Dispute re fees for rectification of title

CramCycle

So there have been issues with my land deeds since buying my house where the person who sold the house, had sold two houses around us and the maps they sent to the land registry have been different and the land registry have queried it (and rightly so).

We got out a surveyor to check the maps at the time and in the end we got in contact with the original surveyor who came out and the two agreed on the error with the boundary and that it was in fact an error on the original surveyors drawings.

Their solicitor though has dragged their heels in responding at every turn, in return our solicitor is getting it in the ear from the bank for not having it tied off. Our solicitor has said there would be extra fees for the extra letters (he has had to chase them at every point, CCing us at every time, where they eventually where reported to the law society and they suddenly responded).

The problem now is that the other solicitor has said the extra costs, although not major, are not his concern, even though they are a direct response of his delays, disagreeing with his own surveyor, then backtracking and agreeing, adding over a year to the process.

I presume, morally, as the delays were the other parties fault, and I think my solicitor is due fair payment for the extra work put in, that this cost would fall to them. I get the feeling that in the end, they are going to refuse to pay this. Is there anywhere you can go to push this? It doesn't really fall under small claims court (or does it?). What avenue would you go down next in relation to pursuing the recovery of these costs if they refuse?

It would probably cost more to pursue them but I am pissed at this point and want whats right, not what is convenient.

Mr. Incognito

You will pay for your solicitor no matter whose fault it is.

I dont see how you would think otherwise.

Everyone hires a solicitor when they think they are in the right. You are liable for his costs.

CramCycle

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

You will pay for your solicitor no matter whose fault it is.

I dont see how you would think otherwise.

Everyone hires a solicitor when they think they are in the right. You are liable for his costs.

I hired my solicitor to register my deeds. This is another issue that has arisen because another solicitor had registered incorrect deeds. They then had their surveyor come out with our own, and both agreed that our surveyor was correct.

They then did not respond to multiple letters until threatened with being reported to the law society. At this point they said that their surveyor had not agreed with ours. We provided the documentation to say that they had.

They then have repeatedly not responded to communication, not even acknowledged receipt.

So we have had to pay a surveyor to come out an additional time, because they disputed the maps that we provided. Both their surveyor and ours agreed our maps were correct.

So all of the additional work, caused solely by them dragging their heels and disagreeing with stuff incorrectly is at my feet?

I would have presumed the surveyors fees, since they disputed our original maps (we paid for these), should be their cost once we were agreed to be in the right?

The additional costs of our solicitor, born out of their non response is also completely at our feet, even though they are in the wrong. I would happily pay for the first time letters.

So in no situation do I have a leg to stand on because even though they intentionally dragged their heels, and disputed their own expert.

Also to be clear, the solicitor was not hired for this reason originally, this was in addition to the fees paid for land registry and dealing with the bank, costs that would not have occurred if the other party had accepted the surveyors maps in the first place. I even said at the time if our surveyor was found to be incorrect, I would cover the costs.

Just trying to get it clear in my head, it does seem unfair.

CramCycle

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Everyone hires a solicitor when they think they are in the right. You are liable for his costs.

Sorry, I should have also said that I did not hire the solicitor for this. They happen to be my solicitor in regards registering the deeds, which they in the end have not been able to do because of the other party.

randomrb

The cost of the surveyor may be on them as the seller has the responsibility of providing good title.

Was this a first registration situation or simply a transfer of the folio?

CramCycle

randomrb wrote: »

The cost of the surveyor may be on them as the seller has the responsibility of providing good title.

Was this a first registration situation or simply a transfer of the folio?

Transfer of a folio AFAIK The owner had built two houses on his land, sold the front house that was already there, registered the lands. Builders came in and built the second one. When we bought the house, the land registry flagged the discrepancy as it did not agree with the previous submitted maps. There is an established boundary by way of a concrete wall.

Anyway, we got the surveyor to come out after the dispute, meet with the original one, who agreed our surveyor was correct.

Our solicitor said that it has been going on awhile and that due to it going out of the ordinary, there would be an increase in fees, but this should be covered by the other party as it was due to their non interaction that the increase in fees beyond the reasonably expected was occurring. That is, if it had only been the one or two letters, he wouldn't have batted an eyelid, now he is responding to the bank, and repeatedly contacting the other party.

I suppose my question is, based on the tone of the letter from the other party, I do not think they will be covering all the fees, or will attempt too. Do I have any avenue where I can pursue them. It is not about the money as I presume if I do go after them, any monies would go straight to a third solicitor. It is more the principle, it was a simple thing to sort out and because they have dragged there heels, 3 parties have given more time and money than necessary, whereas if they had been proactive, this would have been settled months ago.