This should be an interesting battle

Post Reply
SmallWelshBarn
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:34 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 8
Number of topics per page: 8

This should be an interesting battle

Post by SmallWelshBarn » Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:01 pm

I own a smallholding in Monmouth. I have been going over my title deeds and maps. I found some anomalies that are proving frustrating. The top boundary of my land backs on to land now owned by the woodland trust and a small 20 x 12.5m square of my land was sold of to the IBA in 1980 so three sides of the IBA land are inside my land and the entrance is via a forestry track with a deed of grant for the IBA and my predecessor to use the forestry track.
The deeds for the sale of the land to the IBA and the deed for the easement are not fuzzy and are based on an OS map the forestry commission the IBA and my predecessors all signed the agreed maps clearly showing each owners boundaries.
Here is the rub...... the IBA built a radio mast thats not actually located in accordance with the deeds !!! About 50% of the land its build on does not actual belong to the current tower owners. It about 6.5m further back and 3m to the side thus not in accordance with the title deeds ! When the tower was registered with the land registry in 2007 some how the maps have been changed so the current land registry title map shows it in its current location apposed to where it should be in relation to the original deeds. So now I find my self having to deal with what should be an overlapping title clearly my title is the superseding title. The tower owners can not claim adverse possession as Parshall V Hackney will stop this. So the options as I see it is the tower now need to buy the land they are using or move their tower forward and left !!!!
I have appointed a surveyor to deal with this issue.
Second issue the tower owners and I both have to deal with. The current maps for the woodland have shifted the boundary lines up against the tower and pinched a chunk of my land. The woodland trust are proving to be the trust you can not trust. There land agent has tried to fob me off with arguments that they have been using the land so they own it and they brought the land.
I have shown them clear OS maps showing the land belongs to me I have shown them 6 various land transaction that show my boundaries and two of those transactions were with the forestry commission ( ex owners of the woodland) clearly showing the boundaries.
So the Woodland trust are in the position of claiming to own land belonging to the radio tower and my self both of which can be demonstrated by title deed ownership !!!
Interestingly if the woodland trust believe you have misappropriated land belonging to them they want it back and fight to get it back. The shoe is on the other foot. You would think that a trust would have integrity and do the right thing when shown irrefutable documentary evidence.
The radio tower owners and I are now wanting to correct the various titles. Strange that a large corporation seems to have more integrity than the woodland trust.

The left hand plan 1 is the original title deed and easement plan for the radio tower dating 1980. This plan is held by the landregistery archive and is the plan also held by tower owner. The middle plan 2 shows my current title plan map you can see that the tower is now located away from the boundary and slightly to the side. When the tower was purchased by its current owners it would seem the plans were updated to show its actual position on the ground apposed to the land they actually own in accordance to the title deed documentation and plans held by all parties.
Map 3 the right hand map this shows the adjacent woodland owned by the woodland trust you can see the original OS boundary line for field number 5787 my land as well. You can see that the red line has been pushed back to connect and follow the current fence line and connects with the tower follows fence line apposed to land ownership.
The current registered shape of the tower is also incorrect on plans 2 & 3 it was sold as a 12.5m x 20m rectangle it is now missing a corner maps 2&3 reflect what the shape of the tower looks like currently on the ground. This does not actually reflect title deeds for plan 1.The missing corner was constructed to allow owners of the tower to park on their land ( the corner ) open gates and drive in to the tower as they only have a easement over the woodland trusts land they don’t have a right to park or stop on woodland trust land. The map reflects fence line and not title deed ownership.

All in all a large headache and surprisingly never picked up by any actual surveyors !
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

ukmicky
Posts: 4660
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:13 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20
Location: London

Re: This should be an interesting battle

Post by ukmicky » Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:44 am

it may not be that interesting in the end.

If your measurements etc. are correct and that is a big if , they would probably have a good case to claim estoppel due to acquiescence and also would probably under the broadcasting act have a statutory right to retain it in its position without purchase of any land if they so wish.
Advice given is not legally qualified and you are advised to gain a professional opinion

SmallWelshBarn
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:34 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 8
Number of topics per page: 8

Re: This should be an interesting battle

Post by SmallWelshBarn » Fri Dec 01, 2017 6:36 am

ukmicky wrote:it may not be that interesting in the end.

If your measurements etc. are correct and that is a big if , they would probably have a good case to claim estoppel due to acquiescence and also would probably under the broadcasting act have a statutory right to retain it in its position without purchase of any land if they so wish.
The land registers maps show it being in the wrong place measured by them I also commissioned a survay which shows it is in the wrong place.
Estoppel would not take place as it’s an issue of overlapping titles that needs resolving and given they have the title registered now in the wrong place the superseding title takes priority.
I agree the new telecommunications act will play a part in this to a degree.

Post Reply