I'm an 81-year-old widow and bought the leasehold of our house, a two-bedroom semi, in 2006, before purchasing the freehold in 2008. It had shared access, almost to the front doors with next door. 

We are also on the edge of the turning circle at the bottom of a cul-de-sac which has no footpath, meaning our drive leads straight onto the road.

When I bought the freehold, the Land Registry Plan was drawn with straight lines but accompanied by a letter stating that the plan might not be accurate or to scale. 

So, I was not concerned that the line cut through a 27 sq. ft. triangle of my garden next to the circle or that, it did not show the access path shared with number 26* next door. 

The original lease prohibited fencing at the front of the properties. I had a fence and gates put up in 2011, after buying the freehold. I have letters from several long-term residents stating that the shared access and another neighbour's ownership of the land have been in place since 1986. 

A woman moved into number 26 in 2018. She bought the freehold of number 26 late in 2020 and, at the beginning of 2021, suddenly turned on me, claiming the little patch of land and saying that there was no shared access. 

She claimed I'd 'stolen' the land. I tried to get the council and police involved as she was threatening and abusive. She hired someone to saw down my fence, get rid of the hedge and dig up my plants on the bit of land. 

Her workman then erected a fence, preventing me and my daughter from accessing our land or using a safe route to our front door. 

In the end she tried to sell her house and I informed her estate agent that there was an ongoing dispute about the land. 

The house was eventually sold, even though a dispute was ongoing. I have tried explaining it all to the new owners. 

After I wrote to them, they replied saying they thought it was best to just use the lines on the plan. I've even said I would, within reason, pay for a fence between my bit of land and their bit.

I've already been advised that I couldn't afford to bring a court case for adverse possession and that Land Registry plans could be problematic. Yet, the land, I believe, is mine by right of adverse possession. 

I wrote to the Land Registry, asking why they send such misleading letters. They replied, explaining in great detail that their plans cannot be trusted, but yet they seem to be accepted in law. 

I need to use this little bit of land which is mine and was stolen. 

Has nobody successfully challenged the authority of imprecise Land Registry plans, and why does the system make no provision for people with very little money? Ignoring this, the right of adverse possession surely precedes the casual use of photographs? What are my options?

*House number changed. 

Jane Denton, of This is Money, replies: Adverse possession is a legal principle that allows an individual to claim ownership of land or property they do not legally own under specific circumstances. 

It allows someone to claim land if they have used it as their own for enough time.

If your neighbours refuse to co-operate, you may need to escalate matters through a formal boundary dispute, either via the courts or the Land Registry. 

Compiling all the evidence you have in this matter will be crucial to determine what steps you can take next. I asked two solicitors for their thoughts on your matter.  

Joanne Ellis, partner and specialist in dispute resolution at Stephensons, says: The starting point here is to consider the original lease of the property and the subsequent transfers of both the leasehold and freehold interests.

You state that the properties have 'shared access'. Legally, this term can cover very different arrangements. 

Typically, one neighbour owns the land and the other benefits from a right of way over it. 

That right may be expressly granted in the original deed, or it may arise later as an easement acquired through long use. 

The deeds and title history must therefore be examined carefully to establish whether a legal right of way exists. 

If such a right exists, fencing that interferes with it could give rise to a claim. 

From the photographs you provided, it is unclear how the newly fenced land previously formed part of your access, given it appears to have been planted garden, and you already had a fence in place, albeit closer to the road.

In your question, you mention that the original lease prohibited fencing at the front of the properties. 

If this is correct, removal of the fence may be possible on the basis that it is a breach of covenant. 

To enforce a covenant, you must have the benefit of it, which can sometimes pass to neighbouring properties.

Whether this applies here will depend on the wording of the lease and the way the properties were later transferred. Again, a detailed review of the deeds is essential.

Your neighbour is relying on Land Registry plans to justify the position of the boundary. 

It is important to understand that Land Registry title plans do not show the precise boundary unless there is a formally 'determined boundary', which would be clearly stated.  

In most cases, they show only general boundaries. This is because plans submitted on registration are overlaid on Ordnance Survey mapping, which has an inherent margin of inaccuracy depending on scale. 

As a result, Land Registry plans alone cannot conclusively determine ownership of the disputed land. 

The correct starting point is the original deed plan. A specialist surveyor would then need to identify how that plan translates onto the land as it exists today. 

If the land appears within your original conveyance plan, that would take precedence over the Land Registry plan.

You have been advised that an adverse possession claim would be costly. 

Such claims are highly fact‑specific, and legal advice is strongly recommended. 

That said, applications to the Land Registry or county court can be made without a solicitor. You may also have legal expenses insurance that could assist. 

If the original deeds show the land as yours, a different Land Registry application would be appropriate, and their published guidance may help.

You are right to continue seeking an agreed resolution. Some local authorities offer mediation services, as do RICS and other specialist providers. 

Although mediation involves cost, resolving a boundary dispute in this way is often money well spent. 

If the land ultimately proves to be within your neighbour’s title, it may be pragmatic to offer a modest payment and cover legal costs to have the boundary formally agreed and registered.

Manjinder Atwal, a director of housing and property litigation at Duncan Lewis Solicitors, says: From what you describe, this is a deeply distressing neighbour dispute, but also a classic example of how confusion can arise where long-standing informal arrangements meet the strict wording of registered title plans.

One important point is that Land Registry plans are not drawn to pinpoint accuracy. They are based on general mapping and are often only indicative, particularly on older estates or where boundaries follow natural features such as kerb lines, hedges or shared access routes. 

It is therefore not unusual for small strips of land or access areas to appear unclear on paper, even where they have been used in a consistent way for many years.

In cases like this, the law will look at far more than the plan alone. It will consider how the land has actually been used on the ground over time. 

That includes whether a route has been used openly for access by residents, post and visitors, whether it has been maintained or treated as part of one property, and whether that position has been accepted historically by neighbouring owners.

Evidence from long-standing neighbours, photographs, surveys and historic layout features can all be relevant in building that picture.

From what is described, it also appears there has been longstanding recognition that there is at least a live dispute over the land and access. Where there is disagreement between neighbours and conflicting accounts of historic use, it becomes particularly important to rely on objective evidence rather than assumptions or third-party interpretations, including those passed on through estate agents or new owners.

In practical terms, the first step is to assemble all available material in one place. This should include title documents, Land Registry correspondence, historic and recent photographs, surveys, and written statements from people who have known the property over a long period. 

Once that evidence is properly reviewed, it may be possible to clarify whether the issue is primarily one of boundary interpretation, long-established use, or legal entitlement to an access route.

Where agreement cannot be reached, there are formal mechanisms available to resolve boundary disputes, including Land Registry determination or court proceedings. 

However, these are usually a last resort, as they can be expensive, slow and stressful for all parties involved. 

For that reason, early efforts to resolve matters through clear communication or mediation are often strongly encouraged, particularly where neighbours are still living side by side.

Finally, it is worth emphasising that these disputes rarely turn on a single document or photograph alone. They are decided on the full weight of evidence, and particularly on what can be shown to have happened consistently over many years on the ground.

Have you had a messy boundary dispute with a neighbour? Get in touch: editor@thisismoney.co.uk