Boundary dispute with a difference

[Nemesis]

I'd also take careful note of the wording from the LR - they tend not to get involved in disputes, and will say at times that the boundary markings on deeds may not be totally accurate.

http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/public_guide_019.pdf

With regard to selling land with a ransom strip - I'm a bit rusty on this but in general you can't sell land locked land, there is an implied right of access. How much that access can be varied and enlarged depends on many things, including how well any agreement was worded.

 

[Jane Smith]

My parents told the builders before the buildings started that their fence did NOT mark their boundary. The Land Registry told the builders this too. Despite this, the builders went ahead with their building, and the Land Registry has now visted, confirmed what they've said before, in writing, to both my parents and the builders, and pointed out that they're none too pleased with the situation.

The Land Registry has commented, in writing, in no uncertain terms that they told the builders before building commenced that they couldn't build on that location because they didn't own it. As far as the LR is concerned, there's no dispute here; the builders are in the wrong.

There is no way for the builders to claim that they did this without knowing. There's too much evidence against that, from too many sources.

There's a good access route on the other side of the site, but a strip of this particular house (one foot wide at one end, to over four feet wide at the other) is built on my parents' garden, and if my parents want their garden back, then the builders will have to knock down that part of the house. The builders don't have any right at all to obtain a CPO because that's only available for the government and local authorities, as I understand it--it's certainly not a thing that a builder can even apply for. Their only chance here is to negotiate an agreement with my parents.

We're not expecting a bucketful of cash. It all depends on the value of the house concerned, and the costs that were involved in building it, and that would be involved in demolishing it. But it's going to be nice.

As for not being able to sell landlocked land--it might not apply to existing dwellings, but it happens rather often where minerals rights are concerned (my husband is a minerals surveyor), and I've known of it happen with development land, too. If you don't have access rights over ransom strips, you're buggered: there's not an implied right of access at all. Buyer beware, and all that.

The nice thing is that, doing what he does, my husband knows several sharky solicitor types with lots of experience in this sort of thing. He's spoken to two of them so far, and they're thrilled. One of them said that it's a "joy of a job".

 

[Nemesis]

I've been involved with this sort of thing on a personal level, with relatives, and on national level - including involvement with law making via a gov dept. Spent vast amounts of time researching arcane aspects of the law.

I can safely say that there is nothing straightforward and no two situations are ever the same. Easements of necessity etc.

And there are many solicitors with not a lot of idea - and several barristers with a lot.

The latest of supposed implied rights is this:

http://pcbsolicitors.co.uk/news/000798.html?sid=k59CWYUe5PRyxoEqz8UwViXG6Zyu9hAh


but it could change. And there may additionally be rights which have not yet been discovered (I'm talking in general terms, not to do with your situation.)

So good luck, it may all turn out fine. Personally, I would have looked at my insurance and taken out an injunction before it was built.

 

[Jane Smith]

Evelyn, it seems to me that you're looking at this from a rights of way point of view. That really has little to do with this case: we've all ready spoken with specialist property lawyers who have confirmed that.

It's more to do with who has a right to build on the land concerned. The builders don't have that right, and yet they have all ready built on it. Which is, apparently, close to theft.

 

[Nemesis]

No, I'm responding to several people who have input various things into this thread, including the idea of ransom strips and access to land.

It's not about rights of way and I appreciate what your case is. It's about encroachment. I add that there are two sides to everything and what may seem a cut and dried case at times doesn't turn out to be so simple. Lawyers are there to make a living. Middi has said something valuable about that, and if I had been in the situation I would have raised formal objections before the land was built on - and stopped them from doing so.

Depends on how the other side now wishes to play it - but I'd try very hard to settle without it becoming too adversarial, and escalating, which can cost hugely in legal fees and take over lives. The stress can be terrible.


If anyone reading this hasn't done so - I strongly urge you to check now that your home insurance covers legal fees for disputes involving your property, and check how this should be invoked (ie mostly before getting in too deeply to a situation).


And while I am not in any way saying this applies in the situation your parents are in, for further info for people reading this I'll add this link, which raises some issues re defining boundaries accurately:

http://www.boundary-problems.co.uk/

Worth reading through the various pages on boundaries.


So many people have become embroiled in disputes over small amounts of land (a foot where they think a fence has encroached, for example) which have taken years to resolve, and cost a fortune,based on over reliance of the accuracy of a line drawn on a map.


Here's a taster from the site I posted the link to:

So, you would think, the sooner the law recognises the concept of “theft of land” the better.

But why does the law not recognise theft in relation to land?

Think about the car. There is absolute certainty as to who owns the car. The car’s ownership is registered (according to the demands of the law) at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. The agents of the law (police) can very quickly establish the identity of the true owner of the car.

Think about the land. Certainly, Land Registry unambiguously records title to land: but Land Registry is very unlikely to know precisely where your boundary is, unless the boundary is one of the pitifully few “fixed boundaries” or one of the very recent and still very few “determined boundaries”. So there is no certainty as to the precise position of the boundary and it would be difficult to establish whether “theft” of the land had actually occurred

Until such time as we have a record of the precise position of every property boundary in the country (and that time appears to be so far away that it can be called never) then it would be very difficult to fairly try the proposed crime of land theft.

So in the meantime you must accept that there is no such thing as the theft of land and get on with resolving your dispute with your neighbour.

There is no authority that can step in and tell you and your neighbour - quickly, cheaply and unequivocally - exactly where your boundary is. There is one authority, the County Court or the High Court, than can work out for you – at great cost of both time and money – where your boundary is.


If you want to resolve your dispute without unnecessary expenditure of time and money it is essential that you and your neighbour:

remain on amicable terms throughout;
accept that neither of you actually knows precisely where the boundary is;
work together to understand (with the help of this web site) how the system of general boundaries operates;
ascertain from each other the factors that have led to the dispute;
negotiate with each other a settlement that mitigates those factors, and if necessary
have Land Registry record in an appropriate manner the position of the boundary that you have agreed upon.

http://www.boundary-problems.co.uk/maindigbdies.htm


.

 

[Penners]

We're not expecting a bucketful of cash.

I should think not. Buckets aren't very big.