Should I consult a barrister?

[Shortperson]

i have a boundary dispute with my neighbour that is coming up to two years. It involved a large piece of land to the side of my driveway which my neigbour fenced off in March 2024 but is shown on my Tiitle Deeds to be mine.

its been an uphill struggle to get my neighbours to engage.

I’ve had a boundary survey and a year ago I’ve just recieved my neighbours survey which very different from mine. My survey shows a straight line for the boundary but my neighbours is curved to include the extra 120 cm - although my neighbours is has taken more than that over a 60 foot driveway.

My neighbour says that the boundary is different from the land registry because of a verbal agreement with a deceased neighbour who agreed to move the boundary 120 cm I to the boundary.

My neougbouri is now going to adverse possession as from 2003 because they maintained the land to the side of the driveway and have got witness statements from neighbours.

I have a Soilcitor who sent a letter before action as I was getting no response from my neighbours and now I have a 185 page report which includes a survey, letter and witness statements. My neighbour hired the surveyor not his Solictor and used most of thd info from my survey. You could say the survey was biased .
My solicitor is charging quite a lot. I can’t move because of the dispute.

it’s not a small amount of land — 2 metres along a 60 foot driveway.

Has anybody been thfough tthis ?

Why would a barrister be any help? is there a trial?

If you’re not happy with your solicitor you could find a new one. You can’t usually just engage a barrister directly plus as pp said what do you want them to do?

You can use a barrister directly if they are direct access qualified.

What is the next step as advised by your solicitor?

If you have any contacts it might be worth asking around to see if anyone can recommend a solicitor who specialises in this sort of dispute rather than just a jobbing High St one.

That and talk to the surveyor they may well know whose good

Generally the solicitor engages the barrister, think of them as the case manager. A barrister is required if you’re moving to litigation and you need representation in court, this is what a barrister does. What has your solicitor recommended, have they said it’s litigation and you need a barrister?

Op here is an ai over view of the difference between a solicitor and a barrister, in case this is your confused on what they do and think a barrister is more senior than a solicitor, it is not it is simply just diffeeent types of legal work. As said, think of your solicitor as the case manager and the barrister as the person who speaks in court, the solicitor instructs, or hires, the barrister.

if you’re unhappy with your solicitor and are using high street you can go to larger or more specialist firms, but be aware hourly rates can increase significantly.

ai over view.

In the UK, solicitors handle day-to-day legal work, client contact, and out-of-court matters like contracts and property, while barristers are specialist courtroom advocates, providing expert oral arguments and representation in higher courts, often instructed by solicitors; solicitors are generally employed, whereas most barristers are self-employed in chambers, known for distinctive gowns and wigs
.
Here's a detailed breakdown of their roles:
Solicitors

• Primary Role: First point of contact for clients, providing general legal advice, handling transactions, drafting documents, and managing cases outside of court.
• Work Setting: Typically work in law firms, government, or organizations.
• Client Relationship:
• Direct, ongoing relationship with clients
• Advocacy: Can represent clients in lower courts but often instruct barristers for higher court advocacy.
• Skills: Strong client management, research, writing, and negotiation skills.

Barristers
Primary Role: Specialist advocates, focusing on courtroom representation, legal arguments, and expert advice on specific points of law.
Work Setting: Usually self-employed, working from shared offices called chambers.
Client Relationship: Often instructed by solicitors, acting as independent experts.
Advocacy: Specialize in higher courts (Crown Court, Court of Appeal) and known for wigs and gowns.
Skills: Exceptional public speaking, persuasive communication, and deep knowledge of specific legal areas.

Key Differences Summarized
Focus: Solicitors (client & office work) vs. Barristers (courtroom advocacy).
Employment: Solicitors (employed) vs. Barristers (self-employed).
Instruction: Solicitors hire barristers.
Appearance: Barristers wear wigs/gowns in court, solicitors usually don't.
While historically distinct, the roles have blurred, with solicitors gaining advocacy rights, but the core distinction in focus and court level remains

I’m a solicitor. Normally the solicitor handles the pre-action correspondence and litigation process and the barrister does the court bit (advocacy). You can instruct a direct access barrister but there are things they can’t do as they are not permitted to “conduct litigation” so can’t, for example, send letters or file court documents for you.

From what you’ve said I don’t think you need a barrister at this stage, you need continued advice from solicitor on litigation.

As for the surveyors, if this is litigated then the court will need expert advice either from expert witnesses (surveyors) on both sides or, more likely, from a jointly-instructed one. The duties of an expert witness are set out in CPR Part 35 and a report which has been commissioned directly by your neighbour not in compliance with Part 35 will be of no evidential value.

It's evolved slightly in that a barrister can get themselves authorised to conduct litigation on a direct access basis (though I think at the moment most still haven't), and can send a pre-action letter for a client on a direct access basis even if not authorised to conduct litigation. But I agree with you that disputes like this which one hopes will resolve without going to court tend to be better dealt with by solicitors and OP is best guided by a solicitor as to whether a barrister's advice (eg where the law is ambiguous) would help to cut through things or guide strategy at this point.

I had a similar situation albeit a smaller area. Thank goodness my neighbour upped sticks and moved suddenly, having lied and not declared the dispute.

It is very hard to change ownership of registered land if someone contests it. Sadly solicitors, I including my own, will charge £££ and in my experience it didn’t count for a lot. I don’t think I really have advice, but I would be asking your solicitor or another what process is needed for them to claim ownership. Currently it isn’t registered to them per the registry, and they will have to get it registered to them if they are convinced they own it. I would think that requires action from them. I was told I had nothing to defend until my neighbour took me to court over it and she didn’t.

Firstly do you want this land or are you just annoyed that its on your deeds and they are using it? If you do not want it then let them legally register it and pay all costs involved. If you do want it then move their fences off YOUR title deeded legal property. A verbal agreement with a dead person could not hold up in court. You can thank them for maintaining the land voluntarily all these years but if on title deeds it is yours and you paid for it then take it back.

If the neighbours have a valid claim for adverse possession, moving the fences would be a waste of time and could mean OP has to foot the bill to replace them.

OR op could continue the argument that it is indeed her land by law and no nod nor hadshake will change that fact. Of course this should have all been dealt with at initial point of sale...

Wow you wouldn't think OP knows how to use AI?

Why clog the boards up with 'AI told me this'. Waste of space on a human communication forum.

The neighbours have used the land as their own for more than 12 years. It is land adjacent to their own and they appear to have reasonably believed it was theirs. There is therefore a good chance they can claim adverse possession, in which case OP arguing that it is her land by law will get her nowhere.

Thats why I asked if op really actually wanted this land or is just becaue on the deeds. I know what I would do in this position but op may be really wanting to fight for that piece of land.