In a recent case before the First Tier Tribunal, Cunningham v Holehouse, the Tribunal was asked to determine the exact line of the southern and western boundaries of a property on the edge of Colne in Lancashire.
A Land Registry title plan does not show the exact line of a boundary. A red line on a title plan is a starting point, it shows the general location of the boundary, and not the exact legal boundary. A boundary agreement or a determined boundary application to the Land Registry to confirm the exact line of a boundary will be necessary if landowners want greater certainty on the exact location of their legal boundaries. In this case, Mr and Mrs Cunningham made such an application to determine the boundary line to their property based on an expert plan they had obtained; their neighbours, Mr and Mrs Holehouse, also instructed an expert, who had a different opinion on the location of the boundary and objected to the Cunninghams’ application.
The arguments focused on a 1987 Conveyance. Mr & Mrs Cunningham’s position was that the document which created the boundary was a conveyance of land from the Butler Estate made on 10 September 1987 (the Conveyance) as rectified by a Deed of Rectification dated 25 July 2000. Mr and Mrs Holehouse accepted that the 1987 Conveyance was the starting point but said that there was also additional land sold in 1980 which was not reflected on the 1987 Conveyance plan, which was therefore wrong. This mistake was later discovered, leading to the 2000 Deed and a new plan produced which was from that treated as the plan to the Conveyance.
The Deed helpfully included specific measurements with the words “Distance B-C-15 feet” which ought to in theory have been enough to pinpoint the position of the boundary, but not so.
The Tribunal considered the evidence put before it as to what was on the land at or around the time of the1987 Conveyance. Aerial photographs were submitted which showed a shed, carport and fence. Witness evidence was also submitted as to whether these physical features were in situ at the time of the Conveyance.
Firstly the Tribunal concluded that the reference to 15 feet within the Deed was indicative only as the words “for identification purposes only” were included suggesting that the plan was not intended to be exact and determinative. It then went on to make findings as to the location of the boundary in 1987 in relation to the shed, carport and fence. The upshot of this was that the boundary line applied for by Mr and Mrs Cunningham was not in line with the Tribunal’s conclusions and the application was dismissed. Unfortunately for Mr and Mrs Cunningham they, as the losing party, were ordered to pay Mr and Mrs Holehouse’s costs of the proceedings.
The Tribunal Judge confirmed that the title plan to the land would remain as it was, as a ‘general boundary only’ and that the parties were encouraged to ‘deal with any matters arising by agreement if possible.’ The Judge expressed a view as to where the boundary was but he did not make a determination as to its position as this was outside the scope of the Tribunal’s powers.
It is unusual for a boundary application for a determined boundary to reach the Tribunal but where it does the risks are considerable. The moral of the tale is that where disputes arise as to where the physical boundary lies they should be resolved without going to court or to the Tribunal as the consequences of an unsuccessful application can be time-consuming and expensive.
If you are involved in a boundary dispute or require advice on a boundary application, please contact Johanne Spittle, Director, Head of Litigation & Dispute Resolution. Johanne has extensive experience in resolving property disputes and can provide clear, practical advice on the options available to you. Call York 01904 716000, Wetherby 01937 583210 or Malton 01653 692247 or email law@warekay.co.uk.
York –