Discrepancies of boundaries at different scales

Hi there, we are trying to purchase a property but are coming up against a variety of title deeds at the Land Registry which should boundaries in different locations, which seem to be caused by differing scales of maps. This makes it impossible for us to submit our searches.<br> <br> We have a plan at 1:2500 scale (CL300607) which seems to mostly reflect what is on the ground, but scale 1:1250 of CL343003 shows the boundary in a different location, having moved to an entirely different point to the east next to the property (marked 'x' on both drawings), and also taking over more of the driveway to the north. We also have a 1:500 scale map which was provided at the point of sale of the land, and this is the most accurate representation of the boundary on the ground.<br> <br> In this case, which scale or drawing takes precedence? Do the other documents then need to be amended so they more closely show the true representation of the boundary?<br> <br> Many thanks<br> Sarah

Hi Sarah - the key with any registered information are the title plans and these show the general boundaries only&#160;<br> CL300607 - rural location so title plan at 1:2500 scale<br> CL343003 - also rural location but 1:1250 but enlarged from 1:2500<br> Neither title plan will show the precise location of the title/property boundary and if you are also relying on other plans then whilst they add to the mix they are also not definitive&#160;<br> Nothing takes precedence unless the land/property owners involved all agree&#160;<br> See PG 40 supplements 3 and 5 -&#160;<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/land-registration-practice-guides#guides-40-to-49">Land registration: Practice guides - GOV.UK</a>&#160;<br> If you all wish to 'fix' the boundaries then please consider a Determined Boundary application or the alternative a Boundary agreement -&#160;<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/boundary-agreements-and-determined-boundaries">Boundary agreements and determined boundaries (PG40s4) - GOV.UK</a>

<p>Thanks Adam for your speeding and comprehensive reply!</p> <p></p> <p>So a Determined Boundary/Boundary agreement between all parties would effectively be the 'ultimate' document which we could the use to apply for our searches and ultimately register our title once purchased against?</p> <p></p> <p>Many thanks again, what a fantastic service this is!</p> <p></p> <p>Sarah</p>

Sarah - a determined boundary can 'fix' the boundaries for All as the guide explains<br> I'm unsure what the issue is re searches and ultimately registering your purchase as IF you were buying one of the titles you would be buying the current registered extent as shown and your searches would be against the same extent as well. It's not impossible to submit a search as any priority search would rely on the title as is<br> IF you are suggesting that the title plan for the property you are buying does not match the reality on the ground then you would raise that with the seller/your conveyancer as appropriate.&#160;<br> Whether it matches another title plan isn't part of that discussion but IF the discrepancy you are highlighting is a significant one then a determined boundary may not be appropriate as land may need to be transferred or titles amended as a result<br> My advice would be to confirm what the actual issue is on the ground and if there isn't one then there maybe nothing to resolve.&#160;However if the title plan doesn't match that reality then a Q to pose as explained and then find the right answer that works for you to enable the purchase to complete<br> &#160;

<p>Hi Adam, sorry I have failed to add that we are attempted to buy a part of the land, and the proposed transfer of part conveyancing plan has been run through the index search and returned 4&#160;titles, and it is a discrepancy between two of these titles that is causing the&#160;issue I am discussing here: CL300607 (the vendors current title deed), plus CL343003 which seems to show an enlarged scale of the land highlighted in green on CL300607. The other title deeds raised are being parked for now!</p> <p>In this case the various scales of drawing are creating real issues as parcels of land appear to move on the maps, which is ultimately causing the issue that we cannot agree the boundary as it appears on CL300607 and apply for our searches. The land in question forms the bottom and side of a steep bank, and in reality the neighbours fence runs along the top of the bank, and does not venture down towards the corner of the building.<br> <br> I've managed to upload both photos this time, and you can see on each plan how the point marked 'x' is physically against the building in&#160;CL343003, whereas in&#160;CL300607 the same plot of land appears more to the east and does not physically touch the building. The latter is more accurate on the ground, so initially I thought an agreement was required but now I am not so sure as one title plan (CL343003) would then make it seem that land is being 'lost' to one party.<br> <br> Does this mean we will then need a determined boundary (even though in reality the physical boundaries are not in dispute; this seems to be purely an error in recording at the various scales)? Or do we need to look at transferring titles to solve this issue; even though one title (CL300607) exists as an more accurate and undisputed record of the boundary, and also is closer to the 1:500 scaled drawing apparently submitted to the Land Registry at the time the land in question as sold off?<br> <br> Many, many thanks in advance.<br> <br> Sarah</p>

Sarah - very much something for the land/property owners to discuss and agree as to what the 'solution' is here. All options are on the table so all about agreeing the best way forward.<br> If you look at the actual Transfers used to create the titles you will see where the perceived problems have arisen -&#160;CL343003 TP1 Aug 2018 and how the land was shown on the transfer plan. That was then interpreted and mapped using the OS detail available at that time and no issues raised.<br> If the discrepancies are significant then a remedy tends to only lie with transferring part(s) as appropriate<br> If the discrepancies are small then a boundary agreement can be sufficient and the title plans remain as are<br> But if precision is needed as parties want to set the boundaries in stone then the Determined Boundary option is available - it's rarely used as parties can't always agree and/or the actual discrepancies need to be ironed out through a legal transfer of ownership that then makes the boundary solution clear<br> &#160;

<p>&lt;p&gt;Hi again Adam&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Resurrecting this thread with an update; the AP1 form was posted on Monday, with reference numbers&amp;#160;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;L993PDV&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;J993PDV&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;K993PDV&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;We would be grateful if this could please be expedited; our purchase of the&amp;#160;property relies upon this getting sorted so we can then progress our searches. Our mortgage offer runs out in the new year, so time is really of the essence here. Any information about how to speed up the process would be greatfully received. We hope it is the correct form for the circumstances.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Many thanks&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Sarah&lt;/p&gt;</p>

Hi Sarah - The application has already been approved for expedite and will be processed as soon as possible.&#160;

Thanks Nimish for your quick reply.<br> <br> Is there a current timescale your team are working towards for expedited cases please? This will help manage our expectations.<br> <br> Many thanks<br> Sarah

<h5>Hi Sarah -&#160;.&#160; Whilst we complete over 95% of the expedited applications within 10 working days, it would be helpful to clarify that expedite means that the application is treated as a priority after that request has been approved.&#160; How long it then takes is entirely up to whether the application can be completed there and then or not. If the evidence provided is sufficient, and no additional actions are required, then we will complete is at the same time. But if the evidence is not sufficient&#160;then the timescale will be stretched as the person / firm who submitted the application will need to resolve any issues and we may have to complete wider checks.&#160; It is important to realise that expediting an application does not shortcut the registration process and requirements in any manner.</h5>

<p>Thank you. I assume you will also be closer over Christmas? Could you please let me know so I can work out what days are likely ‘working’ days for you and your team over the upcoming few weeks?</p> <p></p> <p>many thanks</p> <p>Sarah</p>

Hi Sarah - Our opening times during the Christmas period can be found on our website -&#160;<a href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/contact-hm-land-registry">Contact HM Land Registry - GOV.UK</a>

<p>Hi there, are there any updates yet please? We have many people off on annual leave already so it may be that any updates or requests for further information are missed.</p> <p></p> <p>Many thanks</p> <p>Sarah</p>

Hi Sarah - no update as yet but will check with the casework team for one for you.&#160;<br> CL226071 &amp; CL300607

<p>Hi Adam</p> <p></p> <p>any updates from the case working team please?</p> <p></p> <p>Happy Christmas to you all when you get there!</p> <p></p> <p>thanks</p> <p>Sarah</p>

Hi Sarah - I have responded to your latest post in the absence of my colleague.&#160;<br> <br> We have today written to the person who submitted the application to inform of our intentions and confirm their acceptance.&#160; &#160;We will now have to wait for their response.&#160;<br> <br> Hope this is of some help.&#160;<br> <br> Merry Christmas to you too.&#160;