Missing Parcel of Land on land registry plan

Grizebeck

Tiglet2 said:

Grizebeck said:

@Tiglet2
https://www.myconveyancingspecialist.com/7-year-boundary-rule-what-is-it/#:~:text=What is the 7 year,years to claim the title.

Has the current owner adversely possessed the land by enclosing it in their garden with a fence around it.  Has the current owner been maintaining the land and using it as part of their garden?  Do they have proof that they have done this for 7 years?  Even if they have, you would still need to continue using it for 5 years before making an adverse possession claim.

Yes to the first two.  And to third proof not sure 

Grizebeck

Bluebell1000 said:

When we got our house, the land registry documents (after purchase, first registration done on purchase) showed most of the garden was missing. We just raised it as being incorrect and they came out and redrew it for us. Could it also be something like that for you?

Possible  I guess

YoungBlueEyes

Wonka_2 said:

We have similar in our locality where the local rivers authority retain ownership of the last 10ft or so between houses and river. It's easy to spot as all fences/hedges are set back from river bank (and aligned) and all have gates/gaps in. The residents retain access rights and there is no other public right of way on the land. I'd have expected your solicitor would have been able to find if a similar situation is in this case.

This is what I was going to say. 

Where I used to live there was a river that ran between public fields and a housing estate. Same set up as your map but without the island. One of the houses sold, and the new owners decided to cut down some trees that were at the river end of the garden to make it all open plan and then built a lodge/bar/something. The river board didn't take long to come round and ....point out his mistake. 

We were a big group out with our dogs, sat on the public side of the riverbank watching the whole thing. The lodge was gone and trees replanted sharpish. Toothless tiger they ain't.

So could this be a similar setup? That slice of land goes with your house for your exclusive use, but can't be owned by you?  

Grizebeck

YoungBlueEyes said:

Wonka_2 said:

We have similar in our locality where the local rivers authority retain ownership of the last 10ft or so between houses and river. It's easy to spot as all fences/hedges are set back from river bank (and aligned) and all have gates/gaps in. The residents retain access rights and there is no other public right of way on the land. I'd have expected your solicitor would have been able to find if a similar situation is in this case.

This is what I was going to say. 

Where I used to live there was a river that ran between public fields and a housing estate. Same set up as your map but without the island. One of the houses sold, and the new owners decided to cut down some trees that were at the river end of the garden to make it all open plan and then built a lodge/bar/something. The river board didn't take long to come round and ....point out his mistake. 

We were a big group out with our dogs, sat on the public side of the riverbank watching the whole thing. The lodge was gone and trees replanted sharpish. Toothless tiger they ain't.

So could this be a similar setup? That slice of land goes with your house for your exclusive use, but can't be owned by you?  

No   I don't think so as the other houses seem to have on their plans (where I've added the colours on. Seem to own that extra bit

Grizebeck

So above are next door and then next door but one as the other next door is the registered 

daveyjp

It may simply be the case the owner of the river bank, river bed and island offered to sell to the houseowners in the dim and distant past,  Some took up the offer, others didn't.

ProDave

I could see an adverse possession working for the main bit of enclosed garden up to the river bank.  But I doubt you would win that for the strip on the island, unless that strip on the island is also fenced in and has been maintained.

Grizebeck

daveyjp said:

It may simply be the case the owner of the river bank, river bed and island offered to sell to the houseowners in the dim and distant past,  Some took up the offer, others didn't.

This actually makes sense

propertyrental

I may be wrong, but I believe land-owners of land that runs to a river bank, also then own the land unde the river up to its mid-point (with the land-owner of the oppsite bank owning the other side of the river bed.

But even if I'm right that doesn't help here where the OP does not (accordg the LR) own the rivr bank.

Grizebeck

propertyrental said:

I may be wrong, but I believe land-owners of land that runs to a river bank, also then own the land unde the river up to its mid-point (with the land-owner of the oppsite bank owning the other side of the river bed.

But even if I'm right that doesn't help here where the OP does not (accordg the LR) own the rivr bank.

Yes riperian rights