Problems found after you bought · Boundary and title plan problems
When I bought this property, I didn’t know A boundary or title plan problem could hold up a sale or a remortgage. Now I’m stuck.
Would you have bought the property if you had known?
If you had known the boundaries did not match the plan before you committed, and understood the problems it could cause when you later came to sell or remortgage, would it have changed your decision?
- Would you have paid the same price?
- Would you have wanted it investigated first?
- Would you have walked away?
If knowing about the problem might have changed what you did, the next question is obvious.
Did you receive the right advice when you bought?
You may not know the answer yet. But if nobody explained the problem, or you are now questioning what you were told at the time, that is worth looking at.
You don’t need to know whether anyone was at fault. Tell us what happened and when you bought. We’ll talk it through with you.
Why boundary and title plan problems can hold up a sale or remortgage
The plan attached to your title shows the property edged in red, and it is easy to assume that red line is a survey. It is not. Most registered title plans show only general boundaries: they indicate the general position, not the exact legal line on the ground. The conveyancer does not ordinarily inspect the property and cannot independently verify the physical layout. Comparison therefore usually depends on the purchaser, and sometimes a surveyor, checking the plan against the boundaries and features on the ground and raising anything that does not appear to correspond.
Three different questions can become confused: where the legal boundary runs, who owns the fence, wall or hedge along it, and whether anyone has an obligation to maintain that feature. They do not necessarily have the same answer. A transfer or earlier deed may contain an express maintenance covenant or refer to T-marks on its plan, but T-marks have no special legal force unless the deed expressly gives them meaning. A maintenance covenant does not by itself establish ownership, and whether an obligation continues to bind the current owners may require advice.
What holds up a transaction is when the two do not line up: the plan shows one thing and the ground shows another, a strip has been used for years that is not inside the title, or a neighbour disagrees about the line. A buyer’s conveyancer has to report on the extent of what is being bought. Requirements differ between lenders.
How the problem usually surfaces
The plan does not match the ground
The red line on the title plan and the fences, walls and hedges as they stand do not correspond, and nobody can say which is right.
Land you use is not in your title
A strip of garden, a driveway or a parcel has been used for years, but it does not appear to fall within the registered extent.
The seller does not know
Asked which boundaries are theirs to maintain, the seller answers that they are unaware, and the question is passed on unanswered.
T-marks or maintenance provisions nobody explained
A transfer plan contains T-marks, or the deed contains boundary-maintenance provisions, but nothing in the file explains their legal effect or whether they apply to the current owners.
A neighbour disputes the line
A fence is moved, a wall is built or a hedge is cut, and a disagreement about where the boundary runs becomes a matter to disclose.
Land held in two titles
The property is registered under more than one title number and it is not clear that everything you thought you owned is included.
What you can do about it now
Get the documents and compare them with the ground. Ask your conveyancer for official copies of the register, the title plan and the transfer with its plan, then walk the boundaries against them. A small difference is not necessarily a problem.
Deal separately with the legal boundary, ownership of the physical feature and responsibility for maintenance. Ask your conveyancer whether the register or relevant deeds contain an express boundary covenant or an operative T-mark provision, what it means and whether it continues to bind the current owners. Responsibility should not be inferred simply from the way a fence is constructed or from an unexplained mark on a plan.
Where there is a real discrepancy, take advice before moving a fence or approaching the neighbour. An approach may create or evidence a dispute, which will ordinarily need to be disclosed in the replies given on a subsequent sale.
Depending on the nature of the problem, possible routes may include a written boundary agreement, a deed transferring a strip of land, an application to alter the registered extent or an application for the exact boundary to be determined. These procedures are not interchangeable, and an opposed application may ultimately be referred to the tribunal.
If you are selling, your conveyancer can ask the buyer’s solicitor what remains unresolved and whether it arises from the buyer’s lender’s requirements. If you are remortgaging, your conveyancer can check your proposed lender’s requirements directly.
What happened when you bought?
The registered title and relevant filed documents as they stood when you bought could have shown the general registered extent and any express boundary-maintenance covenant or operative T-mark provision. They would not necessarily have established the exact legal boundary or whether the plan corresponded with the physical features on the ground. The questions are what documents were reviewed, what you were told about their limitations, whether the seller’s answers were pursued and whether you were asked to check the plan against the property.
Several records from the time may matter, and some may survive. The register and plan as they stood show the extent recorded. The transfer and its plan may record what was originally transferred and any express provision concerning boundary maintenance. The property information form may record what the seller said, or did not know, about boundaries. The replies your conveyancer received may show whether that was pursued. A survey may have noted the layout. The lender’s historical written instructions may also be difficult to recover, because they are revised regularly and superseded versions disappear from public view.
Was this property really mortgageable when you bought?
Getting a mortgage when you bought does not necessarily tell you how readily mortgageable the property was across the wider market. There are two historical questions worth asking.
What did your own lender’s written requirements say about boundaries and title extent when you bought? And what express requirements did other lenders have recorded at the same time?
Lenders’ written requirements were not necessarily uniform, and their wording changed over time. That means both which lender you used and when you bought can matter.
Lenders set out in writing what they expect a conveyancer to do about particular features of a property. Those instructions are revised regularly, and superseded versions drop out of public view, which can make a question as simple as what was my conveyancer told about boundaries in the year I bought? surprisingly difficult to answer from the sources available today. Lexsure has retained historical lender-specific conveyancing requirements since April 2007, so where the records permit they can help reconstruct what your lender’s requirements said at the time and how that compared with the wider lending market.
The wider picture
Historical lender requirements can help us understand how mortgageable the property was when you bought. The conveyancing file and the advice given to you also matter.
Lexsure holds historical Report on Title material: the reports conveyancers sent to homebuyers, going back years. That material shows the kinds of boundary issues that were being addressed when firms reported to buyers, and it is a second and separate record from what lenders required.
What the plan showed, and its limits
Were you told what the title plan showed, and that registered plans show general boundaries rather than an exact line?
Boundary ownership and maintenance
Were any express maintenance obligations or operative T-mark provisions identified, and was the distinction between the legal boundary, ownership of the physical feature and responsibility for maintenance explained?
Whether the seller’s answer was pursued
Where the seller said they did not know about boundaries, were further enquiries raised, or was the answer simply passed on?
Whether you were asked to check
Were you told that no inspection would be made and that you should satisfy yourself the layout on the ground matched the plan?
Whether the effect on selling was explained
Were you told a boundary discrepancy or dispute could be raised again on a future sale or remortgage, and could matter to a buyer’s lender?
These are examples of issues addressed in historical conveyancing material, not a checklist of what every purchaser should have been told. What mattered in an individual purchase depended on the circumstances and on what was known at the time.
So even if your mortgage completed, or there is nothing unusual in your lender’s historical requirements, it can still be worth talking to us about what happened.
Could this problem have been seen coming?
The relevant starting point is what was known, or could reasonably have been identified, when you bought.
What did the title plan show? What did the seller say about boundaries? What was in the conveyancing file? What were mortgage lenders requiring at the time? What kinds of boundary issues were conveyancing firms addressing with homebuyers? And what were you actually told?
Taken together, that can help build a picture of whether the problem you are facing today was already something that should have been considered when you bought.
Did you receive the right advice?
What the historical evidence can tell us
Where the relevant lender and period are covered, we may be able to establish what that lender’s conveyancing requirements said when you bought, and how that compared with the wider record at the time.
- That does not by itself establish that anyone was negligent, or that you have a claim. Those questions need the original file and legal advice.
- The absence of express wording does not establish that the lender accepted the issue.
- What your conveyancer had to tell your lender and what they had to tell you are different questions, and the second depends on the retainer and the circumstances.
Time limits apply, and in some cases the date on which you first knew enough about the problem matters as well as the date you bought, which is why we ask about both. Our full methodology, including how we treat gaps in the record, is set out in the archive and its limits. Where a solicitor later needs formal historical evidence, Lexsure can provide source-evidenced historical lender information.
Sources and review
This page is about the extent of a registered title, boundary features and the plan. Where the deeds themselves cannot be produced, see missing title deeds; where part of a building overlaps a neighbour, see flying freehold. Where the issue is a claim to ownership of land outside the registered extent based on longstanding occupation, see possessory title. Guidance here about the present problem is general information. It is not legal advice about your property.
Most registered title plans show general boundaries only: see HM Land Registry Practice Guide 40, supplement 3. Boundary agreements and applications for a determined boundary are explained in Practice Guide 40, supplement 4. This page states no lender requirement as a general rule, because requirements differ between lenders and change, and the position must be reverified at each review.
Historical lender information is drawn from Lexsure’s archive of lender-specific conveyancing requirements, maintained since April 2007. Figures on this page state the population they are drawn from.
What the archive holds
Counts cover substantive changes to lenders' specific requirements in the UK Finance Handbook and elsewhere, covering issues such as boundary problems. That requirements changed is a fact about the market, not about your purchase.