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 2023, the Judge threw Rosa and Murray Bell's case out of court and confirmed that the Myers' fence must remain aligned with the 'paper title deed' boundary.

Since 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 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 FAILED Multiple Adverse Possession Attempts

Rosa and Murray Bell's CERTIFICATE A (Number 72), submitted as part of their planning application, includes a diagram showing a clear gap between the shaded extension area and the wall of the Myers’ property. The Myers' strip of land that Rosa Bell was not permitted to build on.

This confirms that Rosa Bell has always been aware she could not build directly against the Myers’ wall.

Had Rosa Bell built strictly to her Certificate A, her declared legal boundary, she would never have been able to reach the Myers’ small gutter, which she intended to use to unlawfully discharge rainwater into, from both her side extension and main roof.

This also explains why Rosa and Murray Bell repeatedly refused to appoint a party wall surveyor (PWS), despite it being a legal requirement under UK Law.

A PWS would have prevented them from building over the boundary, or cutting into the Myers' gutter for their own use.

Actions that would have left the Myers' without a functioning rainwater drainage system and exposed their property to the risk of water damage. These concerns that were fully outlined in the Myers' planning objection submitted to RBBC.

Despite this, RBBC approved Rosa Bell’s planning application, but only on three conditions:

1. that a Party Wall Surveyor (PWS) was appointed,

2. that Rosa Bell did not build over her boundary, and

3. that Rosa Bell did not use the Myers’ gutter without their permission.

However, Rosa and Murray Bell continued to harass the Myers, insisting they intended to cut into and use the gutter without permission. They then issued formal notice that they would begin construction without meeting their legal obligations, or complying with RBBC's planning conditions.

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

The red shaded area represents Rosa Bell's proposed side - extension, and the red line marks the boundary.

These documents, including the Myers' objection and the conditions set by RBBC, can be viewed on the council's planning portal.

ADVERSE POSSESSION LAND (Intent shaded in blue)

This plan drawing was provided 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 section of land they intended to claim through adverse possession.

A claim which, if successful, would allow Rosa Bell to build directly against the Myers' wall.

Rosa Bell's solicitor has set the red boundary line at forty feet, based on the front and rear dimensions recorded on her title deed.

This blue shaded strip corresponds exactly to the unshaded strip of land between the two properties (the Myers' strip of land), as shown on Rosa Bell's Certificate A plan submitted to RBBC.

Rosa Bell’s solicitor also repeatedly sent letters confirming that Rosa and Murray Bell continued to refuse mediation with the Myers, and that they remain ineligible to apply for adverse possession.

If Rosa Bell wishes to build her side extension over this blue‑shaded region, (up against the Myers’ wall), she must first obtain a successful adverse possession claim.

Rosa Bell raised a boundary dispute after attempting to build a one-metre wide side extension on land that did not belong to her.

It appeared to be an attempt to claim the Myers' strip of land by building over it, as Rosa and Murray Bell were already aware that they would not have succeeded in an ADVERSE POSSESSION claim.

Rosa and Murray Bell's 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 Myers were advised that they could remove it when ever they wished to.

Rosa and Murray Bell's original conveyancing deed

This original conveyancing title deed (number 72) was supplied by Rosa and Murray Bell during the boundary dispute protocol (BDP).

At the conclusion of the BDP in 2021, Rosa and Murray Bell acknowledged that they would need to apply for adverse possession if they wished to claim the Myers' strip of land.

Despite this, they continued to harass and pursue the Myers over a boundary dispute that did not exist.

November 2020

December 2020

April 2021

December 2021

February 2022

March 2022

February 2023

April 2023

June 2023

August 2023

September 2023

May 2025

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 by the Myers to resolve the matter amicably via mediation is false and misleading.

The Myers have maintained records of mediation requests dating back to November 2020.

The following Mediation dates were request by the Myers:

Documented Mediation Requests REFUSED by Rosa and Murray Bell

Documented dates of Rosa and Murray Bell's 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

Rosa and Murray Bell's Solicitor Engagement Timeline

Rosa and Murray Bell’s Legal Pursuit of Adverse Possession

These legal engagements directly show their tabloid statements of being unrepresented is both untrue and misleading.

Documented evidence shows that between 2021 and 2025, Rosa and Murray Bell engaged multiple solicitors in repeated, unsuccessful attempts to claim adverse possession, and continued to instruct additional solicitors in the lead‑up to the court hearing.

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.