Please help me identify these cars

camerassassin said:
Just a thought - could the green car be a Maxi ?
Click to expand...
I don't think so. The Austin Maxi has three side windows, including one behind the rear door, and a narrow rear pillar. I think the green car only has two side windows and a thick rear pillar.
 
I'm not sure if this covers private land as well as public land, but if someone's land boundary is extended to cover land not originally theirs and remains uncontested for a period of 12yrs, said land can be legally claimed without having to pay for it etc. The fact a fence was put up in 2003, 13yrs ago, they could be looking at it that you relinquished your right to the land and it is now theirs.
 
Off beat but the car in the garage looks like the front on an old landrover, series 2?
 
Byker28i said:
No, not fat enough, I'm certain thats an Allegro, it's not an 1100 as that had rear wing fins
Click to expand...
Think you mean Vanden Plas. Can't see any evidence of the raised grill and bonnet.
 
nilagin said:
I'm not sure if this covers private land as well as public land, but if someone's land boundary is extended to cover land not originally theirs and remains uncontested for a period of 12yrs, said land can be legally claimed without having to pay for it etc. The fact a fence was put up in 2003, 13yrs ago, they could be looking at it that you relinquished your right to the land and it is now theirs.
Click to expand...

Unless that is it was found that the extra half metre does indeed form part of the OP's registered title in which case you cannot acquire land a non domino if there is a registered title to it.

It should never be deemed that you relinquish your legal title to land just because you build a fence inside your legal boundaries.

I think this will end up at court as there doesnt appear to be anything that HMLR can get involved in,but it might not do any harm to get in touch with them for advice.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
stupar said:
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.
Click to expand...
Let's see if I understand your argument. I'm going to rephrase it, and go very slowly.
  1. The title deeds define our property by reference to the 1967 OS map. (See below.)
  2. The 1967 OS map shows a boundary at the back of our garden, separating our land from theirs.
  3. OS maps show physical boundaries, not legal boundaries.
  4. Therefore the line at the back of our garden on the 1967 OS map represents whatever physical structure existed there at that time.
  5. Therefore the legal boundary, as defined by the title deeds, coincides with whatever physical structure existed there in 1967.
Is that it? Have I understood correctly? And if so, is that just your opinion or is there case law to back it up?

16420-1473947170-fafeaf44cf8b81a56be1c23cebd2da9f.jpg


stupar said:
I would seek the assistance of a solicitor if not already doing so.
Click to expand...
We are doing. But obviously we want to keep our costs down to the greatest extent possible, commensurate with winning of course.
 
nilagin said:
I'm not sure if this covers private land as well as public land, but if someone's land boundary is extended to cover land not originally theirs and remains uncontested for a period of 12yrs, said land can be legally claimed without having to pay for it etc. The fact a fence was put up in 2003, 13yrs ago, they could be looking at it that you relinquished your right to the land and it is now theirs.
Click to expand...
stupar said:
Unless that is it was found that the extra half metre does indeed form part of the OP's registered title in which case you cannot acquire land a non domino if there is a registered title to it. It should never be deemed that you relinquish your legal title to land just because you build a fence inside your legal boundaries.
Click to expand...
Well, they're not making that argument. As a point of fact I have regularly accessed the land beyond the fence, in order to keep the ivy from overwhelming the fence and the hedge. And my neighbours are extremely unlikely to have accessed that sliver of land, because (a) there's a thick hedge between them and it; and (b) behind the hedge there's a very steep bank about 1.5 metres high. So they can't claim adverse possession.

@stupar , I've just remembered (your a non domino comment reminded me) that you live in Scotland. The law there might be quite different to what it is down here. I appreciate your advise and help, but I think I'll have to check anything you say against English law.
 
Correct - the physical boundaries edged red now also represent your legal title.
This is what HMLR registered and that red edge is what they guarantee as being your legal title.

What you have is a 0.5m difference between your legal title and your occupied extent.

It is for a 3rd party to determine whether you or your neighbour is in adverse possession (e.g. the courts).

Where my opinion only comes in is to do with the fact that i very much doubt that the OS will pick up the hedge and the fence as a double feature, meaning they may well maintain the historical position of the feature from older maps.
If that be the case i would have thought that determining the age and nature of features would indicate that your fence easily post dates the deed plan therefore the natural boundary the deed plan is inferring is the hedge.
 
StewartR said:
Well, they're not making that argument. As a point of fact I have regularly accessed the land beyond the fence, in order to keep the ivy from overwhelming the fence and the hedge. And my neighbours are extremely unlikely to have accessed that sliver of land, because (a) there's a thick hedge between them and it; and (b) behind the hedge there's a very steep bank about 1.5 metres high. So they can't claim adverse possession.

@stupar , I've just remembered (your a non domino comment reminded me) that you live in Scotland. The law there might be quite different to what it is down here. I appreciate your advise and help, but I think I'll have to check anything you say against English law.
Click to expand...

No worries,yes there is a slight difference between Scots property law and English proerty law e.g. there is no squatters rights (re land) up here.
But i believe both laws tend to equate to the same outcomes.

But yes i dont want to cloud your judgement to much so will leave it at that.
 
StewartR said:
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.


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.
Click to expand...

The problem is you put the fence inside the boundary. This has given the impression that the hedge is theirs as you've effectively closed off your garden. I can see why they're being a bit arsey.

I'd remove your fence or at least part of it and use that bit of land a bit more obviously. Adverse possession rules were changed so it is harder to claim than it was. You need to be using that bit of land and ideally cutting that hedge on your side as it is your boundary.
 
stupar said:
I would have thought that determining the age and nature of features would indicate that your fence easily post dates the deed plan therefore the natural boundary the deed plan is inferring is the hedge.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. That's what I think. That's what any right thinking person would think, I think, based on the evidence. To my mind, and to everyone I've spoken to, it's a no brainer. The only physical feature which existed prior to 2003 is the hedge, therefore the boundary is the hedge.

And yet our neighbours insist on disputing it, without having presented any evidence to support their arguments. And they managed to persuade their solicitor to bang in a letter accusing us of trespass (on "their" land) and criminal damage (to "their" hedge). Our solicitor is absolutely flabbergasted that their opening gambit should be such an aggressive one, and one which leaves them no room to compromise, given that their argument is so thin. So we're not taking anything for granted. My plan is to amass a huge pile of evidence in the hope that it will encourage them to back down, or at least encourage the court to award us costs because their charges are so obviously baseless.
 
StewartR said:
Absolutely. That's what I think. That's what any right thinking person would think, I think, based on the evidence. To my mind, and to everyone I've spoken to, it's a no brainer. The only physical feature which existed prior to 2003 is the hedge, therefore the boundary is the hedge.

And yet our neighbours insist on disputing it, without having presented any evidence to support their arguments. And they managed to persuade their solicitor to bang in a letter accusing us of trespass (on "their" land) and criminal damage (to "their" hedge). Our solicitor is absolutely flabbergasted that their opening gambit should be such an aggressive one, and one which leaves them no room to compromise, given that their argument is so thin. So we're not taking anything for granted. My plan is to amass a huge pile of evidence in the hope that it will encourage them to back down, or at least encourage the court to award us costs because their charges are so obviously baseless.
Click to expand...

Best of luck and let me know how it goes.
Because of my job stuff like this interests me.
 
srichards said:
The problem is you put the fence inside the boundary. This has given the impression that the hedge is theirs as you've effectively closed off your garden. I can see why they're being a bit arsey.
Click to expand...
With respect, if you were to visit the location, I think you would not see why they are being so arsey. They have a garden approximately 50 metres long. At the bottom of it is a very steep bank about 1.5 metres high (our garden is above theirs). On top of the bank is a very dense hedge. And beyond the hedge, also on top of the bank, is the strip of land in question. They can't even access it without incurring some pretty extreme inconvenience.
srichards said:
I'd remove your fence or at least part of it and use that bit of land a bit more obviously. Adverse possession rules were changed so it is harder to claim than it was. You need to be using that bit of land and ideally cutting that hedge on your side as it is your boundary.
Click to expand...
Well, they're not claiming adverse possession, which is just as well since they have enjoyed no possession. Furthermore I have enjoyed possession, since I have regularly climbed over the fence (which we originally erected as an anti-fox barrier) in order to keep the ivy down. Of course they probably won't have been aware of that, because it's so far from their house and not visible through the hedge. And for the same reasons they probably won't have asked themselves how it is that a 13-year-old fence has no ivy growing on it, in an area which is otherwise choked with ivy.

I have a lot of sympathy with your suggestion that we need to be seen to be using that bit of land. However, since they accused us of trespass and criminal damage, we've decided that it's probably best in the long run if we don't do anything right now which could be seen as deliberately provocative. So if it comes to court, the record will show that we have made every effort to be constructive and reasonable in a search for a resolution, and they haven't. Bearing in mind that we want the court not just to find in our favour but also to award costs, we want to be seen as 100% the good guys.
 
I've just realised that we haven't talked much about the red car.
srichards said:
Red one is either a mini or a morris minor I think. There's also the VW beetle.
Click to expand...
Phil V said:
I agree about the red mini though, that's a very short bonnet which is unusual at the time.
Click to expand...
Any other thoughts? If it is a Mini or a Morris Minor or a Beetle, they were all in production in the 1960s and therefore wouldn't help us to date the picture which we know is from 1970 or newer. So if the red car is to be of any use, we need to (a) come up with a convincing suggestion as to what it is, and also (b) convince ourselves that it is NOT a Mini, Morris Minor, or Beetle. I don't think we're going to be able to do that.....
 
The one out front, a Rover 3500? /edit No, there's no rear quarterlights on it.
 
Last edited:
Byker28i said:
Hum I don't remember them being like an allegro. I had one once, yet those images also look similar.
Click to expand...


They were nothing like an Allegro - seriously, poles apart. The little boxer engines in the Suds were wonderful.
 
StewartR said:
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.
Click to expand...

The car out front, a Nissan/Datsun from the 1970s a pulsar or cherry perhaps?

Pity there's no washing out the back, you could check for flairs!
 
Last edited:
Just a thought: how about asking the neighbour with the greenhouse when it was put up?
 
Possibly stoopid....the house in question appears to have a brick garage whereas it's attached neighbour a carport or at least a gap to its garage, could this mean planning permission of some form may exist for that address giving a potential earliest date?
 
Think the car in the garage might be a Morris 2200, one out front looks very Morris Marina like
 
Last edited:
oh well....

I think the green car out front is a Hyundai Pony circa 1985, it was nondescript in 85 so it kinda explains the difficulty we're having in identifying it positively from a grainy photo 30 years later...:)
 
The green one is an Alfasud. You can tell by the back window and the back bumper that juts out.
 
Changed my mind.
 
Last edited:
Well well well. I have some answers.

As I was getting home form work last night, I bumped into my neighbour who owns the house in the photo - the one with the car in the garage. I've always known that he's lived here for a long while, but I didn't know quite how long, so I asked him. It turns out that he actually moved here in 1972. That's earlier than I thought, and it raised the possibility that those cars might actually be his - something which I hadn't previously considered. So I brought the photo round for him to look at..

16418-1473929396-6131fa813dcb883556389db96eb6861b.jpg


And I hit the jackpot. He now has a huge magnolia tree in the middle of his front lawn, and he says he planted it just after he moved in. It's clearly visible in the photo, so that proves the photo was taken after he moved in. So therefore that means the car in the garage and the red car round the side must be his ...? Yes. The red one is the Mini that his son owned whilst he was at university, which we calculated must have been around 1972-75. (However his son left home after university and he can't remember whether he still had the Mini then, so we can't rule out the possibility that the photo was taken later than 1975 at a time when his son happened to be visiting.) And the one in the garage is his blue Morris Oxford Estate which he owned for 11 years and he sold around 1976 to 1978.

So that gives us a solid dating of the photo to between 1972 and 1978, though probably towards the earlier part of this period.


And it gets better. When I got home I found that I had received a reply from the council's street lighting team. The wider photo (see post #20) shows two street lights which aren't there now. A couple of weeks ago I had sent the photo to the council to see whether they still had records as to when those particular street lights were replaced. The weren't sure, but they said they'd check ... and the answer is 1973.

So I've nailed it. The magnolia tree proves that the photo can't have been taken earlier than 1972, and the street lights prove that it can't have been taken later than 1973. That's great news as far as I'm concerned. Bearing in mind that our house was built in 1970, this photo (the wider version, showing several houses) is pretty good evidence of what physical boundaries would have existed at that time.


Thanks for everyone who contributed. It's another great show of the TP community spirit, even though as it turned out identification of the cars wasn't actually necessary.

If anybody is still interested in trying to work out what the green car is, feel free, but I hope you'll excuse me if I don't show too much interest in it any more!
 
Fantastic result!!!

That's a whole load of evidence you have there, hopefully your neighbour will take it on the chin and move on!
 
That's excellent. It's very handy having neighbours that have lived somewhere for a long time.

It is useful having back up information though. If you have multiple bits of evidence all pointing to a long ago time period then it's impossible to refute.
 
srichards said:
It's very handy having neighbours that have lived somewhere for a long time.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Though the people in our street do seem to be taking it to extremes. There are ten "new" (1970!) houses at the top of our street, including ours. We moved here in 1994, and since then only one of them has changed hands (in 2009). So we were the "newcomers" for 15 years, and the current "newcomers" have been here 7 years already. It must be a nightmare for estate agents: no historical sales data to help them work out a market price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top