Tweet
What am I failing to understand?
• My parents bought their home in the 1990s, where it became first registered.
• They were advised, (albeit now unsure whether rightfully or wrongly), that the neighbouring property had legal rights to occupy a part of the land they were purchasing. Despite this, they were assured they would always retain ownership of the land. Coming from a regular townhouse, they trusted this advice was common for a rural property.
• The neighbouring property (I’ll call it No. 1) occupied a building, an outbuilding with a toilet, and the only means of rear exit. These were all included in my parents' title but were used/occupied/possessed by No 1.
• After my parent’s purchase, No. 1 was sold and also became first registered.
• In the early 2000s, No. 1 demolished its outbuilding, constructed a conservatory over its footprint, and expanded over the hard standing, which was No 1’s only means of rear exit.
• In 2020, I attempted to purchase No. 1 when it was up for sale. During conveyancing checks, my surveyor & solicitor inform me part of No 1 is not within it’s legal title. I am advised this can only be rectified by a transfer of land or adverse possession. I am told I cannot proceed with the purchase as my mortgage lender would not allow it. This hindered my mortgage approval, forcing me to withdraw from the purchase.
• Surprisingly, No. 1 was later sold without any issues. They updated their title plan (to include the land also registered to my parents) and sold the property to new buyers without complications. However, both properties now had overlapping registered land, (In my opinion), due to inaccurate plans/statements submitted to the Land Registry by the seller of No. 1.
• Despite my parents' efforts, the Land Registry did not rectify the situation, stating that both properties could hold title to the same land due to the general, not legal, boundary being shown on title plans.
The LR amongst other things stated:
There is no mistake in the register of the properties as the red edging still depicts the general and not the legal boundary of the property.
HMLR is not failing to recognise that the land was included in a different title. The title plan of each title shows the general boundary of a property. The documentary title shows the legal title to a property. This is consequently why the property can be included in the red edging of two title plans.
• Legal advice suggested that the costs involved in resolving this issue, could outweigh the benefits if taken to court.
The Land Registry's procedures seem contradictory??
· If the fundamental purpose of Land Registry title plans, is to provide clarity and an accurate overview of the land being acquired and ensure a smooth process for solicitors, conveyancers, and property purchasers across the UK, how is this possible if they allow two title to have significant overlaps?
· What’s the point of having title plans and conveyances asking purchasers to check the title plan and boundaries if both properties can include the same land? How do you know the land your buying?
· If overlaps in titles are allowed then why does the LR have a specific procedure which states if you wish to update your title plan to show the general boundaries more accurately but the land you wish to include falls outside the red edging and within another title then you have to apply to remove that land?
· My parents have also been left in a no-win position and with a property title that makes absolutely no sense. It will be impossible for them to sell their property as they cannot explain why they share the same title with No 1. There is nothing on their register to explain the significant overlaps in titles.
If anyone has the time/patience I can provide further information that might reveal how both properties share/own the same land &/or garden but my initial concern lies in how the Land Registry allows two titles to overlap significantly, creating confusion and hindering property transactions, despite having procedures for boundary updates?
My legal counsel emphasized that this was not a typical boundary dispute but rather required a land transfer or an adverse possession claim for resolution.
Was I advised incorrectly?
• My parents bought their home in the 1990s, where it became first registered.
• They were advised, (albeit now unsure whether rightfully or wrongly), that the neighbouring property had legal rights to occupy a part of the land they were purchasing. Despite this, they were assured they would always retain ownership of the land. Coming from a regular townhouse, they trusted this advice was common for a rural property.
• The neighbouring property (I’ll call it No. 1) occupied a building, an outbuilding with a toilet, and the only means of rear exit. These were all included in my parents' title but were used/occupied/possessed by No 1.
• After my parent’s purchase, No. 1 was sold and also became first registered.
• In the early 2000s, No. 1 demolished its outbuilding, constructed a conservatory over its footprint, and expanded over the hard standing, which was No 1’s only means of rear exit.
• In 2020, I attempted to purchase No. 1 when it was up for sale. During conveyancing checks, my surveyor & solicitor inform me part of No 1 is not within it’s legal title. I am advised this can only be rectified by a transfer of land or adverse possession. I am told I cannot proceed with the purchase as my mortgage lender would not allow it. This hindered my mortgage approval, forcing me to withdraw from the purchase.
• Surprisingly, No. 1 was later sold without any issues. They updated their title plan (to include the land also registered to my parents) and sold the property to new buyers without complications. However, both properties now had overlapping registered land, (In my opinion), due to inaccurate plans/statements submitted to the Land Registry by the seller of No. 1.
• Despite my parents' efforts, the Land Registry did not rectify the situation, stating that both properties could hold title to the same land due to the general, not legal, boundary being shown on title plans.
The LR amongst other things stated:
There is no mistake in the register of the properties as the red edging still depicts the general and not the legal boundary of the property.
HMLR is not failing to recognise that the land was included in a different title. The title plan of each title shows the general boundary of a property. The documentary title shows the legal title to a property. This is consequently why the property can be included in the red edging of two title plans.
• Legal advice suggested that the costs involved in resolving this issue, could outweigh the benefits if taken to court.
The Land Registry's procedures seem contradictory??
· If the fundamental purpose of Land Registry title plans, is to provide clarity and an accurate overview of the land being acquired and ensure a smooth process for solicitors, conveyancers, and property purchasers across the UK, how is this possible if they allow two title to have significant overlaps?
· What’s the point of having title plans and conveyances asking purchasers to check the title plan and boundaries if both properties can include the same land? How do you know the land your buying?
· If overlaps in titles are allowed then why does the LR have a specific procedure which states if you wish to update your title plan to show the general boundaries more accurately but the land you wish to include falls outside the red edging and within another title then you have to apply to remove that land?
· My parents have also been left in a no-win position and with a property title that makes absolutely no sense. It will be impossible for them to sell their property as they cannot explain why they share the same title with No 1. There is nothing on their register to explain the significant overlaps in titles.
If anyone has the time/patience I can provide further information that might reveal how both properties share/own the same land &/or garden but my initial concern lies in how the Land Registry allows two titles to overlap significantly, creating confusion and hindering property transactions, despite having procedures for boundary updates?
My legal counsel emphasized that this was not a typical boundary dispute but rather required a land transfer or an adverse possession claim for resolution.
Was I advised incorrectly?
Comment