This should be an interesting battle

Post Reply
SmallWelshBarn
Posts: 49
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 Dec 06, 2018 7:22 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 surveyor agreed that the current land registry title deed maps are incorrect and that the tower is built in the wrong position I have this in writing. However the surveyor has now left and the tower owner have back tracked and said I am wrong. However the deeds verify what I am saying.

The land registry won't help and have said I might need to go to the lands tribunal for a title deed correction. Has any one done this and any advice.

Yellow box is where the tower should be this is the deed map my land is 5283 & 5287 Middle map shows the current position of the tower and right hand map in blue shows the woodland trusts land. See how the blue has now taken land ? Its clear who owned what from the original deeds and frankly the deed maps are detailed and good.

Thoughts ???

Image

pilman
Posts: 2986
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:08 pm

Re: This should be an interesting battle

Post by pilman » Fri Dec 07, 2018 5:48 pm

Plan 1 shows a straight line slanted boundary leading to a point which then turns up to the corner of the yellow rectangle and then a further seemingly straight line goes past the yellow rectangle to a point where it turns again. You say that is the deed plan for your land.

The second map shows black printed lines where your red line was shown, but they are not close to the black rectangle drawn on that plan.
That infers that the adjacent land in title CYM450728 is not sharing a common boundary with your land.

The third plan shows a small part of the blue area is now over the boundary lines edged red on the first plan that are now printed black.

The visual evidence you have provided does not reflect the claim that the yellow rectangle is now on your land, although it does seem to indicate that the Woodland Trust may have encroached on your land where it extends beyond the black lines shown on that plan up to the dotted line shown on that plan that separates the blue and pink land.

This seems like a situation where you appear to be concerned about a matter of little consequence if you own a smallholding that is used for the purpose of agriculture.

That is what an outsider had gleaned from looking at the three maps provided, so is this a completely wrong reading of the position of the boundary shown on the first map.

IdefixUK
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 12:07 pm
Number of topics per page: 25

Re: This should be an interesting battle

Post by IdefixUK » Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:32 pm

Unless I'm reading this incorrectly you state that you own 5283. (which I can find) and 5287. (which I cannot). Could it be that 5287 should read 5787?
If so the following.
The first map appears to show the red line going off to the lower right of the page, so I cannot think that this plan has been taken from YOUR current title deeds.(Unless the green line is keyed as the boundary, in which case why is the red line shown?)
In the second plan the redline appears to enclose 5283 (but not 5787) . Is this plan for only part of your land? If you own 5787 as well can we see the title plan for that land please. (Infact...even if you don't own it!)

Regards

mr sheen
Posts: 2444
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:33 pm

Re: This should be an interesting battle

Post by mr sheen » Sat Dec 08, 2018 1:44 am

The Woodland Trust is committed to achieving its aims and these involve managing land they own and their whole purpose is woodland and land management and they have a duty to maximise their income and achieve their objectives. Just because they are a Trust does not mean that they are likely to give up land. Like any landowner they will take such action as is necessary to retain the land they own and recover any misappropriated land, in fact they have an absolute duty to the Trustees to do that. Since retaining and recovering land they own meets their objectives, they will also have access to funds to meet their objectives.

So it would be advisable to find out your position first, since they will not relinquish land in their possession lightly.

span
Posts: 1649
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:34 am

Re: This should be an interesting battle

Post by span » Sun Dec 09, 2018 9:11 am

This all sounds vaguely familiar. Have you posted about this before, here or on other sites?

mugwump
Posts: 519
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:34 pm

Re: This should be an interesting battle

Post by mugwump » Sun Dec 09, 2018 9:48 am

Same area of land

viewtopic.php?t=21033

arborlad
Posts: 8303
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: This should be an interesting battle

Post by arborlad » Sun Dec 09, 2018 10:02 am

mugwump wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 9:48 am
Same area of land

viewtopic.php?t=21033



................and more besides :(

Not a good way to get the best from the forum.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people

mr sheen
Posts: 2444
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:33 pm

Re: This should be an interesting battle

Post by mr sheen » Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:04 am

In this season of goodwill, why not let this matter drop?

Many people donate their hard earned cash to the woodland trust to support woodland management, all that you need to do to be philanthropic is not pursue a legal case against them that you will probably lose anyway....win/win scenario! No costs to either side and the status quo remains and you can rest easy having been nice rather than naughty.

This is especially relevant since you seem to be determined to generate multiple disputes with your smallholding, this is one that will have a 'feel good' factor by letting sleeping dogs lie with respect to this non-profit organisation that does excellent work for the benefit of all.

Post Reply