Landlock nightmare after Split Title error

TinyClanger1973

Dustyevsky said:

At what point were you shown the title plan, and when you saw it, did you agree it reflected what you considered you were buying?

The Title Plan we received was A4 with the property itself being extremely small.  The general boundary is correct, but the different Title plans have different thickness lines.  Herein lies the problem.  Only when we saw the enlarged detailed plans, which the solicitors have and we never saw until recently, does it show a strip running the entire length of the front boundary retained by the farm.  This wouldn't be apparent on the Title Plans either party had.  Nor did the solicitors realise there was a problem, until we pointed it out.  Had this strip been intended to be retained by the farm we would have had to arrange a pedestrian easement for our footbridge, which we had initially raised, but from enquiries it was not deemed necessary as we had direct access to the road.  This was confirmed by both solicitors. 

TinyClanger1973

Hoenir said:

TinyClanger1973 said:

Has anyone experienced similar? If so how did you deal with it?  Did you look into claiming for negligence?

Conveyancer rarely views the property. Onus therefore is on the purchasers to confirm to the conveyancer that what they are expecting to buy conforms to the title plan. 

The conveyancing was difficult and we had to raise many queries throughout the process with both solicitors denying any issues.  Both then had to come back and apologise, because in the end we were right on every issue.  We had been assured that the front boundary abutted a public highway. This, as it now transpires, is not the case.  And the strip is a surprise to both parties because it was never intended nor indicated on our Title plans. We believe the strip is down to the difference in line thickness on the plans.  That wouldn't have been apparent on the documents we had, but on the detailed plans the solicitors have it is. That's when we picked it up. 

TinyClanger1973

RHemmings said:

Is it the case that this is the first sale of the farmhouse as a separate property? And if so when was the title plan first available to see?

This might be a different situation from a standard purchase where the title plan is available to see at any time before and during the purchase process. 

Yes, the farmhouse was always part of the farm.  The Title plan we were provided with came from the solicitor, as there were no documents online for it. It overlays the original title.  However, there is nothing on this plan to indicate a strip retained by the farm.  We believe the difference of the thickness of the two Title plans boundary lines is where the error has occurred.  Only the solicitors would be aware of a possible issue because they have larger scale detailed plans which neither we, nor the farmer, were party to. 

TinyClanger1973

user1977 said:

TinyClanger1973 said:

user1977 said:

Well, for starters is it the conveyancer's error? Do you have a different solicitor now? Where does the cost of £2k come from?

I'm not sure what "landlocked across the front boundary of the property" means - is the property simply landlocked or is there a more subtle problem?

Same solicitors.  This came to light when we were looking at more detailed plans, following receiving the registration confirmation, to arrange a vehicular easement with the farmer.  We have a footbridge to the front boundary too, which we understood went directly on to the road, after the original conveyancing queries.  This was checked thoroughly.  But obviously not so, because there's a strip running the entire length of the front boundary to the road which is still with the farm, essentially we now have no pedestrian access to the house. 

The solicitors have checked with Land Registry and they've come back saying it isn't their mistake it was according to solicitor instructions.  But there is nothing any of our Title Plans to indicate the strip.  The farmer's documents are identical to ours.

We've been advised to do a transfer which will cost the sum mentioned. 

Still not very clear what went on - this is where seeing the plans would help. "Checked thoroughly" by whom and how?

"a transfer which will cost the sum mentioned" meaning the £2k would be your legal fees, or what?

We raised concerns regarding the front boundary from the beginning to ensure the property had pedestrian access to the road, as the farmer was originally of the understanding it was private.  He had agreed to an easement, but this wasn't necessary as this section of road is a public highway.  This included the verge.  Therefore, there had been detailed queries raised regarding the front boundary, it's extension and what it abutted.  This is evidenced.  Furthermore, neither Title Plans give any indication of land retention.  Both parties are in agreement. 

The £2K covers legal fees for both solicitors to enable the transfer from the farm title to the farmhouse. 

user1977

Assuming you ought to pay at all, £2k seems hefty for what sounds like a minor bit of corrective conveyancing, closely following on a transaction in which both firms acted.

Anyway, if you're convinced it's down to your solicitor's error, then yes they ought to be picking up the costs. If you want to push the point then you may need to get somebody else to give you a second opinion.

TinyClanger1973

Farm's Title Plan redacted. 

TinyClanger1973

Farmhouse's Title Plan redacted

TinyClanger1973

user1977 said:

Assuming you ought to pay at all, £2k seems hefty for what sounds like a minor bit of corrective conveyancing, closely following on a transaction in which both firms acted.

Anyway, if you're convinced it's down to your solicitor's error, then yes they ought to be picking up the costs. If you want to push the point then you may need to get somebody else to give you a second opinion.

We've referred this to a family friend, a retired conveyancing solicitor, when this first came to light.  They agree the legal fees are steep and the correction should be done for a nominal charge given it's most likely down to an error working from older Title Plans to new, where boundary line thickness is most likely to have resulted in the error.  This wouldn't be apparent until after registration.  We are lucky we picked this up at such an early stage and both parties are in agreement.  Further down the line, the outcome could have been very different. Given this, and another boundary issue which has been resolved, most likely it would be good to review the detailed plans to ensure there aren't further discrepancies. 

user1977

Ok, now we have the plans it looks like an error in drawing the plan - I would expect whoever drew that to have taken the southern boundary as being the same as the parent title, rather than leaving a "ransom strip" there. That looks more obviously like an error by the solicitors in failing to notice that.

ciderboy2009

Is it just me that thinks the plans don't show the land as belonging to the farm?  Surely there would be a red line in front of the house if it did?

Have you tried contacting the Land Registry to see who they show as actually owning that strip?