In 2025, Nightmare Neighbours, Rosa and Murray Bell Sell False Claims To Tabloids To Use As Clickbait, TWO YEARS after their 2023 case was thrown out of court.

Fact-check: Title Deeds, Legal Boundary Confirmation and Media Disinformation

HM Land Registry has formally confirmed that there is no boundary dispute between the properties.

The original title deeds, clearly defining the boundary and ownership markers, remain legally binding and recognised.

HM Land Registry further confirmed that 'as no amendments have been made to the No. 72 deed', The dimensions of 40 feet × 150 feet × 40 feet × 150 feet (clockwise) remain the legally recognised extent of Rosa and Murray Bell’s property.

There is no ambiguity. HM Land Registry has explicitly stated that no boundary dispute exists.

In 2923, the Judge confirmed that Rosa and Murray Bell's legal claims cannot be made for land that they did not own, and ruled that the boundary fence must remain aligned with the paper title deeds.

Since July 2023, the property boundary has been positioned in full accordance with HM Land Registry. All works were completed on the Myers' Title land.

False Claim: “Neither Party Can Move”

Rosa Bell has publicly claimed that “neither party can move” due to an alleged boundary dispute. This statement is false.

HM Land Registry has confirmed there is no uncertainty regarding the boundary line or fence ownership. Furthermore,

'As no boundary dispute exists, both parties are legally free to move at any time'.

Fabricated tabloid disinformation about the Title deeds

Rosa Bell has falsely claimed in tabloid coverage that the title deeds are “inconclusive” and “crude.” This is demonstrably incorrect. The title deeds for No. 72 clearly show dimensions enclosing Rosa Bell’s property, as confirmed by HM Land Registry.

Rosa and Murray Bell's Adverse Possession Intent

Rosa and Murray Bell's CERTIFICATE A submitted as part of their planning application.

The red shaded area shows the extent of Rosa Bell's side - extension.

The red line is the boundary line.

This diagram formed part of Rosa Bell's certificate A in her planning application she submitted to Reigate and Banstead Borough Council (RBBC).

Rosa Bell's plan shows that there is a gap between the shaded region and the wall of the Myers' property that she cannot build on.

It clearly indicates Rosa has always known that she cannot build directly against the wall of the Myers' property.

ADVERSE POSSESSION LAND (Intent shaded in blue)

This plan drawing was supplied by Rosa Bell’s solicitor, taken from the land surveyor's report.

Her solicitor has shaded a blue area beyond the red boundary line, to show the area they wish to apply for adverse possession. Where if successful, would allow them to build against the Myers' wall.

The red boundary line is at forty feet, based on Rosa Bell's front and rear dimension on their title deed.

This strip of the Myers' land corresponds directly to the unshaded region shown on Rosa Bell's Certificate A plan, submitted to RBBC.

If Rosa Bell wishes to proceed with building her side extension over the blue-shaded region (against the Myers’ wall), then she must first submit a successful claim for adverse possession.

Original Conveyancing Title Deed

Title Deed Dimensions and Fence Positioning

This diagram shows part of the original conveyancing title deed for No. 72.

It has clearly defined measurements on all four sides to delineate the legal extent of Rosa and Murray Bell’s property boundary as 40 feet by 150 feet.

Having been found ineligible for adverse possession, Rosa and Murray Bell hold no legal entitlement to alter or relocate the Myers’ fence from its lawful position at the paper title boundary.

Fence Ownership Confirmation

Rosa and Murray Bell’s title deed does not include a T-mark on the dividing boundary.

As the T-mark is shown on the No. 70 (Myers) title deed, this confirms the ownership of the dividing fence belongs to the Myers. They were advised that they could remove it when ever they wished to.

This original conveyancing title deed was supplied by Rosa and Murray Bell during the boundary dispute protocol (BDP).

November 2020

December 2020

April 2021

December 2021

February 2022

March 2022

February 2023

April 2023

June 2023

August 2023

September 2023

May 2025

Refused Mediation Attempts

Despite the Myers’ repeated efforts to resolve the matter respectfully and lawfully through mediation, their requests were consistently ignored, rejected, or left unanswered by Rosa and Murray Bell

Rosa Bell’s sensationalised headlines alleging that no effort was made to resolve the matter amicably are contradicted by documented evidence.

The Myers have maintained records of mediation requests dating back to November 2020, all of which were rejected or ignored by Rosa and Murray Bell. These requests span over five years and involve multiple legal firms.

Mediation request dates are listed below:

Documented Mediation Requests

Documented Solicitor Engagements:

March 2025 - SD/RWK Goodman

2024 – SD/RWK Goodman

2024 - AG/RWKG

2023 - GS/SCWLegal

2023 – GH/DMH Stallard

2023 - HJ/DMHS

2023 - DC/DMHS

2023 – CB/DMHS

2023 – JW/RWKG

2022 - AB/Setfords

2022 – referenced but unnamed solicitor

2021 – referenced but unnamed solicitor

January 2021 – referenced but unnamed solicitor

Solicitor Engagement Timeline

Rosa and Murray Bell’s Legal Pursuit of Adverse Possession

Despite tabloid claims that Rosa and Murray Bell had “no legal support,” documented evidence shows that they engaged multiple solicitors between 2021 and 2025 in repeated attempts to claim adverse possession.

These legal engagements directly contradict their public statements and tabloid portrayals of being unrepresented.

The Myers believe additional solicitor engagements may exist beyond those listed, as Rosa and Murray Bell’s attempts to amend their paper title boundary have consistently failed.

To date, Rosa and Murray Bell remain eligible to apply for adverse possession.