Boundary Dispute

anselld

erplore said:

anselld said:

erplore said:

The current border has this piece of land within my property (41). 

What do you mean by this?  The fence/hedge dividing the properties when viewed on Google Maps would indicate the triangle is in practice within the boundary of 39.  As does your title plan.  

No.39 was sold at the beginning of the year. At the same time I was redoing the fence I had originally put up. When I compared the two title plans I noticed the discrepancy and so put the fence up using No.39's title plan boundary as I saw no reason why they had more right to own it than me. 

Seems like you have made a bit of a land-grab then.  Was that before or after the new owners had viewed? 

erplore

Tiglet2 said:

That litte bit of land is unregistered.  There is also another little bit of unregistered land to the south boundary of 41.  How long have you/your neighbour lived there?  Is this land incorporated into one of the plots and, if so, which one?  Why is there a dispute?

With unregistered land, you/your neighbour could apply for adverse possession, providing you can prove that the boundary has not changed within the last 12 years with photographic/documentary evidence.  If you don't have photographic/documentary evidence, then a Statement of Truth signed by a solicitor might be enough to claim it.  The Land Registry would probably send an Ordinance Survey chap round to do an inspection and then LR will write to neighbouring properties to see if anyone objects - they will have approx 3 weeks to object.  If no objections are received, LR will likely grant the adverse possession, although it is likely to be on a different title number.

No. 41 is actually made up of 4 title plans which is why it's different to the boundary drawn but that;s another story...

7 years ago the triangle of land was hawthorn trees and brambles with no clearly defined border. 6 years ago I did clear it a little and put a border fence up as per No.41 boundary. It was only 6 months ago that I realised the discrepancy and moved the fence to the border as shown on No.39.

If No.39 is going to apply for adverse possession it sounds like I would also have to and we'll have to fight it out.

Hopefully his sense of symmetry will win out.

erplore

anselld said:

erplore said:

anselld said:

erplore said:

The current border has this piece of land within my property (41). 

What do you mean by this?  The fence/hedge dividing the properties when viewed on Google Maps would indicate the triangle is in practice within the boundary of 39.  As does your title plan.  

No.39 was sold at the beginning of the year. At the same time I was redoing the fence I had originally put up. When I compared the two title plans I noticed the discrepancy and so put the fence up using No.39's title plan boundary as I saw no reason why they had more right to own it than me. 

Seems like you have made a bit of a land-grab then.  Was that before or after the new owners had viewed? 

No.39 is so overgrown that nobody would have been able to get down the garden to view anything. But yes, it would have been done after the auction had happened.

anselld

erplore said:

anselld said:

erplore said:

anselld said:

erplore said:

The current border has this piece of land within my property (41). 

What do you mean by this?  The fence/hedge dividing the properties when viewed on Google Maps would indicate the triangle is in practice within the boundary of 39.  As does your title plan.  

No.39 was sold at the beginning of the year. At the same time I was redoing the fence I had originally put up. When I compared the two title plans I noticed the discrepancy and so put the fence up using No.39's title plan boundary as I saw no reason why they had more right to own it than me. 

Seems like you have made a bit of a land-grab then.  Was that before or after the new owners had viewed? 

No.39 is so overgrown that nobody would have been able to get down the garden to view anything. But yes, it would have been done after the auction had happened.

Except that it is clear from Google Maps.  How do 39 owners know they want to do adverse posession?  They must somehow know about the previous position.

erplore

anselld said:

Except that it is clear from Google Maps.  How do 39 owners know they want to do adverse posession?  They must somehow know about the previous position.

Apparently it is something that their solicitors have mentioned. I'm guessing that they discovered the no mans land when they were doing their surveys.

Tiglet2

erplore said:

anselld said:

Except that it is clear from Google Maps.  How do 39 owners know they want to do adverse posession?  They must somehow know about the previous position.

Apparently it is something that their solicitors have mentioned. I'm guessing that they discovered the no mans land when they were doing their surveys.

The solicitors would have done a map search on the Land Registry website, as well as showing the buyers a copy of the title plan and asked the buyers to confirm that the boundary on the title plan matched what they could see on the ground.  It is obvious from the map search that there is a triangle of unregistered land.