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

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

CERTIFICATE A

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

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

The deliberate gap between the shaded region and the red boundary line correlates directly to her boundary survey.

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.

It has shaded a region in blue to show the adverse possession land beyond the red boundary line.

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

To proceed with her plans to build her side extension over the blue-shaded region (and against the Myers’ wall), Rosa Bell 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.

Therefore, the Myers are responsible and eligible to move their boundary fence dividing the two properties to the legal boundary.

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.