Row problems!

Post Reply
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:22 pm

Row problems!

Post by gardentiger » Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:06 pm

Posted on her a while ago regarding a nfh!
To cut a long story short our nfh has now filed a claim against us and I wondered if anyone could help with the following:

We have since found documents held at land registry relating to a half passageway and the possibility of this being registered to the nfh in 02 if they buy the freehold reversion. Is the freehold reversion only of land in the lease? I.e the half passageway?

Furthermore the nfh sol has disclosed ltrs from HMLR which provided overlaid plans of their lease, showing how the property was built in the incorrect position, hence good leasehold title. I.e on land outside the lease. HMLR were not prepared to guarantee the freehold if they bought the freehold because the head lease was unclear and they didnt think that the nfh house ever came from that lease as it had originally been for 4 houses instead of 5 or something on them lines. i.e that the property never derived from the lease.

They discussed ad medium filum half the passage and that this could possibley extend. Is it normal for it to extend, I thought that it was only in extreme circumstances that that it would extend further than ad med on a prow?

HMLR refer to marylebone case stating that when a property is subject to a lease they will not consider a title for land outside the lease. So if they purchase the freehold would the clock start again, or could they use prev years occupation. Although we can prove this is not exclusive.
The plans we have for our property which went freehold in 1926 clearly show us owning and has been continually conveyed and occupied. Therefore it shows the other half of the passage.

They based there whole claim on this plan. (They want the whole passageway the full width)yet did not disclose it with the correct letter and we have sussed them out. When we asked for clarification they ignored the question. They deliberatly ommited this plan and put it in misc doc at the back of this disclosure. But the letter it came with appears more than five times in their correspondance, even though I asked in the CMC that this plan was tallied to the correct letter. They have now admitted where the plan has come from and are now trying to move there property to a different position by asking the surveyor/expert witness to give his opinion on a new overlaid plan that they have amended stating that the claimant now thinks that HMLR registered her property incorrectly. Yet there was no mention of this in the claimants witness statement or the particulars of claim.

Basically we think that they knew all along that they had no rights to our land as we clearly show title and usage of the land in dispute.

Is this deception? We are defendants in person and we cannot afford a sol. They had the knowledge of this plan from HMLR and our plan before filing the claim, they are changing the claim because they have no claim. Can they do that? They didnt have a problem with the plans or the way in which the property was registered for 7 years but were warned that it could be rebutted? Does anyone know what this means? I mean they are only now not satisfied with the registration that we have shown our documentation which clearly shows they don't own the row. Only half of it.

To cap it all off they are now prepared to mediate, however only if we agree to pre-conditions of a starting point of 75% of nfh costs approx 17k. They write all this in without prej correspondance and will not do it in open correspondance. Should we write to the court about this as it seems really unreasonable to us?

Would be so greatful if conveyancer/pilman or anyone else would like to comment

Post Reply