My mother died last year and I inherited her house. She had lived there since 1977 and when she moved in there was a single garage which in about 1980 she extended backwards to make one long one.
Next door neighbours also lived there for donkeys years, having built their bungalow on her (ndn) mother's garden effectively. They all had a great relationship, never any issues.
Now the ndn's nephew (with me so far) has been round and produced an ordinance survey drawing from before my mum moved into the house showing a different boundary from the one I have in my paperwork. Mine is more recent, though still from about 20-30 years ago. He is saying that the boundary needs to "go back" to how it was on his drawing, and his Uncle had "allowed" the previous pre-1977 owners to take a bit of their land to accommodate the (original, single) garage. In the plans I have, there is a kink in the boundary line. It would give them about a foot of land "back" but doesn't encroach anywhere near the garage which seems to be his main bone of contention, it's actually about half way up the garden then straightens back out again before it gets to the garage.
This all sounds ridiculously petty to me for what would add nothing to the value of the ndn land or take anything from my mum's.
I think the "kink" probably happened when a wall was replaced by a fence and the anomaly happened then. I can't remember if this was the case, but the kink appears where an old wall ends and a fence has been put up.
Any ideas what I should say? Or who is right? Essentially, which plan takes precedence I suppose.
Thanks in advance!