Landlock nightmare after Split Title error

propertyrental

Are those the registered Title Plans or earlier Plans or off the TP1 or what?

If the eroor is the solicitor's, then lodge a comoplaint following their published internal complaints procedure.

TinyClanger1973

user1977 said:

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.

That's what we suspect, as given the number of queries raised regarding ownership issues of the front boundary and that through queries it was confirmed the property abutted the public highway (road and verge) and it was deemed a pedestrian easement was not needed, obviously a ransom strip was not the expected outcome.  It came as a shock to both parties when we looked at the detailed plans because this wasn't apparent on the documents we had, nor through all the queries raised and resolved. 

The more detailed plans are not normally viewed by clients, only the solicitors have access to these. We wonder then if the ransom strip would have been apparent when drawing up the plan on these.  Certainly, no one even raised this as an issue when we went regarding arranging a vehicular easement when this all came to light.  We immediately queried it as this strip is in a different colour to that of the farmhouse.  It's not a mapping error, as this was raised with Land Registry.  This is according to solicitor instructions.  Therefore, in order to correct this mistake we have to transfer the strip from the farm's title to the farmhouse at the cost of £2K.  Obviously, mistakes happen, but at our cost? That's what we're not happy about.  Had the conveyancing been done correctly in the first place, none of this would have happened. 

user1977

ciderboy2009 said:

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?

Think you're looking at the wrong building - this is the OP's title and I've highlighted the gap between their southern boundary and the farmer's title boundary.

user1977

propertyrental said:

Are those the registered Title Plans or earlier Plans or off the TP1 or what?

Second one is the OP's registered plan following the split-off, the first one is the previous version of the parent title.

TinyClanger1973

user1977 said:

ciderboy2009 said:

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?

Think you're looking at the wrong building - this is the OP's title and I've highlighted the gap between their southern boundary and the farmer's title boundary.

That's it and that's the strip. 

RHemmings

ciderboy2009 said:

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?

That's exactly what I thought. The border for the farm clearly excludes that strip. 

TinyClanger1973

propertyrental said:

Are those the registered Title Plans or earlier Plans or off the TP1 or what?

If the eroor is the solicitor's, then lodge a comoplaint following their published internal complaints procedure.

Those are the registered plans.  The first was available, the other only now it's registered. 

Grumpy_chap

TinyClanger1973 said:

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. 

I think this is clearly a case of an error and the Farmer never intended that a "ransom strip" was created, nor is the Farmer seeking to exploit the situation now that a "ransom strip" has been created.  The Farmer is agreeable to the simplest resolution of the error.

If I were in this position, I would work to get the title of the "ransom strip" transferred at pace and gladly meet the £2k costs.  It is a small sum in the greater scheme of things, and the quicker this is resolved, the quicker you have peace of mind and security.

Any delay only risks back-firing on the OP.  The Farmer could cease to be the landowner at any time for any reason and the OP has no control over that event.  Challenges to Solicitors etc about who is responsible will only add delay, cost and risk the mistake not being rectified in good time.  A change of land owner may be to one that does not act in the reasonable manner that the Farmer is acting and seeks to exploit the "ransom strip" that has inadvertently been created.

Pay the £2k.
Get it sorted.

The OP may well feel wronged and aggrieved at this position, but resolving the position has to be the priority.

Don't let the Solicitors have any inkling that a complaint may be in consideration further down the line - work hard to keep them on side and getting this resolved at pace.

Once the title is correctly assigned, the OP may feel they wish to understand how the error occurred, who is responsible and try to recover the £2k.  For the sake of £2k, it is probably not going to be effective to try to claim against the original Solicitors unless they roll over based upon a complaint dealt with internally by the Firm.  Legal action against Solicitors is notoriously difficult and expensive and life is simply too short is the issue is £2k.  

user1977

Grumpy_chap said:

TinyClanger1973 said:

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. 

For the sake of £2k, it is probably not going to be effective to try to claim against the original Solicitors unless they roll over based upon a complaint dealt with internally by the Firm.  Legal action against Solicitors is notoriously difficult and expensive and life is simply too short is the issue is £2k.  

I would say it's still worthwhile - complaints/claims take up a lot of non-chargeable time and unless someone is obviously trying it on, it can be simpler to pay up (especially if that's just writing off the cost of work done, rather than actually paying a third party out of the firm's pocket).

RHemmings

user1977 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

TinyClanger1973 said:

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. 

For the sake of £2k, it is probably not going to be effective to try to claim against the original Solicitors unless they roll over based upon a complaint dealt with internally by the Firm.  Legal action against Solicitors is notoriously difficult and expensive and life is simply too short is the issue is £2k.  

I would say it's still worthwhile - complaints/claims take up a lot of non-chargeable time and unless someone is obviously trying it on, it can be simpler to pay up (especially if that's just writing off the cost of work done, rather than actually paying a third party out of the firm's pocket).

Wouldn't it be possible to get it sorted ASAP, and then pursue redress later?