I wonder if anyone has an answer to what seems to be a perverse finding of the Agricultural Land Tribunal (ever heard of it?).

I had a classic 'Rylands and Fletcher' situation where adjoining land owned by a farming partnership flooded because of a failed drain. The county council advised the correct forum was the ALT, which is a branch of DEFRA and apparently must include a farmer member.

Both my own and the farmers titles are registered with absolute titles and share a common boundary. The defective pipe was clearly located in the farmers title.

When I asked for assistance from the Land Registry it firstly confirmed that the pipe was within the farmers title but curiously 'could not confirm this because of the general boundary rule'. The physical boundaries have been unaltered for around 70 years.

In spite of the evidence in the title deeds and the previous confirmation from the LR that there was no evidence to suggest the legal presumption of a 'hedge and ditch situation' within the pre-registration deeds of both titles when considered on first registration, the finding of the tribunal was that a ditch existed more than 40 years ago and applying the presumption effectively added the land including the pipe and its maintenance to my title.

There is much more to this matter including the question of necessary easements which now need to be created because the drain has to go somewhere beyond my property and others need to access the drain. On the question of prescriptive rights: when did the additional land become part of my property. In 1940 when originally built? In 1973 when converted? When I purchased in 1982 or the tribunal decision in June 2011?

One of the various consequences now is that the extent of my land is not the same as the registered plan and I have been reminded by the LR that a defined boundary can only be achieved by the 'complicated and potentially expensive' procedures under section 60 of the LRA 2002. The LR had already indicated that 'it was likely' that it would follow the tribunal finding but it takes no proactive steps to alter the titles to reflect the decision.

I have therefore unsuccessfully asked the LR how would I prove my title now on a proposed sale where presumably the additional land is more than that shown on the filed plan and how can I (or indeed anyone selling a registered title) give a full title guarantee including the right to convey the 'title' if in spite of a filed plan, showing indeterminate general boundaries which could increase or decrease the land owned. Logically this could perhaps mean the guarantee related only to whatever is registered but may not accurately reflect the actual physical extent of the 'property'. Does anyone proceed on that basis?

On reflection I think I should have gone to the county court!

I would welcome other practitioners' comments and also wonder what Frances Silverman thinks.

Barry Forbes-Bell, retired, Nun Monkton, York