Difference between Land Direct/old registry maps/OS maps

hairyslug

Looking for some help,

We are selling my parents house, the land direct site shows that we do not own a small patch of land to the rear, it appears to be owned by a property a number of doors up (they have a laneway running down the back of the houses according to the map)

The OS map shows no laneway, the old pre digital map shows that the laneway ends before our house, a map used in the planning of a neighbours house shows no laneway and a map used by the county council shows no boundary.

Does the land direct map out weigh them all and is there the possibility that an error was made when going digital.

Metric Tensor

All of the above a littered with errors across the country but the land registry don't accept that there is any fault on their behalf for errors so the only way to change the folio is via a deed of rectification. This would require "some" cost but more importantly agreement from the person in who's folio the portion of land is currently shown.

Do your parents believe they own this area? Does the neighbour believe he owns it? Maps can be "fixed" easily enough (in most cases) but getting agreement from all the interested parties is MUCH more difficult.

hairyslug

Metric Tensor wrote: »

All of the above a littered with errors across the country but the land registry don't accept that there is any fault on their behalf for errors so the only way to change the folio is via a deed of rectification. This would require "some" cost but more importantly agreement from the person in who's folio the portion of land is currently shown.

Do your parents believe they own this area? Does the neighbour believe he owns it? Maps can be "fixed" easily enough (in most cases) but getting agreement from all the interested parties is MUCH more difficult.

Parents are deceased but the garden has been the same since they moved in in 1998.

There are issues with the land in question, there are judgement mortgages assigned to the over plot.

I visited the house today and I think I may have cleared it up though.
The hedgerow to the rear of the house is 1.5m thick, .5m on our side and 1m on the side behind (seperate by a fence) which is now a 3rd party house (the plot in question is 1m wide). The distance from this 3rd party house to the boundary looks slightly off aswell. I'm not going to make any assumptions online but I have told our solicitor and he is waiting on the buyer to reply.

Metric Tensor

I'm afraid I'm not able to follow this without actually seeing the maps.

But ... are you saying that the area currently enclosed within your boundary (the fence) is contained within what's on your folio map? If so, and the purchasers don't have an issue, is there any need for you to worry about the status of the land outside said fence?

Apologies if I'm not picking this up right.

hairyslug

Metric Tensor wrote: »

I'm afraid I'm not able to follow this without actually seeing the maps.

But ... are you saying that the area currently enclosed within your boundary (the fence) is contained within what's on your folio map? If so, and the purchasers don't have an issue, is there any need for you to worry about the status of the land outside said fence?

Apologies if I'm not picking this up right.

Yeah, you're right (if I am right) there is a house a few doors up that owns a small strip of land that runs down the back of 4 houses. The hiuse behind us runs the length of the strip and it looks like the issue isn't mine but the house behind me, they may have "borrowed" the strip of land in question.

Pat Mustard

hairyslug wrote: »

Does the land direct map out weigh them all and is there the possibility that an error was made when going digital.

An absolute clusterfcuk was made when they went digital.

If it can be shown that they made the mistake, by reference to older, pre-digital maps, their Quality Assurance section should be prepared to correct matters.

You could consider writing them a letter to explain the position, referring to the relevant maps.

hairyslug

Pat Mustard wrote: »

An absolute clusterfcuk was made when they went digital.

If it can be shown that they made the mistake, by reference to older, pre-digital maps, their Quality Assurance section should be prepared to correct matters.

You could consider writing them a letter to explain the position, referring to the relevant maps.

Incase I got my maths wrong today, I mailed them with a copy of the old and new maps, OS maps, town planning maps and a Google map screen shot.

Metric Tensor

To be fair to the OSI - they will correct mistakes if you point them out and they are reasonably speedy about doing so.

But Land Registry - have no intention of doing same. So if they base an "updated" folio map on an incorrect OSI map they will not further update that map of their own accord - even if the OSI correct their mistake!

Pat Mustard

Metric Tensor wrote: »

To be fair to the OSI - they will correct mistakes if you point them out and they are reasonably speedy about doing so.

But Land Registry - have no intention of doing same. So if they base an "updated" folio map on an incorrect OSI map they will not further update that map of their own accord - even if the OSI correct their mistake!

They have told me that they will make corrections if there are defined boundaries that can be pointed out to them on an OSI map. That was my experience.

Metric Tensor

They said the exact opposite to us!

- send in a deed of rectification at your clients expense! (Which for the particular case in question was difficult)

It must depend on who you end up talking to.

Pat Mustard

Metric Tensor wrote: »

It must depend on who you end up talking to.

This is definitely true but the higher up the food chain you go with the staff there, the more certain you can be of the answer.

Metric Tensor

Do you mind if I PM you tomorrow Pat Mustard?

I'm not dealing with our issue directly so I want to get the specifics.

Pat Mustard

Metric Tensor wrote: »

Do you mind if I PM you tomorrow Pat Mustard?

Yes, please do.