Property developer trying to take land back from young family

Section62

prowla said:

Is the Land Registry the sole place which defines who owns the land?

If so, does it matter what the developer's plans were or have evolved to be?

How did the Land Registry initially get information about what land was being sold in this contract?

gettingtheresometime

Pshpp1 said:

getmore4less said:

OK as a follow up I had a look at the landscaping conditions.

DM/16/3312 | Discharge of conditions nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 in relation to application DM/15/4736.
now the plot plan has changed to close to what we have. dates 30/march 2018
interesting that there is  a shed base on the plans and  a water butt for all houses.

How are you finding all this?
Yeah we didn't get a shed, shed base or a water butt They only follow what suits them. If stuff changes in their favor then the plans are a guide; if they want more land another way then the plans must be followed perfectly.

In fairness I think the water butt/shed is part of the architect's 'vision' - I've seen architect's layouts that show cars in car parking spaces and rotary washing lines in back gardens. I'd be pretty impressed if a house came with a car thrown in

getmore4less

gettingtheresometime said:

Pshpp1 said:

getmore4less said:

OK as a follow up I had a look at the landscaping conditions.

DM/16/3312 | Discharge of conditions nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 in relation to application DM/15/4736.
now the plot plan has changed to close to what we have. dates 30/march 2018
interesting that there is  a shed base on the plans and  a water butt for all houses.

How are you finding all this?
Yeah we didn't get a shed, shed base or a water butt They only follow what suits them. If stuff changes in their favor then the plans are a guide; if they want more land another way then the plans must be followed perfectly.

In fairness I think the water butt/shed is part of the architect's 'vision' - I've seen architect's layouts that show cars in car parking spaces and rotary washing lines in back gardens. I'd be pretty impressed if a house came with a car thrown in

They were  part of the approved planning along with the planting , color of bricks and slates type of safety balconies etc.

There is a reason the developments have outline planning with conditions on what they plan to put on the ground and that's what the follow up applications do get approval for the details.

Section62

getmore4less said:

They were  part of the approved planning along with the planting , color of bricks and slates type of safety balconies etc.

Water Butts to reduce loading on the surface water drainage system, and reduce demand for potable water for gardening purposes.

Garden sheds for storing bikes as an alternative to using a car.

Outdoor clothes line for air-drying and reducing energy consumption from tumble dryer use.

(Probably)

Digging around in the supporting documents may reveal that these measures help make the development 'green' or 'eco friendly'.

gettingtheresometime

getmore4less said:

gettingtheresometime said:

Pshpp1 said:

getmore4less said:

OK as a follow up I had a look at the landscaping conditions.

DM/16/3312 | Discharge of conditions nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 in relation to application DM/15/4736.
now the plot plan has changed to close to what we have. dates 30/march 2018
interesting that there is  a shed base on the plans and  a water butt for all houses.

How are you finding all this?
Yeah we didn't get a shed, shed base or a water butt They only follow what suits them. If stuff changes in their favor then the plans are a guide; if they want more land another way then the plans must be followed perfectly.

In fairness I think the water butt/shed is part of the architect's 'vision' - I've seen architect's layouts that show cars in car parking spaces and rotary washing lines in back gardens. I'd be pretty impressed if a house came with a car thrown in

They were  part of the approved planning along with the planting , color of bricks and slates type of safety balconies etc.

There is a reason the developments have outline planning with conditions on what they plan to put on the ground and that's what the follow up applications do get approval for the details.

As are the drawings I've seen. My point was that these drawings show items that aren't necessarily being provided 

daveyjp

Section62 said:

prowla said:

Is the Land Registry the sole place which defines who owns the land?

If so, does it matter what the developer's plans were or have evolved to be?

How did the Land Registry initially get information about what land was being sold in this contract?

They will have been provided an approved plan prepared and submitted by the developer's solicitor.  This then becomes the official record of ownership so needs to be correct otherwise it needs to go through rectification, which can be refused by Land Reg.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/preparing-plans-for-land-registry-applications/guidance-for-preparing-plans-for-land-registry-applications

getmore4less

prowla said:

Is the Land Registry the sole place which defines who owns the land?

If so, does it matter what the developer's plans were or have evolved to be?

Mistakes can happen.
It is quite important to work out what should have been built to the planning permission.
Looks like what's on the ground does not match the plans or the transfer doc that got signed off by the OP.
https://us-noi.v-cdn.net/6031891/uploads/editor/hv/hwzjrc7qi7fu.jpg
The fence at the back of the shed is wrong(straight no kink).
slightly less obvious is the fence on the side as it tapers to the protected area on the plan but not on the ground.
(including the protected area red on the transfer doc in the plot was an amendment )

As it was built and sold as seen with the fences in place  do you fix the land reg or fix the fences?

Section62

daveyjp said:

Section62 said:

prowla said:

Is the Land Registry the sole place which defines who owns the land?

If so, does it matter what the developer's plans were or have evolved to be?

How did the Land Registry initially get information about what land was being sold in this contract?

They will have been provided an approved plan prepared and submitted by the developer's solicitor.  This then becomes the official record of ownership so needs to be correct otherwise it needs to go through rectification, which can be refused by Land Reg.

Exactly.  It is the developer's plans - at whatever state of evolution used - which creates the definition the Land Registry hold.

Hence their importance, vs an indicative plan supplied by LR using a later OS base.

moneymattersnatter

deannagone said:

Also PLEASE read that thread link.  Something very similar happened there.  And was resolved to the property owners satisfaction, as it should have been.

Not quite!  Our Developer is still failing to give us any legal confidence their error won't bite us in future! Decided to take to Twitter today @HannahCaC79 to reference all you wonderful people, every interaction, every failing. 

Great advice on here so far though Op - we were too patient for too long... Bovis are most definitely bullying you! 

moneymattersnatter

Pshpp1 said:

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. 

Our legal advice (we were covered via Home Insurance) is that we would pursue the notion of misselling - not legalese but the gist is they can not sell a product that does not exist (as the boundary was wrong)