Boundary issue - vendors backtracking - advice please!

ryanm8655

I posted a thread a while back, which might be useful: Changing title plan - boundary issue. — MoneySavingExpert Forum

But in short, neighbours nabbed a piece of Land 20 years ago about 2 feet in length and quite narrow.

Vendors agreed to cede the land and have the land registry updated to reflect this change. Mortgage approved and now this has been declared to my lender to check that they are still happy to lend.

Now the vendors have backtracked and are saying the land registry reflects the boundary, having already sent a picture from the land registry along with a line added to show the land that has been taken. You can also see on the ground quite clearly that land has been taken. The vendors have asked me to prove that the land registry is wrong but they've already told me it's wrong and sent pictures and diagrams to show it.

Are my lender going to be happy with them backtracking and just accept that it was raised but they've recanted?

If I were to sell in future (it isn't a forever home) would this be something I need to declare? I.e. is it going to cause me issues down the line.

The neighbours applied for planning permission for an extension relatively recently, which displays different borders to the land registry, so if you're curious you could raise it (my architect friend spotted it when they declared a dispute in the first place). Though practically it the impact is immaterial.

Advice appreciated.

I'm not fussed about proceeding quickly if it is going to cause me longer term pain.

Thanks,
Ryan

user1977

Your lender isn't going to accept the property if the neighbours are occupying part of it. Neither is any other buyer or their lenders, so this is for your vendors to sort out 

ryanm8655

user1977 said:

Your lender isn't going to accept the property if the neighbours are occupying part of it. Neither is any other buyer or their lenders, so this is for your vendors to sort out 

Thanks, they're not occupying it as such, they're driving over it and have marked it as part of their driveway. Essentially a hedge was removed in the front garden and the neighbours used it to widen their driveway, shifting the boundary line. The other hedges are still in place so it's fairly obvious what has happened, plus you can see it from the different colour in the stones and the boundary edging on the driveway, even though it's been 20 years...

gwynlas

Unless it was sold/given to the neighbour it remains your land.

The fact that they have extended their drive just means that part of this sits on your land. 
Are they actually using the full width/length of the driveway in passing or is your land simply used as a hard shoulder  meanng they would otherwise be scraping the original hedge or fence?

Obviously you need know where the boundary lies but you state that this is evident from the different colour of the stones

ryanm8655

gwynlas said:

Unless it was sold/given to the neighbour it remains your land.

The fact that they have extended their drive just means that part of this sits on your land. 
Are they actually using the full width/length of the driveway in passing or is your land simply used as a hard shoulder  meanng they would otherwise be scraping the original hedge or fence?

Obviously you need know where the boundary lies but you state that this is evident from the different colour of the stones

So the vendor had agreed that they would just give it to the neighbour so that it wasn't an issue for exchange/completion.

It appears on the current neighbours recent planning documents, however they've been there 5 years and this happened 20 years ago so are oblivious it is even an issue it seems.

To answer your question, they use it. Originally the area was grassed (it's a front garden on what would be my side).

I'll try and attach a picture.

DE_612183

which bit is it?

Bigphil1474

It sounds like the boundary hasn't moved at all, just the boundary marker has gone (the hedge)? If they'd built a structure on the debated land I could understand the issue, but if it's essentially part of a drive way, I don't see any problem. 

ryanm8655

The following picture might make things clearer. The red line is roughly what the vendor disclosed as the boundary and indicated that the hedge line previously followed (this is also consistent with land registry).

The houses are at an angle so the boundary isn't parallel, where as every other boundary edge on the street is parallel to the opposite boundary. It's obvious a corner has been cut off and this is also obvious from recent planning documents where the boundary is different to that on land registry.

Do I care about the land itself? No, I wouldn't have noticed if they didn't disclose it but they did. It's just whether it's an issue for my lender and causes headaches when I sell down the line.

ryanm8655

Bigphil1474 said:

It sounds like the boundary hasn't moved at all, just the boundary marker has gone (the hedge)? If they'd built a structure on the debated land I could understand the issue, but if it's essentially part of a drive way, I don't see any problem. 

The land doesn't bother me at all. I wouldn't have known had the vendors not declared it, unless I spotted the change on recent planning documents submitted by neighbours. But they disclosed it.

The picture above shows the rough route the hedges took 20 years ago, as disclosed by the vendor.

The question is, is this likely to be an issue for the lender (the backtracking by now saying what they previously disclosed isn't true) and is it likely to make a sale more complicated/cost me money in future assuming the lender is happy?

Thanks,
Ryan

ryanm8655

The below shows exactly what has been done, they have filled with gravel and added kerbstones:

user1977

On the face of it, that declaration is saying the neighbours now occupy part of the property.