A slip of the pen at the Land Registry

Zero> and then Zero.

Just enough to defray your legal expenses sounds about right.

It depends on the seller and what value the purchaser puts on the land. I've been in a similar situation where the seller who owned a chunk of my land demanded (and got) £3K for an area 6ft by 6ft. Again caused by a slip of the pen on the part of someone years ago. However the land in question was required to provide access, and without it the house value would have been substantially diminished.

Exactly. It's no use to you, and could be costly, (the tree,) so give it to him.

Troy Steadman decided to add:

The "legal owner" could just give them the land as a gesture, publicise it and get thousands of pounds worth of free local Kudos...

But then if I was the "neighbour" (in the U.K.)I would have searched this out....

'Adverse Possession' The acquisition of title to property through possession without the owner's consent for a certain period of time.

'Adverse Possessory Title' If a piece of land is occupied without permission for at least 12 years, the occupier can become the legal owner.....

If the fault is by the Land Registry then they should and will bear the costs and resolve the matter. If this is the case then you are unlikely to get anything for the land. In any case if it has little or no value to you then be a good neighbour and give it up gracefully.

Peter Crosland

But at a price of zero you have no consideration and hence no contract.

tim

There could be a non-financial consideration, the contract could be onerous in some other respect. But yeah, the easiest way is to charge a nominal pound.

In message , Peter Saxton writes

BUT, if the damned Inland Revenue reckon the first Zero was an undervalue then the donor (I use that word because at a consideration of Zero there is no contract so it must be a gift) might be assessed for CGT on what the IR consider the bit of land's value to be.

Thanks for everyone's advice, I thought £0 myself but maybe £1 sounds better. It was the Land Registry's fault but they say "it should have been checked", that avenue is exhausted.

I got the impression adverse possession was no longer an option, in any case we have not been here 12 years (I am the strip of land *user* trying to see it from the strip of land *owner*'s point of view before I go round and see him.

Thanks to everyone who contributed.

That argument interests me. I wonder whether if when they receive something which is wrong and they have knowledge of the correct circumstances they will admit that they should have done the checking then.