Land Registry issue
Discussion
OK, so the plot of land outlined in red which I will call ABC was sold with a 4 metre right of way to the left, and the area ABC should be 451.3 sqr YARDS, according to the Land Registry map which was registered after the sale.
The owner of ABC is now claiming that the 4 metre right of way is the ONLY land to the left. The black line I have drawn shows where new owner of the right of way claims the boundary SHOULD be... and indeed THIS boundary has a hedge along it, put there by the owner of ABC!
The owner of ABC had also bought a subsequent plot behind ABC and registered it with proper dimensions and an area - and indicated a 4 metre wide strip to the left - but along the rear boundary the total plot is 38+ metres! You can see his boundary is given as 30.2 mtrs which added to the 4 metres shown would only be 34.2 mtrs! This plan also shows a straight boundary to the road (which would be in line with the hedge) along BOTH plots!
The original land owner of the plot to the rear of the ABC plot, accepted and co-signed the first plan which was subsequently lodged with the land registry but has since passed away, soon after selling the remainder of land to the rear.
The new owner is reluctant to go to court over something he blames the Land Registry for, and has asked me if I knew of an ombudsman that oversees the Land Registry who might adjudicate - I don't, hence my question here!
My view is that the owner of ABC is trying to take advantage of the poor diagram, and the passing of the original owner to take a narrow strip which might prevent future development behind his two plots.
So my questions are, should the Land Registry have legally registered the land and accepted a drawing lacking in critical measurements?
And if the area outlined in red were plotted - say using GPS, would they accept that the poorly drawn plan does have a strip wider than the right of way?
Finally is there any sort of ombudsman who oversees the work of the Land Registry?
Edited by Mill Wheel on Monday 7th September 01:18
None of the plans you have posted are the Land Registry's plans. And if you do obtain Land Registry plans, you should note that boundaries on them are not definitive.
Of course they should register land based on old or inconsistent plans; the purpose of the Land Registry is to register land and keep a record of ownership. If you look at plans in C19th conveyances, they are a hell of a lot less precise than yours.
Of course they should register land based on old or inconsistent plans; the purpose of the Land Registry is to register land and keep a record of ownership. If you look at plans in C19th conveyances, they are a hell of a lot less precise than yours.
Modern plans are prepared to definitive standards.
Title plans are drawn to at least 1:1250 but when I prepare them (which I do frequently) I try and go to 1:500 if the paper is big enough.
There is no requirement to include measurements on a modern Land Registry Compliant plans, merely that the drawing be drawn to the stated scale. f there are measurements then they would not be shown as yours are, but would be measurements to points on the drawing from fixed and known points, effectively fixing these so the line can be drawn between.
As Jobbo says previously to the new rules any old plan would be accepted and some are truly awful.
I think the plan that is most important is the original deed relating to the right of way. This is going to be key to establishing what was originally intended. If there's an error in that document it will be hard to correct - an error in any of the later one's to me look to be tough luck on whoever is planning to build on the back.
No independent body - although parties may agree an expert determination instead of courts. If it gets to that check your insurance cover for legal cover, but expect this to smoulder on for years.
ETA
It's very easy to rely on OS surveys and forget that they show physical features such as hedges and not boundaries. Often the two coincide, but sometimes not.
Title plans are drawn to at least 1:1250 but when I prepare them (which I do frequently) I try and go to 1:500 if the paper is big enough.
There is no requirement to include measurements on a modern Land Registry Compliant plans, merely that the drawing be drawn to the stated scale. f there are measurements then they would not be shown as yours are, but would be measurements to points on the drawing from fixed and known points, effectively fixing these so the line can be drawn between.
As Jobbo says previously to the new rules any old plan would be accepted and some are truly awful.
I think the plan that is most important is the original deed relating to the right of way. This is going to be key to establishing what was originally intended. If there's an error in that document it will be hard to correct - an error in any of the later one's to me look to be tough luck on whoever is planning to build on the back.
No independent body - although parties may agree an expert determination instead of courts. If it gets to that check your insurance cover for legal cover, but expect this to smoulder on for years.
ETA
It's very easy to rely on OS surveys and forget that they show physical features such as hedges and not boundaries. Often the two coincide, but sometimes not.
surveyor said:
As Jobbo says previously to the new rules any old plan would be accepted and some are truly awful.
I think the plan that is most important is the original deed relating to the right of way. This is going to be key to establishing what was originally intended. If there's an error in that document it will be hard to correct - an error in any of the later one's to me look to be tough luck on whoever is planning to build on the back.
No independent body - although parties may agree an expert determination instead of courts. If it gets to that check your insurance cover for legal cover, but expect this to smoulder on for years.
ETA
It's very easy to rely on OS surveys and forget that they show physical features such as hedges and not boundaries. Often the two coincide, but sometimes not.
I have seen the wording of the original sale, and it merely refers to a right of way of 4 metres over which ABC can pass and repass, not a 4 metre strip - and the measurements on the second plot belonging to ABC bears this out - his measurements simply do not match up to what is on the ground - 30.2 + 4 = 34.2, not the actual distance of 38+ metres!I think the plan that is most important is the original deed relating to the right of way. This is going to be key to establishing what was originally intended. If there's an error in that document it will be hard to correct - an error in any of the later one's to me look to be tough luck on whoever is planning to build on the back.
No independent body - although parties may agree an expert determination instead of courts. If it gets to that check your insurance cover for legal cover, but expect this to smoulder on for years.
ETA
It's very easy to rely on OS surveys and forget that they show physical features such as hedges and not boundaries. Often the two coincide, but sometimes not.
Do you think the plan lodged with Land Registry showing the area of ABC might be disregarded in favour of the one shown with no measurement across the rear of ABC, merely the 4 metres indicated alongside?
Mill Wheel said:
surveyor said:
As Jobbo says previously to the new rules any old plan would be accepted and some are truly awful.
I think the plan that is most important is the original deed relating to the right of way. This is going to be key to establishing what was originally intended. If there's an error in that document it will be hard to correct - an error in any of the later one's to me look to be tough luck on whoever is planning to build on the back.
No independent body - although parties may agree an expert determination instead of courts. If it gets to that check your insurance cover for legal cover, but expect this to smoulder on for years.
ETA
It's very easy to rely on OS surveys and forget that they show physical features such as hedges and not boundaries. Often the two coincide, but sometimes not.
I have seen the wording of the original sale, and it merely refers to a right of way of 4 metres over which ABC can pass and repass, not a 4 metre strip - and the measurements on the second plot belonging to ABC bears this out - his measurements simply do not match up to what is on the ground - 30.2 + 4 = 34.2, not the actual distance of 38+ metres!I think the plan that is most important is the original deed relating to the right of way. This is going to be key to establishing what was originally intended. If there's an error in that document it will be hard to correct - an error in any of the later one's to me look to be tough luck on whoever is planning to build on the back.
No independent body - although parties may agree an expert determination instead of courts. If it gets to that check your insurance cover for legal cover, but expect this to smoulder on for years.
ETA
It's very easy to rely on OS surveys and forget that they show physical features such as hedges and not boundaries. Often the two coincide, but sometimes not.
Do you think the plan lodged with Land Registry showing the area of ABC might be disregarded in favour of the one shown with no measurement across the rear of ABC, merely the 4 metres indicated alongside?
surveyor said:
As Jobbo says previously to the new rules any old plan would be accepted and some are truly awful.
I think the plan that is most important is the original deed relating to the right of way. This is going to be key to establishing what was originally intended. If there's an error in that document it will be hard to correct - an error in any of the later one's to me look to be tough luck on whoever is planning to build on the back.
No independent body - although parties may agree an expert determination instead of courts. If it gets to that check your insurance cover for legal cover, but expect this to smoulder on for years.
ETA
It's very easy to rely on OS surveys and forget that they show physical features such as hedges and not boundaries. Often the two coincide, but sometimes not.
I have seen the wording of the original sale, and it merely refers to a right of way of 4 metres over which ABC can pass and repass, not a 4 metre strip - and the measurements on the second plot belonging to ABC bears this out - his measurements simply do not match up to what is on the ground - 30.2 + 4 = 34.2, not the actual distance of 38+ metres!I think the plan that is most important is the original deed relating to the right of way. This is going to be key to establishing what was originally intended. If there's an error in that document it will be hard to correct - an error in any of the later one's to me look to be tough luck on whoever is planning to build on the back.
No independent body - although parties may agree an expert determination instead of courts. If it gets to that check your insurance cover for legal cover, but expect this to smoulder on for years.
ETA
It's very easy to rely on OS surveys and forget that they show physical features such as hedges and not boundaries. Often the two coincide, but sometimes not.
Do you think the plan lodged with Land Registry showing the area of ABC might be disregarded in favour of the one shown with no measurement across the rear of ABC, merely the 4 metres indicated alongside?
Mill Wheel said:
surveyor said:
As Jobbo says previously to the new rules any old plan would be accepted and some are truly awful.
I think the plan that is most important is the original deed relating to the right of way. This is going to be key to establishing what was originally intended. If there's an error in that document it will be hard to correct - an error in any of the later one's to me look to be tough luck on whoever is planning to build on the back.
No independent body - although parties may agree an expert determination instead of courts. If it gets to that check your insurance cover for legal cover, but expect this to smoulder on for years.
ETA
It's very easy to rely on OS surveys and forget that they show physical features such as hedges and not boundaries. Often the two coincide, but sometimes not.
I have seen the wording of the original sale, and it merely refers to a right of way of 4 metres over which ABC can pass and repass, not a 4 metre strip - and the measurements on the second plot belonging to ABC bears this out - his measurements simply do not match up to what is on the ground - 30.2 + 4 = 34.2, not the actual distance of 38+ metres!I think the plan that is most important is the original deed relating to the right of way. This is going to be key to establishing what was originally intended. If there's an error in that document it will be hard to correct - an error in any of the later one's to me look to be tough luck on whoever is planning to build on the back.
No independent body - although parties may agree an expert determination instead of courts. If it gets to that check your insurance cover for legal cover, but expect this to smoulder on for years.
ETA
It's very easy to rely on OS surveys and forget that they show physical features such as hedges and not boundaries. Often the two coincide, but sometimes not.
Do you think the plan lodged with Land Registry showing the area of ABC might be disregarded in favour of the one shown with no measurement across the rear of ABC, merely the 4 metres indicated alongside?
Before we all get excited - what is the date of the conveyance from which that plan of the RoW is taken? From what little I can see it apprears to state it is from a Conveyance. Given that the last time a Conveyance should have been used for a property transfer for monetary value in E&W would have been in 1990 some, if not all of, the issues raise by the objector are/may well be irrelevant if the RoW has been used as the OP believes it should be set out and the property bounded in along the boundaries that the OP thinks are the true boundaries of property, rather than internal partitions.
OP - I would strongly advise the person with this issue to book an appointment with a solicitor specialising in Land Law (do not waste your time with a 'conveyancer' - you need someone who knows the alternative ways to skin the cat)
OP - I would strongly advise the person with this issue to book an appointment with a solicitor specialising in Land Law (do not waste your time with a 'conveyancer' - you need someone who knows the alternative ways to skin the cat)
The 1st plan I showed was obtained by my friend FROM the land registry, along with a smaller scale view (of appalling quality), which states that the area of the land edged in red (ABC) is 451.3 sqr YARDS.
There is also a small scale Land Registry plan with no measurements identifying the plan/plot number of the rear plots.
It doesnt help that the red and green boundaries are metres wide and one is off set beyond the far boundary!
There is also a small scale Land Registry plan with no measurements identifying the plan/plot number of the rear plots.
It doesnt help that the red and green boundaries are metres wide and one is off set beyond the far boundary!
Mill Wheel said:
The 1st plan I showed was obtained by my friend FROM the land registry
If that's in response to my original comment, I should point out that it's not a Land Registry plan; it's simply a copy of a document which the Land Registry hold.The second plan in your post above is a Land Registry title plan, albeit an old one. Ask your friend to do a Mapsearch.
However, as I mentioned above: the Land Registry title plans are not definitive in relation to boundaries. It sounds to me as if you have a boundary dispute, and suggesting that the Land Registry may be liable for something is ignoring the real issue. As Rude Boy says, go and see a lawyer who knows about this sort of thing.
Edited by Jobbo on Monday 7th September 13:21
Jobbo said:
However, as I mentioned above: the Land Registry title plans are not definitive in relation to boundaries. It sounds to me as if you have a boundary dispute, and suggesting that the Land Registry may be liable for something is ignoring the real issue. As Rude Boy says, go and see a lawyer who knows about this sort of thing.
Now I can see the date (1994) on that plan you really need to speak to a solicitor about this. There are more avenues that may be open to you than you might think. I am not happy that I can deduce enough from the information posted to be any more specific but I'm not sitting here thinking that you are likely throwing good money after bad.Do make 100% sure though that you get an organ grinder, not a monkey.
Jobbo said:
If that's in response to my original comment, I should point out that it's not a Land Registry plan; it's simply a copy of a document which the Land Registry hold.
The second plan in your post above is a Land Registry title plan, albeit an old one. Ask your friend to do a Mapsearch.
Aside from a copy of the above with the red area identified with a number, these are everything the Land Registry furnished my friend with. I notice the crude plan with the area on it is dated 1994.The second plan in your post above is a Land Registry title plan, albeit an old one. Ask your friend to do a Mapsearch.
The owner of ABC drew the maps of ABC and his later plot - and you can see the later plot does not match the land registry map (outlined in red and green) in shape!
There has been a site meeting in which the owner of ABC turned up with his "surveyor" who has since been unavailable by phone or email, and is not known at the offices where he claimed to be from!
We both visited the solicitor who drew up the sale, which is where I saw the Right of Way wording - but we weren't given a copy to take away. What should my friend be asking them for?
If it were mine, I'd just take it to court, but my friend has been told that is hit or miss and could go either way... which is why he has been asking about the acceptance of the Land Registry of such poor plans.
It is not near me, otherwise I could make measurements myself!
Edited by Mill Wheel on Monday 7th September 13:38
Mill Wheel said:
these are everything the Land Registry furnished my friend with
The Land Registry don't furnish you with documents, you request documents from them. They may be all that the Land Registry holds but that doesn't mean they are the full picture.Re. the Land Registry accepting poor plans; they are under a statutory duty to register land. They had to accept the plans they were given (up until quite recently). I may not have much of a clue what the issues are here, but I can at least divert you away from the wild goose chase which would be pursuing the Land Registry.
Just to add I'd third the suggestion of a Good specialist solicitor.
I'd also add that in what should be a very precise word, property documents, especially old one are often not precise enough, and I have seen plenty of boundary disputes that became very bitter, long and expensive over something that if anyone could take a step back enough to see would be completely pointless.
I'd also add that in what should be a very precise word, property documents, especially old one are often not precise enough, and I have seen plenty of boundary disputes that became very bitter, long and expensive over something that if anyone could take a step back enough to see would be completely pointless.
I'm guessing my friend is wary of throwing any money at this, or he wouldn't have been asking about the Land Registry and an ombudsman!
ABC has no right of way to the rear plot he purchased later - and has now been fenced off, and will now have to cross his garden to access it unless he can negotiate with the land owner on the other side, where there is a new small housing estate with a spur road leading to his boundary!
Is the second plot to the rear the area edged green on the plan below?
If so, and the only access is up the road within the area edged red, it could be the case that the green edged area has the benefit of an implied easement of access (using the rule in Wheeldon v. Burrows). Or there may be an easement acquired by prescription. It really isn't straightforward but it seems to me narrowing the issues down would be helpful, rather than shooting in the dark.
Don't go to see the solicitor who put the documents in place, go to see somebody who looks at it with a fresh, unbiased view.
If so, and the only access is up the road within the area edged red, it could be the case that the green edged area has the benefit of an implied easement of access (using the rule in Wheeldon v. Burrows). Or there may be an easement acquired by prescription. It really isn't straightforward but it seems to me narrowing the issues down would be helpful, rather than shooting in the dark.
Don't go to see the solicitor who put the documents in place, go to see somebody who looks at it with a fresh, unbiased view.
Yes, the green plot is now owned by ABC, and the red plot belongs to my friend.
It at least has dimensions for area, and the right hand and back boundaries, from which I plotted that as best I could.
If nothing else I need to teach him how to scan documents at a resolution that you can read!
It at least has dimensions for area, and the right hand and back boundaries, from which I plotted that as best I could.
If nothing else I need to teach him how to scan documents at a resolution that you can read!
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff