Boundary Queries

[GPHouse]

Hi
I was preparing a planning application this week on my property and saw something which I need some advice on... and as ever I thought of coming here for something informal first...

So. between ourselves and next door there is a wall which is OLD and straight... apart from where a concrete block building juts though the line of the wall by about 2m (2mx2m).

More complicated still... its on the ground level for the wall next door which is 60cm higher than my side of the wall....

Looking at my deeds the and the land registry, and OS.... the boundary is a sharp, straight line with no building jutting in.

I got the property 12 months ago and given a focus on boundaries elsewhere... completely overlooked this. The building is old, decrepit and has been there for 13 year or so....

What would you do? Do I have just cause to ask for my land back (it would make building my outbuilding a lot LOT easier... I wont have to wrap it around 3 sides of the block monstrosity) DO they have squatters rights... or historic precedents?? HELP!


G

 

[Flyfisher]

There is something called 'adverse possession' whereby if you annexe a piece of land without permission (hence 'adverse') for a period of time then you can claim ownership of that land. Unfortunately for your case, I have a feeling the time period is twelve years, but I'm sure there will be more information online.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation, the first thing to consider is how much time, trouble and money is that 4m2 piece of land worth to you in practice?

As for boundaries on your deeds, this is an interesting read: http://www.gardenlaw.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3149
No disrespect to PPUKers, but I would suggest posting your questions in the relevant topic on the garden law.co.uk forum.

 

[GPHouse]

Thanks. Taking some professional advice but I suspect given how long they've been encroaching its a lost cause not worth fighting (particularly as the land owner on the other side is one of the major land owners in the south west with his own full time estates team who are notoriously difficult).

 

[Minkeycat]

I wish you all the best with it and I'm interested to know how you get on. We had a neighbour act up over a border issue once which was unnecessary and troublesome but it seems to me that a lot of solicitors simply recoiled in horror at the mere mention of the word boundary and the vast majority of professionals advised that it isn't worth it, just hand the land over because, despite what I thought was strong evidence that put 'right on our side', there are no guarantees that common sense will prevail. The advice on the garden law forum seems odd to me. I know getting a random map out and measuring isn't necessarily helpful but you've got to go on something. Having read that thread, I'd love to know how you make 'proper' measurements. It almost seems that any boundary dispute falls in favour of whoever is the most boorish or starts the challenge because, on defending it, the other side are advised to give up immediately. I know someone who sold a plant nursery a few years ago. It had been in his family since the early 1900s and on selling, it transpired that a boundary wall was over the neighbour's border by a foot or two and even though he'd never known about it nor used nor missed the land throughout the entirety of his living in the property, the neighbour somehow sold the land for tens of thousands of pounds because it was the best option. I admit, I'm relaying a story that I wasn't directly involved with so some not have all the details correct but, if correct, it would seem to me that 'squatters rights' and the like don't mean anything or the neighbour would simply have lost the land.
But I wish you the very best of luck.

 

[CliffordPope]

"I got the property 12 months ago"


There is a principle called something like "What you see is what you buy" - ie it is your job to inspect the property thoroughly before purchase and query anything with your solicitor. If no one notices the boundary is in the wrong place, tough luck.
Have a look at the Garden Law forum - there are experts there on boundary questions.

 

[Flyfisher]

I admit, I'm relaying a story that I wasn't directly involved with so some not have all the details correct but, if correct, it would seem to me that 'squatters rights' and the like don't mean anything or the neighbour would simply have lost the land.

'Squatters rights', in the form of adverse possession, is well established in law. In the case you describe (where a boundary wall has encroached on a neighbour's land for many decades) I'm pretty sure the owner of the encroaching boundary would be able to claim ownership of the enclosed land. However, as this matter only came to light during a sale of the property, my guess is that the issue threatened the sale and so a pragmatic approach was taken to 'buy off' the neighbour in order for the sale not to be disrupted. It may also have been the case that the land was not registered and so a first registration was necessary, and this dispute would certainly delayed that process and might well have 'spooked' the prospective buyer. Again, pragmatism often overrides the absolute legal position.

When we first registered a field there were a couple of places where the neighbouring houses had extended their boundary fences into the field. The deeds of the houses concerned quite clearly showed the field boundary to be a perfectly straight line so the subsequent encroachment was blindingly obvious. However the legal costs of fighting a case for recovery would have far outweighed the value of a few square meters of land lost from a four acre field so we didn't bother. Instead we registered the field boundary around the small incursions.

Interestingly, and perhaps because of the non-straight boundary, Land Registry send out a surveyor from Ordnance Survey to map the boundary of the newly registered field using a GPS gizmo accurate to less than one inch, which was then used to update their electronic mapping system. Now that such technology is available, perhaps boundary disputes will be far easier to resolve in future, at least for all registered land.

 

[paulc]

Interestingly, and perhaps because of the non-straight boundary, Land Registry send out a surveyor from Ordnance Survey to map the boundary of the newly registered field using a GPS gizmo accurate to less than one inch, which was then used to update their electronic mapping system. Now that such technology is available, perhaps boundary disputes will be far easier to resolve in future, at least for all registered land.

Only in the cases where the boundaries have been recently mapped would this technology help in resolving disputes. Much of the time the Land Registry will rely on ancient site plans and (relatively) low resolution OS maps.

Certainly, when I had to do a compulsory first registration on the family estate, LR just accepted the original site plan and plot dimensions described in the title deeds - Neither are an accurate depiction of where the boundary fences are currently situated.

 

[GPHouse]

The advice I've had is pretty much leave it alone its a PITA.... so from a tactical perspective I will, as I need to submit a Party Wall Act notice due to the minor excavation for the proposed building (its only an excavation because of the height differential on either side of the wall)... So assuming they don't kick up a fuss I guess I'll leave it and have a weird 'U' shaped building.... but if for any inconceivable reason they complain / comment.... I'll bundle it all up and go for blood... and if that fails I'll just stick pink shipping containers in the garden and see how they like that.... (I really need the storage space)

G

 

[Bevmarley]

Can I ask why you had to register a field as we bought our house last year with five acres and I didn't do this as assumed all that would have been done by solicitor when we bought it.

 

[Flyfisher]

It depends on the titles. I'm guessing that in your case the house and the field were all defined in a single title deed, so when you bought the house there would only have been a single conveyance and a single land registration. In our case our house and land is split into four different titles. I suppose there is some way of combining titles into one, but no doubt it would cost money and I can't see the point at present.

Land registration only became compulsory fairly recently, 1998 I think. So there are still many unregistered properties out there, meaning that many property purchases involve a first registration.

 

[Flyfisher]

Interestingly, and perhaps because of the non-straight boundary, Land Registry send out a surveyor from Ordnance Survey to map the boundary of the newly registered field using a GPS gizmo accurate to less than one inch, which was then used to update their electronic mapping system. Now that such technology is available, perhaps boundary disputes will be far easier to resolve in future, at least for all registered land.

Only in the cases where the boundaries have been recently mapped would this technology help in resolving disputes. Much of the time the Land Registry will rely on ancient site plans and (relatively) low resolution OS maps.

Certainly, when I had to do a compulsory first registration on the family estate, LR just accepted the original site plan and plot dimensions described in the title deeds - Neither are an accurate depiction of where the boundary fences are currently situated.

Agreed, not all property has been mapped to GPS accuracy yet.

What is interesting though is that when LR accepts old maps for first registrations they still have to apply those map boundaries to the modern digital maps that are used for such records these days. So, presumably, they have to 'interpret' the old map and then define a boundary on their definitive digital maps (managed by OS I believe) and that boundary will be able to be defined with mm accuracy and verified if necessary by a GPS survey.

I entirely agree with your point about old maps and deeds not necessarily being accurate. Some of our deeds have boundaries marked in coloured lines so wide that they represent many feet, even yards, on the ground! A consequence of this is that when our four titles were registered the new digital map boundaries did not actually 'meet' in a couple of places, leaving small areas of unregistered land. We pointed this out to LR and they were very helpful in changing the registered boundaries so they perfectly aligned with our adjacent titles. Fortunately, these 'glitches' only involved our own land so there was no boundary dispute as such, but I can imagine similar situations arising with two titles in different ownership, which could then lead to a dispute - at which point a calm and reasonable discussion between the two parties would be the best approach because, in my view, once things 'go legal' there is no real winner - except perhaps the lawyers.

 

[Flyfisher]

The advice I've had is pretty much leave it alone its a PITA....

Did the advice actually suggest you even have a case? If the incursion has existed for over (I think) 12 years without being contested then my understanding is that the 'adverse possession' means the neighbour will now have ownership. If this is correct, then any action you may take to recover the land and the original boundary is doomed to failure. So yes, a PITA, but an historical one that is probably best left to lie.

 

[noj]

http://www.johnantell.co.uk/adverse-possession-of-land

Seems a decent summary - and looks like there's not a lot you can do...

 

[CliffordPope]

In our case our house and land is split into four different titles. I suppose there is some way of combining titles into one, but no doubt it would cost money and I can't see the point at present.

It can be done, it's a straighforward procedure.
Our house and immediate land were under separate titles, and unregistered. By chance I discovered that the farmer who bought the bulk of the original land had registered it under our property name. The solicitor said there was nothing sinister in that, as it is commonplace for portions of land from an original property to often continue to bear the old name, often as "part of XYZ".
But all the same I didn't like the way that the only public record of our property apparently showed that it was owned by someone else, so we registered the house and land under one combined title.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Coming a little late to this...

My understanding of adverse possessory title is that it needs to be claimed, and as part of the claim the claimant needs to demonstrate unchallenged and sole use for the 12 years preceding the claim. Other interested parties will be notified.

If you can evidence that the claim is disputed within that period, then title may not be granted.

However, as with most things neighbourly diplomacy can be a better route than the law.