Title plan differs from title register summary

Hello, I live in a Terraced house where there is a path at the back of the houses which residents use to take bins out, bring things into the garden. On 5 of the 7 houses a path is marked on the title plan. However, on the end terrace and mine which is next door to the end terrace there is no path marked. The summary title however indicates there is a right of way over part of my garden. Does anybody have any idea why there is a discrepancy between the two?<br> Many thanks and best wishes<br> Andy

Hello Andy - title plans are often created on different dates and as such they can differ. That's primarily because Ordnance Survey map their details at different times often when a development is changing shape over time.&#160;<br> You refer to the 'summary title' so what is it you are specifically looking at, the tile number and perhaps the discrepancy you have identified? I may be able to explain the 'differences' for you

Thanks Adam. The house is Victorian but there was a Conveyance in 1962 where it refers to a Provision made in the Charges Register which identifies a path which can be used by other residents in the Terrace. On the title plan, however no path is identified on the last two houses (including mine) and indeed a black line separates the path in the other houses from my garden.<br> It's quite confusing!

Andrew - understood but sadly words alone rarely cut through any confusion - what's the title number for your property please?

Thanks Adam - it's LL336576

Andrew - many thanks. So that title was created in 2012 when it was first registered and using the OS details available at that time.&#160;<br> The rights you refer to will be those contained in the 1959 Conveyance referred to on the register although the copy does not include a plan so relies on the wording alone to describe the right(s) and what they relate to<br> There's no 1962 Conveyance referred to and none held by us re that year<br> However I'm guessing you are actually referring to the final property (#62) in the row of houses as that title refers to a 1962 Conveyance and rights for the neighbouring properties over the pathway<br> The pathway itself is mapped by OS and has always been shown as is with no features included to define where it is on #56 or #57 as you state but that's simply because OS never picked up on any features that defined that part of the pathway across the two properties it seems<br> <br> &#160;

Thanks very much Adam, So to be absolutely clear, are you saying that OS is wrong and that I should be guided by the 1959 conveyance wording which overrides it?

Andrew - OS simply maps the physical features on the ground at the time of their survey(s). Whilst what's mapped can usually aid the understanding of where a wall, fence, hedge, ditch or indeed path lies it's not linked to the rights you refer to<br> The rights are as per the wording of the specific deed(s) and registers you have checked. They don't refer to a plan so any understanding relies solely on the wording. As such you should always be guided re the rights by the wording, not the OS details.<br> If there's an issue over the right and/or whether a pathway exists then it's really legal advice you need to understand how such wording/rights might be interpreted in law<br> It seems clear that at the time that the properties were conveyed in the late 1950s/early 1960s there was a pathway from 56 to the exit point at 62. If that pathway still exists, irrespective of whether the OS details show it in full, then the right still exists as stated.<br> The only time that might change is someone has changed, blocked, abandoned it for example and if that's the case then again it's legal understanding as to how that action then impacts in law - see PG 62 for guidance on abandonment of an easement (right) for example -&nbsp;<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/easements/practice-guide-62-easements">Practice guide 62: easements - GOV.UK</a>&nbsp;but please do seek legal advice if there are any issues re exercising/identifying the right/pathway&nbsp;<br> LL336576

Very clear and very helpful Adam. Many thanks for all your comments.