (approximate) AS SEEN". The word "approximate" would negate your claim. And in any event, the small print is likely to have something to the effect of EAOE.  What matters is the transfer plan, which you should also have seen, and your solicitor should have asked you to confirm the plan reflected what you thought you were buying.  If there was any doubt, you could have asked for measurements to be checked on site. The legal situation is not as straightforward as you being able to rely on the fence positions you saw.

d) Bear in mind your contract with the developer probably gives them rights to enter your property (possibly without prior notice) to carry out any necessary work, for an extended period of time after purchase. So rather than "peeping" there's a good possibility they could just walk into your garden instead. "Peeping" is also a loaded word. Try to dial down the emotion if you can, you'll get a better overall result (and less stress) if you treat this as a cold hard business transaction.

Pshpp1

Section62 said:

b) "As seen" is usually used as a warning to the buyer that what they are getting is imperfect and to proceed with the transaction carefully. In this case, if you went to court you would presumably be relying on the checklist in your first post which says "Garden size (approximate) AS SEEN". The word "approximate" would negate your claim. And in any event, the small print is likely to have something to the effect of EAOE.  What matters is the transfer plan, which you should also have seen, and your solicitor should have asked you to confirm the plan reflected what you thought you were buying.  If there was any doubt, you could have asked for measurements to be checked on site. The legal situation is not as straightforward as you being able to rely on the fence positions you saw.

This is the case whether or not the plan is ‘for the purposes of identification only’. The question for the court is: What would the reasonable layperson think they were buying?
I'm reasonable. I bought a house with a garden which I saw, which was expertly built by the seller, and was described in a plan that looks very much like the size and shape of the garden that was built. 
I don't think a reasonable layperson would try to scale the garden size or shape from the transfer plan and then attend the property to double check the garden size and shape with a tape measure, and I don't think a reasonable layperson would feel it necessary to have a survey conducted to confirm that either.
gov.uk/government/publications/land-registry-plans-boundaries/land-registry-plans-boundaries-practice-guide-40-supplement-3 

They will probably win, take land back that they sold to us, sell it to someone else, and it will cost us money. Truly pathetic. 

newsgroupmonkey_

Pshpp1 said:

This is the case whether or not the plan is ‘for the purposes of identification only’. The question for the court is: What would the reasonable layperson think they were buying?
I'm reasonable. I bought a house with a garden which I saw, which was expertly built by the seller, and was described in a plan that looks very much like the size and shape of the garden that was built. 
I don't think a reasonable layperson would try to scale the garden size or shape from the transfer plan and then attend the property to double check the garden size and shape with a tape measure, and I don't think a reasonable layperson would feel it necessary to have a survey conducted to confirm that either.
gov.uk/government/publications/land-registry-plans-boundaries/land-registry-plans-boundaries-practice-guide-40-supplement-3 

They will probably win, take land back that they sold to us, sell it to someone else, and it will cost us money. Truly pathetic. 

Reading the Government guide, I'm not sure how Bovis can argue it? I mean, there are clear and defined boundaries as per the practice guide (i.e. a fence). It talks about moving and creeping, but that clearly isn't the case here and you can prove that it hasn't moved since you bought the place.

Bovis are the ones in the pickle. They can't sell the other property as-is, hence why they they're trying to bully you. The longer this stretches out, the more it costs them (and they could potentially lose their buyer as they'll not be able to finance).

They need to dip their hands in their pocket. Either heavily compensate you for the inconvenience or drop the asking price on the other house based on the slight loss of garden.

You're absolutely doing the right thing though by playing them with the media. Would be interested to see and subscribe to your Youtube if you're happy to share it?