Couple lose 48cm boundary fight in Surbiton

Susannah and Chris James, who purchased their semi-detached house in Surbiton in 2021, have lost a four-year boundary dispute. The couple had sought a declaration that a 48cm section of their neighbours' kitchen extension encroached on their land and asked for it to be demolished. The case was heard by Judge Ewan Paton in the First-tier Tribunal.

Adverse Possession Claim Succeeds

The neighbours, Mina Sharma and Neil Deeley, who have owned their property since 2012, successfully claimed adverse possession over the disputed strip of land. Judge Paton ruled in their favour, stating that the kitchen extension had been in place since the early 1980s. He noted that neither the current owners nor previous owners were aware of the encroachment when they purchased the property, and for many years afterwards.

The judge stated that Ms Sharma and Mr Deeley had been in actual possession of the land and held a reasonable belief it was theirs because their kitchen was built upon it. He added that successive owners of the property had held a similar belief. The judge found that the kitchen extension had likely been in its current location for well over 22 years before any issue was raised.

Boundary Discrepancies Common

The disputed boundary is located on Cottage Grove in Surbiton, between two semi-detached houses that were once part of a single Victorian property. While the garden fences align, the rooflines of the kitchen extensions show a 48cm step across the boundary. The court heard that this discrepancy had gone unnoticed for approximately 40 years, partly due to dense vegetation obscuring the border.

Judge Paton commented on the nature of property boundaries, noting that Ordnance Survey and Land Registry maps often show 'kinks, curves, steps' rather than perfectly straight lines. He suggested that an average purchaser should not be expected to identify a boundary discrepancy simply because a physical boundary is not perfectly straight. He stated that purchasers are entitled to assume that 'what they see is what they get' regarding property boundaries.

When the Jameses began legal correspondence in 2022, Ms Sharma and Mr Deeley asserted their claim to the land through adverse possession. The judge found the evidence to be 'overwhelming' that the kitchen extension had been in its current position since at least just before 2000. He concluded that the construction and occupation of part of a house on neighbouring land was a clear example of factual possession with the intention to possess.

The judge stated that there was no doubt that successive owners of the property had been in adverse possession of the additional land since at least 30 October 2000. He found that the belief of ownership was entirely reasonable, given the common occurrence of non-straight boundaries and the assumption that boundaries are 'as seen' on the ground.