Land border / neighbour dispute. Next steps?

[GG.]

I was ecstatic when they agreed to settle as the alternatives were much more painful.

Sounds like a great result for £10k (given that you're in Lahndahn).

Yes I agree - only the same as the money we've just spent renovating the small strip of front "garden" that we have (photos to come on the house projects fred as just about finished).

One of the very helpful things my questions flushed out was that the previous owner had had a valuation done and the valuer had come up with £1,500!! That allowed me to say I was offering many times the true value...

Technically these sorts of valuations are determined on marriage value and given property in London is so expensive and butting up against affordability constraints, whether we have that additional bit of land or not is not really going to move the dial on price - only really if you have an extra bedroom or significantly larger garden (ours is still just patio of a terraced house, just larger with this piece).

[Jobbo]

That sounds like a very sensible result GG - well done. In circumstances where the initial occupation of third party land was with consent, that would usually defeat an adverse possession claim. Intervening actions over the years may alter that but I would say you got a good result.

I didn't buy a property in St Albans back in 2001 which was otherwise lovely because most of its not particularly large garden (directly behind the house) was owned by the house next door. There was a longstanding licence or similar to use it but who knows when that may be withdrawn. If I could have had the garden for an extra £10k I might have bought it.

Merging the title is something you don't need to think about at all; it won't cause any issues on sale unless the conveyancer you use forgets to include it in the contract and transfer. Which would allow you later potential to recoup the £10k

[GG.]

That sounds like a very sensible result GG - well done. In circumstances where the initial occupation of third party land was with consent, that would usually defeat an adverse possession claim. Intervening actions over the years may alter that but I would say you got a good result.

I didn't buy a property in St Albans back in 2001 which was otherwise lovely because most of its not particularly large garden (directly behind the house) was owned by the house next door. There was a longstanding licence or similar to use it but who knows when that may be withdrawn. If I could have had the garden for an extra £10k I might have bought it.

Merging the title is something you don't need to think about at all; it won't cause any issues on sale unless the conveyancer you use forgets to include it in the contract and transfer. Which would allow you later potential to recoup the £10k

Yes I think I'd have been on a sticky wicket if I'd have taken it all the way. There were elements that allowed me to run an argument that whatever the initial arrangements were it was no longer consensual (one of the brothers who now owns it sent me some ill (or more accurately "un") advised letters right at the outset saying "a subsequent owner erected a fence without our consent" which was definitely a thank you very much moment!)

I quite enjoyed reading into the case law and building a legal argument - given my day to day work is very far removed from that. Good to know I needn't bother merging the titles - thanks for that!

[Gavster]

Oh yes definitely and clearly nothing like your saga (do you have a new court date yet?).

Disposal hearing scheduled for 21st February and also expecting a costs hearing date any time from Jan 3rd onwards, in relation to our first hearing back in November 2022. However, there's a slim chance it could all be wrapped up in 2025, although I hear that London bailiffs have enormous delays so that might drag it into 2026 god forbid.

[GG.]

Fingers crossed you can wrap this up quickly. I guess it only goes to the bailiffs if your neighbours do not voluntarily surrender up the property?

[Jobbo]

I think it is inevitable it will go to the bailiffs - I doubt there is ever a case where someone goes willingly when they are dispossessed of the home they own.

[IanF]

Yeah, just from what you’ve said on here I imagine you’ll need a battering ram to even get in!..

[Gavster]

Assuming the Feb hearing goes as expected and that any appeals are quickly dismissed, then it's onto the bailiffs. From my understanding, if the neighbours don't allow the bailiffs in (which is expected), then the bailiffs can contact the police to attend and the bailiffs (I think) can force the door, change the locks and secure the property. I think we might need a high court writ for all of this IIRC.

Honestly the whole thing is a pretty sad state of affairs for everyone involved. I don't understand why the law doesn't at least give an option for the leaseholders to be evicted but for them to still retain some of the value of their home.

[Jobbo]

If you physically remove them using the bailiffs, do ascertain what will happen to their possessions. Your solicitor will advise but you may need to serve a torts act notice on them to protect yourself from allegations that you harmed their stuff.