Summary of Events and Legal requirements

Efforts at Cooperation Met

with Hostility

The Myers coordinated with Rosa and Murray Bell’s caretakers, Val and John to reposition their fence in alignment with the legal boundary, when they were back at the end of January 2023.

This arrangement was made to ensure Rosa and Murray Bell could be present during the works.

Despite these efforts at transparency and cooperation, the Myers’ sole contractor faced repeated obstruction and verbal abuse during the installation.

A police report was subsequently filed following an incident involving physically aggressive behaviour by Murray Bell towards Mrs Myers.

In response to these repeated incidents, formally reported to police, the Myers paused the fence installation and proposed a three-month stand-down period. During this time, they offered Rosa and Murray Bell three lawful options:

• Engage in formal mediation

• Apply for adverse possession

• Seek a court ruling to determine the boundary

The Myers made clear that if none of these options were pursued, they would complete the fence at the end of the stand-down period.

Rosa and Murray Bell declined both mediation and court determination. Instead, they attempted, once again, to apply for adverse possession through a new solicitor. Their solicitor issued several letters confirming that Rosa and Murray Bell did not wish to mediate, despite their continued ineligibility for adverse possession.

Unlawful Destruction and Trespass

Following the expiry of the stand-down period, the Myers issued formal notice requesting the removal of trespasses obstructing their legal fence line.

During Mr Myers’ temporary absence, and without any prior notice, Rosa and Murray Bell, accompanied by two friends and three contractors, destroyed the newly installed Myers fence and landscaping. They then unlawfully erected their own fence on the Myers’ property.

According to witness reports, video evidence, and police documentation, Murray Bell described the act as ‘an eye for an eye'.

UK Police subsequently filed criminal damage reports against Rosa and Murray Bell. The Myers were lawfully permitted to remove the trespasses and reinstate their legal fence.

Omissions in Media Coverage

These events, including the Myers’ repeated efforts to resolve the matter lawfully, were omitted from recent media coverage by SWNS and the Daily Mail. The resulting disinformation has since been widely circulated across other online outlets and tabloids.

Legal Proceedings, Refusal to Challenge the Boundary and Ineligibility for Adverse Possession

Tabloids claim 'no legal ruling on who officially owns the land has yet been made' are misleading

However:

• The Myers’ solicitor formally invited Rosa and Murray Bell to seek a boundary ruling at the court hearing. They declined.

• The judge also extended an invitation during the hearing for them to pursue a boundary determination. Rosa Bell again declined.

• In court, Rosa and Murray Bell did not dispute the fact that they remain ineligible for adverse possession.

The Judge confirmed that 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.