Transfers of part require good quality, accurate plans
The quality of plans used in transfers of part – or rather their lack of quality – frequently causes difficulties, which sometimes culminate in full-blown boundary disputes. The litigation in Scott v Martin [2021] UKUT 31 (LC); [2021] PLSCS 41 illustrates this perfectly. The land involved originally formed part of a single Cumbrian farmstead. The landowner sold part in 1986 and executed a further conveyance in 1991, but used an inadequate plan to show the intended boundary of the land comprised in the 1986 conveyance. And, when the farmhouse was sold in 1991 the boundary between the two properties was shown in a different place on the conveyance plan.
As a result, it appeared that there might an orphaned parcel of land, which was not shown on either plan, which lay between the two titles. The discrepancy went unnoticed for many years. But, when the land in question became a battleground, the owners of the land included in 1986 conveyance approached the original sellers, who conveyed the disputed land to them in 2015.
The owners of the farmhouse objected to the registration of the 2015 conveyance. Consequently, the First-tier Tribunal was asked to decide which of the three conveyances – executed in 1986, 1991 and 2015 – had disposed of the disputed land. The judge decided that the land had not been included in either of the earlier conveyances and directed the Land Registry to register the 2015 conveyance.
The quality of plans used in transfers of part – or rather their lack of quality – frequently causes difficulties, which sometimes culminate in full-blown boundary disputes. The litigation in Scott v Martin [2021] UKUT 31 (LC); [2021] PLSCS 41 illustrates this perfectly. The land involved originally formed part of a single Cumbrian farmstead. The landowner sold part in 1986 and executed a further conveyance in 1991, but used an inadequate plan to show the intended boundary of the land comprised in the 1986 conveyance. And, when the farmhouse was sold in 1991 the boundary between the two properties was shown in a different place on the conveyance plan.
As a result, it appeared that there might an orphaned parcel of land, which was not shown on either plan, which lay between the two titles. The discrepancy went unnoticed for many years. But, when the land in question became a battleground, the owners of the land included in 1986 conveyance approached the original sellers, who conveyed the disputed land to them in 2015.
The owners of the farmhouse objected to the registration of the 2015 conveyance. Consequently, the First-tier Tribunal was asked to decide which of the three conveyances – executed in 1986, 1991 and 2015 – had disposed of the disputed land. The judge decided that the land had not been included in either of the earlier conveyances and directed the Land Registry to register the 2015 conveyance.
The Upper Tribunal took a different view. It followed – from the FTT’s conclusion (which the Upper Tribunal accepted) that the 1986 conveyance did not include the disputed land – that the original sellers had decided to retain a strip of land in 1991. But this seemed both improbable and technically difficult to achieve, given that the area of land in question had no physical boundaries. Furthermore, landowners do not, in general, reserve narrow and inaccessible strips of land along the edge of properties that they are selling, save for some very good reason, such as the creation of a ransom strip, designed to enable the seller to share in any subsequent development value: Parmar v Upton [2015] EWCA Civ 795; [2015] EGLR 58.
If the sellers had intended to retain land, the Upper Tribunal would have expected to see this clearly reflected in the 1991 conveyance, or in some other admissible material. But nothing in the description of the property, or on the plan attached to the 1991 conveyance, suggested an intention to retain land. The conveyance did not say that the sale was of part only. Nor had there been any demarcation of the relevant boundary (which, on a sale of part, would have been necessary to ensure that both parties were clear about what was being sold and retained). Furthermore, the conveyance did not grant or reserve any easements across the land in question and did not include any acknowledgement of the purchaser’s right to the production of deeds evidencing the sellers’ title (which would have been necessary had the 1991 conveyance been a sale of part). So the 1991 conveyance had included the whole of the sellers’ retained land.
Consequently, the Upper Tribunal upheld the objection to the registration of the 2015 conveyance and urged the parties to reach a sensible agreement about the exact location of the boundary between their respective parcels of land.
Allyson Colby is a property law consultant
