HM Land Registry

5. Mrs B complains HMLR has incorrectly dispossessed her of her land and failed to correct the issue with registration of the land from 2009 to 2023.

6. She says in 2009 a neighbour made an adverse possession claim for part of her land (two car parking spaces). She says HMLR cancelled the neighbours claim and told her it was ‘her land’.

7. Mrs B then made an application to alter and rectify an error on the deed (to show the car parking spaces were hers) on 15 February 2021, 23 June 2022, and 6 September 2022 and HMLR cancelled these applications and said she does not own the car parking spaces.

8. As a result, Mrs B says the error by HMLR has resulted in a difficult and long-standing dispute with her neighbours. She has lost two car parking spaces worth £50,000. She has been physically attacked, ostracised, and bullied by her community.

9. Mrs B would like HMLR to change the title deeds to show the two car parking spaces are hers. She would also like a financial remedy for the abuse she has had from her neighbours.

10. This background is intended to place the key events in context, not to provide a full account of everything that happened.

11. Mrs B bought land in 2001 and used two car parking spaces without a problem until 2008.

12. In 2008, Mrs B wanted to sell her property, she contacted the HMLR regarding ownership and access rights. Her solicitors told her she did not own the car parking spaces.

13. On 9 June 2009, the neighbours applied for adverse possession (a person can claim ownership of land they have occupied for a certain period) of part of the land registered in Mrs B’s title). HMLR arranged an ordnance survey inspection (national mapping agency).

14. On 17 September 2009, HMLR wrote to Mrs B confirming the application was cancelled because ‘the spaces appear to fall within her title deed’. HMLR clarified this was not a judicial decision and to seek legal advice.

15. On 15 February 2021, 23 June 2022 and 6 September 2022, Mrs B made applications to alter four registered title deeds. HMLR cancelled all applications, explaining changes required agreement from all parties and fresh transfers.

20. Mrs B says she first had cause to complain when her neighbour submitted an adverse possession claim for the car parking spaces. She says the HMLR cancelled the application because the spaces fell within part of Mrs B’s land as shown on her title. She believed that she owned the parking spaces on this basis.

21. She is concerned that when she made three applications for alterations, HMLR cancelled her applications.

22. Based on all the information Mrs B shared with us, we carefully considered if there is anything we can do to help resolve her complaint.

23. We understand the main outcome Mrs B wants HMLR to overturn its decisions and to be granted title over the land in question.

24. Mrs B has explained to us that since 2009 she has been in touch with previous solicitors and conveyancers. She says she has not formally instructed solicitors to take on her case, this is due to one solicitor quoting her £40,000.

25. The law tells us we cannot consider any matters where someone has or had a legal route available to them, and it is or was reasonable for them to pursue it to get the outcome they want. We have discussed this with Mrs B to understand her circumstances and the outcomes she wants.

26. In Mrs B’s case, the route of a judicial review of HMLR’s decision was available to her. She is now substantially outside of the time limit for this route, but we note this was a legal route that was available to her.

27. There is an alternative route relevant to Mrs B, in that she could make an application to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) to determine the merits of her previous applications. We understand this is the appropriate route to settle land disputes. We understand neither HMLR’s complaints process, nor our process, is able to make binding decisions on these disputes.

28. We consider it reasonable for her to pursue this route, particularly since it is the only route that aligns with the outcomes she is seeking. We would not be able to achieve the same outcomes the tribunal route potentially can. With this in mind, in line with our SMG, we would take any further action.

29. We understand Mrs B would also like a financial remedy to put right the impact she says she has experienced because she says HMLR made the wrong decision. We understand this is something that a tribunal is unlikely to be able to provide.

30. We can sometimes recommend financial remedy to put right the impact of poor service. However, we would not investigate a complaint to achieve that outcome when there is a legal route that is, or was, appropriate to achieve the main outcome for someone. As Mrs B the tribunal route is relevant to Mrs B’s case, it would not be appropriate for us to consider this matter further. We have decided to take no further action.

31. We fully recognise the impact the events complained about had and still has on Mrs B. We thank her for bringing her complaint to us and appreciate how frustrating it has been to revisit her experience.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs B’s complaint about HM Land Registry (HMLR). We are sorry to hear about the upset and distress Mrs B has experienced over a 15-year period.

2. We are particularly sorry for the bullying and physical assaults she told us she has experienced from her neighbours due to the events complained about. We recognise this experience has been incredibly difficult for Mrs B and continues to affect her.

3. Having carefully considered the evidence available to us, we have decided to take no further action. This is because we can see that Mrs B had, and may still have, an alternative legal route (First-Tier Tribunal) available to her. We consider it would be, or would have been, reasonable for her to pursue it to achieve the outcome she is looking for.

4. We also consider that an investigation by us would not reach a satisfactory conclusion, and we would be unlikely to achieve her desired outcome.