Boundary disputes are among the most bitter and least proportionate disputes we see. They are rarely about the strip of land itself, and they routinely cost both sides far more than that land is worth. Understanding the ground rules helps you avoid the worst of it.
The title plan won’t decide it
The most common misconception is that the Land Registry title plan shows the exact boundary. It doesn’t. Registered title plans show general boundaries only, drawn to a scale where the line itself can represent a metre or more on the ground. They are a starting point, not an answer.
What actually determines the boundary
The deeds — particularly the original conveyance when the land was first divided — often contain the real detail: measurements, descriptions, and plans more precise than the registered version. Beyond that, physical features, historic use, and evidence of where the boundary has been treated as lying for years all matter.
Whose fence is it?
There is no reliable rule about which side owns the fence, despite what people confidently believe about the position of the posts. The deeds may say. Where they don’t, it may be a matter of evidence and long usage rather than any presumption.
Adverse possession
If a neighbour has occupied part of your land for a long period, they may in some circumstances acquire a claim to it. The requirements for registered land are demanding, but the risk is real — which is why you should not simply let encroachment continue while you decide what to do.
The proportionality problem
We will be blunt about this: legal costs in boundary disputes routinely exceed the value of the land in question. Mediation and a “determined boundary” agreement — which fixes the line permanently by consent — are almost always the better route than litigation. A court fight over a boundary rarely leaves anyone happy, or better off.