Please help me identify these cars

[StewartR]

Can anyone help identify the three cars in this photo? (The green one in the street, the one lurking in the garage, and the red one round the side of the garage.)

The background is that unfortunately our neighbours have started a dispute regarding property boundaries. The aerial photo from which this crop is taken may be useful evidence to help substantiate the historical positions of the boundaries, but we really need to try to put a date, or at least a date range, on it. If we could identify the cars, and we could then work out when they were introduced, that would put a limit on how old the photo could be.

Thanks for your help.

 

[srichards]

Green one looks like an allegro to me. Garage I'd think a hillman of some kind. I'd have said mid 1970s as likely for era for the cars. Red one is either a mini or a morris minor I think. There's also the VW beetle.

If it's an aerial photo isn't there a date written on the back or a company name? They might have records. I remember those being all the rage in the early 1980s. Friends bought them framed and stuck them on the wall.

 

[Russ77]

The green one on the street could be a Princess or a Rover I think

 

[nilagin]

At first the green car looks like an Austin Allegro or a Morris Marina. But the rear window looks to big for either of those, there should be more boot lid and less glass. Other two cars, not really enough is visible for me to determine.

 

[Russ77]

You might get lucky on this website the photos are date stamped......... http://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/browse

 

[stupar]

Is it the front boundary between those two houses that is at the centre of the dispute?

 

[nilagin]

Is it the front boundary between those two houses that is at the centre of the dispute?

Doesn't look like it's the centre to me.

 

[stupar]

Doesn't look like it's the centre to me.

Lol damn it brain

 

[srichards]

It might be worth asking neighbours that have lived there a long time if they have any aerial photos from the same era. One may have a date or they may have some record to prove when it was taken.

 

[StewartR]

If it's an aerial photo isn't there a date written on the back or a company name? They might have records.

No date, unfortunately. And the company which took the photo is no longer in existence.

 

[StewartR]

You might get lucky on this website the photos are date stamped......... http://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/browse

Unfortunately not. Nothing in my area of the right date range. Good idea though.

 

[StewartR]

Is it the front boundary between those two houses that is at the centre of the dispute?

No.

 

[Phil V]

At first the green car looks like an Austin Allegro or a Morris Marina. But the rear window looks to big for either of those, there should be more boot lid and less glass. Other two cars, not really enough is visible for me to determine.

Renault 20?

Definitely an early hatchback rather than a British pseudo hatch.

I agree about the red mini though, that's a very short bonnet which is unusual at the time.

In the garage could be a Hillman Hunter GT, that's a very deep grill

 

[stupar]

No.

Have you thought about obtaining a copy of your neighbours title deed and comparing the legal position with the occupied position to see if there is an actual area of dispute?

 

[StewartR]

It might be worth asking neighbours that have lived there a long time if they have any aerial photos from the same era. One may have a date or they may have some record to prove when it was taken.

I have done so.

The company that took this photo used to undertake commissioned aerial photography for clients such as hotels, golf clubs, property developers, etc. It was their habit to shoot aerial photos of residential areas on their way to and from the commissioned shoots, and then to sell the prints door-to-door. We have lived here since 1994 and we have one which was taken in the late 1990s. Our next door neighbours have lived here since 1983 and they have three: one which has a 2011 date on the back of the print (a machine print, obviously), one which was taken at the same time as ours - and indeed might just be a different selective enlargement from the same original photo - and this one which is the oldest of the three.

I'm not aware of any of our other neighbours having any photos like this, but I haven't asked them all. (Yet.)

 

[StewartR]

Have you thought about obtaining a copy of your neighbours title deed and comparing the legal position with the occupied position to see if there is an actual area of dispute?

Yes.

It might surprise you - it did surprise me - but title deeds are usually quite vague when it comes to defining the boundaries of a property. Neither our deeds nor our neighbours' define the boundary by reference to any physical features. They both have maps with our respective plots outlined in red, but the accompanying notes say explicitly that:
* the plan shows the general position, not the exact line, of the boundaries;
* it may be subject to distortions in scale;
* measurements scaled from this plan may not match measurements between the same points on the ground.

We agree with our neighbours that the boundary between our land and theirs is a straight line, as shown on the plans. But the dispute regards where the straight line actually is, and the title deeds are of no help.

(Incidentally there'a a similar situation with regard to Ordnance Survey maps. They do not show legal boundaries, only physical boundaries.)

 

[stupar]

Yes.

It might surprise you - it did surprise me - but title deeds are usually quite vague when it comes to defining the boundaries of a property. Neither our deeds nor our neighbours' define the boundary by reference to any physical features. They both have maps with our respective plots outlined in red, but the accompanying notes say explicitly that:
* the plan shows the general position, not the exact line, of the boundaries;
* it may be subject to distortions in scale;
* measurements scaled from this plan may not match measurements between the same points on the ground.

We agree with our neighbours that the boundary between our land and theirs is a straight line, as shown on the plans. But the dispute regards where the straight line actually is, and the title deeds are of no help.

(Incidentally there'a a similar situation with regard to Ordnance Survey maps. They do not show legal boundaries, only physical boundaries.)

It doesnt suprise me - my job is in land registration so i see similar scenarios on a daily basis.
By way of example do either title plans show the outline of the houses and for example a suggestion that the boundary is a straight prolongation of the division wall between both?

Yes the Ordnance Survey do not reflect legal title (not their duty to) but their Mastermap product forms the backdrop to land registration which can induce problems but equally suggest problems that dont exist in the real world.

 

[StewartR]

Green one looks like an allegro to me.

The green one on the street could be a Princess or a Rover I think

At first the green car looks like an Austin Allegro or a Morris Marina. But the rear window looks to big for either of those, there should be more boot lid and less glass.

Renault 20? Definitely an early hatchback rather than a British pseudo hatch.

Hmm. Allegro, Princess, Rover, Marina, Renault 20.

My first thought was an Austin Princess. I think it looks a bit too boxy to be an Austin Allegro. I think there are definitely similarities with a Morris Marina coupé from the side, but I agree that the rear window looks too big. It might be too big for a Princess too.

@Phil V , I'm sympathetic to the idea that it's not a British pseudo hatchback, but I don't think it's a Renault 20. All the images I can find online show the Renault 20 as having three large side windows and a very narrow pillar at the rear, whereas this car seems to have only two large side windows and a much thicker rear pillar.

Any more suggestions?

 

[srichards]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Allegro

I do think it is an allegro. They did a squarer front in the later 1970s. It looks exactly the right size and proportion. It's even got the square door handles.

 

[StewartR]

By way of example do either title plans show the outline of the houses and for example a suggestion that the boundary is a straight prolongation of the division wall between both?

Not relevant, unfortunately. The houses are all detached so there are no division walls.

The neighbours in question are behind us so the boundary is where the back of our garden meets the back of their garden. We are agreed - or at least they have asserted, via their solicitors, and we agree - that all the back-of-garden boundaries in this part of the street are in a straight line. So the question is, where is that straight line? I'm compiling evidence as to where I think it is. The boundary was established when our house was built in 1968, so obviously the closer I can get to that date the better.

FYI this is the complete photo from which the crop was taken. The boundary in dispute is indicated in yellow.

 

[StewartR]

Garage I'd think a hillman of some kind.

In the garage could be a Hillman Hunter GT, that's a very deep grill

Mmm, interesting. My first thought was a Ford Cortina, Mk II or Mk III.

But it might not matter. Both the Cortina Mk II and the Hunter were introduced in 1966, and our house was built around 1970. So if the car in the garage is a Hunter or a Cortina Mk II, we can't use it to put a date on the photo which is newer than 1970. I think the green car in the front may be the best bet.

 

[nilagin]

Mmm, interesting. My first thought was a Ford Cortina, Mk II or Mk III.

But it might not matter. Both the Cortina Mk II and the Hunter were introduced in 1966, and our house was built around 1970. So if the car in the garage is a Hunter or a Cortina Mk II, we can't use it to put a date on the photo which is newer than 1970. I think the green car in the front may be the best bet.

I wouldn't say it was any of them. The Cortina Mk11 and Mk111, plus the Hillman Hunter, all had a straight grill incorporating the headlamps. If you look closely the grill doesn't incorporate the headlamps and the bottom of the grill is below the bottom of the headlamps. It is more in keeping with something like an Austin 1100, or something larger. That car in the garage does look like it has a white reflective number plate though which replaced the black background plates in 1973.
Like srichards, I'm basing the green car on having the large square door handles like Austin and Morris cars had. The late Allegro had black bumpers though where as the green car appears to have chrome bumpers.

 

[stupar]

Not relevant, unfortunately. The houses are all detached so there are no division walls.

The neighbours in question are behind us so the boundary is where the back of our garden meets the back of their garden. We are agreed - or at least they have asserted, via their solicitors, and we agree - that all the back-of-garden boundaries in this part of the street are in a straight line. So the question is, where is that straight line? I'm compiling evidence as to where I think it is. The boundary was established when our house was built in 1968, so obviously the closer I can get to that date the better.

FYI this is the complete photo from which the crop was taken. The boundary in dispute is indicated in yellow.

Ah ok, that is a slightly trickier boundary to deal with.
You say the boundary was established at the time the houses were built, what form does the boundary take e.g. fence, wall, hedge, treeline?
Notwithstanding the airy fairyness of the title deeds/plan and the narrated caveats, you should still be able to measure from the plan the distance between the rear gable of your house and the back boundary. I would then measure that distance out on the ground (if you can) and see how it relates to the physical feature(s) present.

Are your title deeds registered with HMLR - as in do you have a land certificate?

 

[Russ77]

Asked a colleague to take a look..... his suggestions were a Talbot Sunbeam, Alfasud or MK1 Vauxhall Astra with the latter being first produced in 1979

 

[stupar]

On the car front, how about the following

Talbot Horizon
Vauxhall Astra Mk1
Renault 14

 

[nilagin]

Mk1 Astra had black bumpers, not chrome. Plus that the Talbot Sunbeam and Horizon were all a little to boxy and square in design. Rear end leans more toward Vauxhall Chevette although front doesn't fit in with that. The car certainly appears to have the large square door handles, also used by Scimitar and Lotus, but the car definitely isn't any of those.


If I'm wrong about the door handles and it is just a poor reflrction / poor resolution giving that impression, Alfasud does look a possibility.

 

[Byker28i]

Further sources to try
https://www.old-maps.co.uk

http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/maps/ - has boundary maps

Ponies has old maps
http://www.ponies.me.uk/maps/osmap.html

National Archives
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/maps/

We had the same establishing a boundary dispute.

 

[StewartR]

Are your title deeds registered with HMLR - as in do you have a land certificate?

Yes. Why?

You say the boundary was established at the time the houses were built, what form does the boundary take e.g. fence, wall, hedge, treeline?
Notwithstanding the airy fairyness of the title deeds/plan and the narrated caveats, you should still be able to measure from the plan the distance between the rear gable of your house and the back boundary. I would then measure that distance out on the ground (if you can) and see how it relates to the physical feature(s) present.

It's not that straightforward.

The plan in the title deeds is an OS map with a scale of 1:1250. The difference between where we say the boundary lies and where our neighbours say the boundary lies is approximately 0.5 metres. (Yes, that sounds stupid, but there is probably a reason, which I'll explain in a minute.) On the plan that would equate to 0.4mm, and - bearing in mind the explicit warning about scaling from the plan - that's far too small to be useful.

There are physical features present. There is a tall hedge on the line which we say is the boundary, and there is a fence on the line which our neighbours say is the boundary, and they are 0.5 metres apart.

The thing is, we built the fence in 2003, and we deliberately built it a little way back from the hedge (which was the only physical evidence of a boundary when we moved in, in 1994) for reasons which our neighbours now dispute. Their argument is that we built the fence on the line of the pre-existing boundary, which is not the line of the hedge. Their argument is completely groundless - for instance they argue that we built the fence to line up with the fences either side of us, but there are no fences either side of us, just the hedge. But they're being so aggressive about it, we're concerned that it will end up in court. We expect we will win in court, but there's no guarantee that a court will award costs, so it could end up costing us money to defend our position. My approach is to try to pile up as much evidence as I can, to try to persuade the court that the neighbours' claims are entirely without merit, and hopefully that way we'll be awarded costs.


Incidentally, insofar as I can ascribe a rational motive to our neighbours' actions, I think the issue is really about ownership of the hedge. We've recently extended our house at the back, so our garden is smaller than it used to be, and the hedge - which is about 6-7 metres tall - now looms larger in our sight and blocks out a lot more light. We'd very much like to trim it. But our neighbours don't want us to - "You touch that hedge and I'll see you in court" - because they seem to have concerns over their privacy. It is clear from the title deeds of both our house and theirs, and we all agree, that responsibility for whatever structure might lie on the boundary - hedge, wall, fence, whatever - is ours.So if the hedge is the boundary then we have the right, indeed the obligation, to maintain it. But if the fence is the boundary then the hedge is on their land and we don't have the right to trim it. I think that's what it's all about.

 

[StewartR]

Further sources to try
https://www.old-maps.co.uk

http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/maps/ - has boundary maps

Ponies has old maps
http://www.ponies.me.uk/maps/osmap.html

National Archives
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/maps/

We had the same establishing a boundary dispute.

Thanks, but they're no use. Maps show physical boundaries, not legal boundaries. I've got a set of OS maps from every decade going back to the 1870s, but they don't help.

 

[Byker28i]

Sounds like your neighbour is like mine, a right t***. he had a dispute with us and our neighbours about trees at the rear of our properties, within our boundary line. Ours was ok as we had a proper wooden fence, but next door only had a few 2m posts with wire defining the boundary.
Neighbour waitied until we ere all at work, brought ina huge team of men, chopped down all the neighbours trees and moved the boundary back 2 feet and erected a new fence, all in one day. "If you don't like it, I'll see you in court but I know you havent the money for a boundary dispute..."

 

[AndrewA123]

Reliant Scimitar ?
Certainly had a lot of rear windscreen

 

[StewartR]

I wouldn't say it was any of them. The Cortina Mk11 and Mk111, plus the Hillman Hunter, all had a straight grill incorporating the headlamps. If you look closely the grill doesn't incorporate the headlamps and the bottom of the grill is below the bottom of the headlamps. It is more in keeping with something like an Austin 1100, or something larger.

I think we have a winner! I'm sold on that.

So that means we can't use the car in the garage to date the photo. The Austin 1100 was introduced in 1963, and even the Mk II which had a deeper grille was introduced in 1967. Given that the houses weren't built until 1970, this car doesn't let us put a later date than 1970 on the photo.

On the other hand...

That car in the garage does look like it has a white reflective number plate though which replaced the black background plates in 1973.

I agree is definitely looks like a white plate. Can you say any more about the introduction of white plates? Did they first become available in 1973 (which dates the photo to 1973 or newer), or did they become mandatory in 1973 (in which case the photo might be pre 1973 and the car is an early adopter) ?

 

[StewartR]

Reliant Scimitar ?
Certainly had a lot of rear windscreen

I don't think the shape of the side windows is right for a Scimitar. The rear side window and rear pillar of this car look much more like an Allegro / Alfasud type car to me.

 

[nilagin]

Reliant Scimitar ?
Certainly had a lot of rear windscreen

Bonnet doesn't look long enough.

 

[srichards]

Check out the high hedges legislation. They may have to cut it anyway.

When you bought the house in 1994 was there anything in the solicitor's questions about boundaries and who has to keep the hedge tidy? Have they been there longer than you or did they move in after 1994?

 

[stupar]

Yes. Why?

It's not that straightforward.

The plan in the title deeds is an OS map with a scale of 1:1250. The difference between where we say the boundary lies and where our neighbours say the boundary lies is approximately 0.5 metres. (Yes, that sounds stupid, but there is probably a reason, which I'll explain in a minute.) On the plan that would equate to 0.4mm, and - bearing in mind the explicit warning about scaling from the plan - that's far too small to be useful.

There are physical features present. There is a tall hedge on the line which we say is the boundary, and there is a fence on the line which our neighbours say is the boundary, and they are 0.5 metres apart.

The thing is, we built the fence in 2003, and we deliberately built it a little way back from the hedge (which was the only physical evidence of a boundary when we moved in, in 1994) for reasons which our neighbours now dispute. Their argument is that we built the fence on the line of the pre-existing boundary, which is not the line of the hedge. Their argument is completely groundless - for instance they argue that we built the fence to line up with the fences either side of us, but there are no fences either side of us, just the hedge. But they're being so aggressive about it, we're concerned that it will end up in court. We expect we will win in court, but there's no guarantee that a court will award costs, so it could end up costing us money to defend our position. My approach is to try to pile up as much evidence as I can, to try to persuade the court that the neighbours' claims are entirely without merit, and hopefully that way we'll be awarded costs.


Incidentally, insofar as I can ascribe a rational motive to our neighbours' actions, I think the issue is really about ownership of the hedge. We've recently extended our house at the back, so our garden is smaller than it used to be, and the hedge - which is about 6-7 metres tall - now looms larger in our sight and blocks out a lot more light. We'd very much like to trim it. But our neighbours don't want us to - "You touch that hedge and I'll see you in court" - because they seem to have concerns over their privacy. It is clear from the title deeds of both our house and theirs, and we all agree, that responsibility for whatever structure might lie on the boundary - hedge, wall, fence, whatever - is ours.So if the hedge is the boundary then we have the right, indeed the obligation, to maintain it. But if the fence is the boundary then the hedge is on their land and we don't have the right to trim it. I think that's what it's all about.

Given that your house pre dates the building of the fence and that the OS will represent a double feature as a single feature at that basescale it would be a safe argument to say that if the boundary has remained unchanged over various versions of the map then the OS will have picked up the hedge.

If your land registered title is mapped to that same OS feature then that is your legal title irrespective of your occupied extent being half a metre less.

Because the deed plan is OS derived as is your land certificate i doubt there will be a case for an inaccuracy with your registered title.

I would seek the assistance of a solicitor if not already doing so.

Its always the smallest slithers of land that cause the biggest disputes sadly.
Hope you get an easy resolution to the problem.

 

[Dave *]

I think we have a winner! I'm sold on that.

So that means we can't use the car in the garage to date the photo. The Austin 1100 was introduced in 1963, and even the Mk II which had a deeper grille was introduced in 1967. Given that the houses weren't built until 1970, this car doesn't let us put a later date than 1970 on the photo.

On the other hand...

I agree is definitely looks like a white plate. Can you say any more about the introduction of white plates? Did they first become available in 1973 (which dates the photo to 1973 or newer), or did they become mandatory in 1973 (in which case the photo might be pre 1973 and the car is an early adopter) ?

All vehicles manufactured after 1 January 1973 must display number plates of reflex-reflecting material, white at the front and yellow at the rear, with black characters. This type of reflecting plate was permitted as an option from 1968: many vehicles first registered before 1973 may therefore carry the white/yellow reflective plates and, where they were first registered during or after 1968, they may have carried such plates since new.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veh...,_Crown_dependencies_and_overseas_territories

 

[nilagin]

I think we have a winner! I'm sold on that.

So that means we can't use the car in the garage to date the photo. The Austin 1100 was introduced in 1963, and even the Mk II which had a deeper grille was introduced in 1967. Given that the houses weren't built until 1970, this car doesn't let us put a later date than 1970 on the photo.

On the other hand...

I agree is definitely looks like a white plate. Can you say any more about the introduction of white plates? Did they first become available in 1973 (which dates the photo to 1973 or newer), or did they become mandatory in 1973 (in which case the photo might be pre 1973 and the car is an early adopter) ?

According to Wikipedia, the reflective plates became mandatory on Jan 1st 1973, but were optional from 1968

 

[camerassassin]

Just a thought - could the green car be a Maxi ?

 

[StewartR]

Check out the high hedges legislation. They may have to cut it anyway.

We have done. The legislation only applies to hedges which are wholly or predominantly evergreen. Ours is mostly deciduous - elder and hawthorn, just like a traditional hedgerow - and although it's covered with ivy which is evergreen, the ivy doesn't count in deciding whether the hedge is deciduous or evergreen.

When you bought the house in 1994 was there anything in the solicitor's questions about boundaries and who has to keep the hedge tidy? Have they been there longer than you or did they move in after 1994?

In 1994 there was no issue about the boundary. There was a big hedge at the bottom of the garden and the deeds say we are responsible for the maintenance of any hedge, fence or wall on the boundary. So it was all quite straightforward and obvious, and there was nothing to question.

They neighbours moved in after us. Not much after - 1995 or 1996, I think - but definitely after.