Transfer Part 1 - red edging

teepeeone
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:14 am

Re: Transfer Part 1 - red edging

Post by teepeeone » Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:45 am

wtc wrote:
Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:15 pm
As a layperson, but one who has been wronged by a developer putting a boundary feature parallel to something when it should not have been, I would also be expecting each buyer to get what they reasonably expected to buy. If detailed plans were shown and all parties signed their names to them then each should get something aligned to that. Though one party dragging its heels, or saying no, has no automatic way of overriding them.

Can I ask a few questions based on those plans? I assume there was no Determined Boundary - these are very rare and possibly what you would aim to have done but only once this is all sorted out (at developer's cost)?

Looking at those plans, do they mean that you are plot 131, and feel you have lost a triangle of front garden, but actually have gained a triangle of back garden? Though I could understand that the bit at the front could be more valuable in increasing the amount of parking. Has the developer made any attempt to measure communicate the extent of the error? Is there a chance the neighbour thinks he is only going to 'lose' land?

There is mention of a fence that I assume is in the back garden, but does it continue beyond the dashed line into the front, or is there otherwise any boundary feature in the front?

What is the hatched area at the bottom of the garden, with something also highlighted on the title plan. Are plots 106 and 107 now completed, but were they still under development at the time?

The neighbour might have seen a solicitor but might be calling your bluff. Even if they have seen one, you do not know what the solicitor actually advised - quite possibly not the title absolute nonsense.
Hi wtc,

No determined boundary has been made but yes this should be the next step. We are 131 and were expecting to have a 'pizza wedge' plot, with a fence running pretty much equidistant between 131 and 132 from front to back.
The wall and fence the developer installed has made it so there's an ~88cm (to fence feathering) parallel path running the full length of the property. The fence line carries on straight(ish) to the fence at the end of the garden. The neighbour is aware they will gain a little land further down the garden but due to the way the fence should run, it's not a lot really.
See pics below to see the swing at the front and the narrow pathway which extends parallel to the drive in the current title plan. You could definitely have another parking space at the front of the property in the original plans.

The hatched area is a crib wall the developer installed which funnily enough wasn't conveyed to us before completion so we (all) potentially lost another 1-2 meters at the bottom of the garden. 106/107 are just at foundation build at the moment.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

teepeeone
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:14 am

Re: Transfer Part 1 - red edging

Post by teepeeone » Mon Dec 02, 2019 11:21 pm

So to add since original post. Developer started an AP1 to change the boundary but it got cancelled due to developer not providing information requested in time.. they were informed by LR that even if the boundary was changed on the register is doesn't allow you access to go and do the work, so needed to be agreed by both parties They are also potentially in the firing line for litigation as well as LR said if an indemnity claim was made against LR, they may look to recoup against developer as developer made the physical error.

Developer did confirm to LR that no physical boundaries were built at reservation or exchange of contracts.

LR apologised saying a discrepancy between transfer plan and OS survey should normally picked up by them on registration but hadn't been noticed on this application.

Neighbour disagrees where the legal boundary is.... Developer can't physically moved the boundary unless neighbour agrees. The cost for developer to resolve wouldn't be an obscene amount as they're still on site. The neighbour doesn't want to give up the space at the front/side for the smaller less usable piece at the back.

Will update further soon
Last edited by teepeeone on Mon Dec 02, 2019 11:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

teepeeone
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:14 am

Re: Transfer Part 1 - red edging

Post by teepeeone » Mon Dec 02, 2019 11:28 pm

1:250 drawing
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

wtc
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 1:40 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 50
Number of topics per page: 50

Re: Transfer Part 1 - red edging

Post by wtc » Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:49 pm

teepeeone wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 11:21 pm
LR apologised saying a discrepancy between transfer plan and OS survey should normally picked up by them on registration but hadn't been noticed on this application.
Any chance there was another earlier application? Where on first application, the LR does pick up the discrepancy, so gets cancelled. On the second attempt, it gets waved through by developer, your conveyancer and LR, bypassing you. So when you query with LR, they only see the second application. Writing this from experience.

Post Reply