Who the documents identify
The seller-information page in the trial bundle names Peter Howard Arthur Jenkins (Former seller of Lower Barley Hayes; joint respondent in the sale-disclosure correspondence) and Rosalind June Jenkins (Former seller of Lower Barley Hayes; witness statement signed 14 March 2025). The July correspondence is signed jointly. Rosalind’s witness statement is signed 14 March 2025. Their roles are distinguished throughout this investigation.
9 May 2023: the previous owners’ PIQ
Six-page Fine & Country/Webbers Property Information Questionnaire. Webbers’ covering email dated 3 June 2025 says: “Please find attached the previous PIQ.” The supplied copy has the name/signature fields marked out; the covering email identifies its provenance.
On physical page 3, “No” is circled against:
- “Has there ever been a boundary dispute between you and your neighbours?”
- “Is the property subject to any excessive noise or disturbance that a potential purchaser should be aware of?”
- “Are there any other material issues with the property that any potential purchaser should be made aware of?”
- “To your knowledge is there anything else that has occurred at the property and that would affect the transactional decision of the average buyer?”
The same page discloses a shared drive. On page 5, the Land entry says “SEE LAND REGISTRY MAP WHICH YOU HAVE”; the separate Boundaries row is blank. On page 6, the answer to “Does the property have any easements/covenants?” is “No”, and the following rights-of-way/shared-access question is answered “Yes — SHARED ACCESS”.
The separate TA6 extract
Trial bundle pages 474–476 contain form pages 1, 10 and 11 of the sixteen-page TA6. Question 8.1 discloses “Shared entrance”; question 8.6 discloses “Access to neighbour’s property at all times through shared drive.” The extract reviewed here does not contain the complete disputes section. The PIQ’s answers must not be described as verified TA6 answers.
October–November 2024: objections before the letter before action
In the 4 October reply, the Jenkins discuss the historic water/meter arrangements and say they cannot remember when Mayo’s concrete drive was built. Miss E’s 6 October email raises shooting, conveyance compliance and the burden at home. It says: “I do wish you had told me about it, as I would not have bought this house if I had known”.
Her 16 November email, headed “Witness Testimony”, asks why a different historic boundary position was not explained at purchase. This is a challenge about disclosure and the later evidence, not proof that a general Land Registry plan determines the precise boundary.
14 March 2025: Rosalind June Jenkins’s statement
Trial bundle pages 250–253, with RJ1 at 254–258. Paragraph 6 describes no restriction on Mayo’s practical use of the right of way from 1987 until the sale. Paragraphs 8–10 describe historic stakes and a bottom-of-bank boundary; paragraph 11 says her father permitted a solid road.
Paragraph 14 states that she did not witness commercial activities conducted by Mayo from Higher Barley Hayes. It also says she did not live at the property: visits were several weeks in most years and, from approximately 2021, a week to ten days each month. That limited-observation account is distinct from a statement that no shooting occurred on neighbouring land.
The family’s account of later oral evidence should be matched to the exact hearing passage. No quotation of an approved oral transcript is substituted here for the written statement.
30 June 2025: the letter before action
Email subject: “Legal Notice – Misrepresentation and Demand for Immediate Resolution”. The attached three-page letter is addressed to both sellers and signed by Miss E and Mr J. It alleges undisclosed commercial shooting, a longstanding dispute and conveyance non-compliance, and adjacent works. It says disclosure would have prevented the £320,000 purchase.
The proposed resolution was a £350,000 buyback, described in the letter as based on a valuation, with a £10,000 deposit within 14 days and the balance within 60 days. It requested a response within seven days. This records the demand made, not an agreement, court award or independent valuation finding. The allegation concerning the neighbouring house was disputed in the reply below.
3 July: a response promised. 7 July: Mr J reiterated the demand. 9 July: the Jenkins said they were instructing solicitors and totally refuted the allegations. 10 July: Mr J responded that the dispute would go to court.
15 July 2025: the substantive reply
Email subject: “Lower Barley Hayes”. Sent by Rosalind and signed “P and R Jenkins”. The reply tells Miss E to refer matters to her conveyancing solicitor and refutes all allegations.
“In all the times we were at Lower Barley Hayes we never had any shooting issues so close to the property as you describe. We could not disclose what we were unaware of.”
“We have NEVER had a boundary dispute with Mr Mayo or indeed any other disputes”.
The reply calls shooting common in the rural area and not illegal in season; points to the right of way in the TA6; rejects the suggestion they discussed a non-existent boundary dispute with a delivery driver; says the road was agreed when Mayo purchased; and says the neighbouring house is over 200 years old, not a house newly built by Mayo. It directs planning matters to him.
The family disputes this response and asks for the underlying sale and knowledge records. The driver’s recollection is not automatically an assertion that the sellers discussed the dispute with him.
29 April 2026: the disclosure issue remains live
Miss E’s email headed “Trial at Exeter – 2 June 2026” tells Rosalind that the circumstances of the sale and non-disclosure will be examined and reserves the family’s rights. It is separate from a draft letter circulated between the family.
2 October 2026: Miss E’s account of the sale, telephone call and trial
This account was supplied directly by Miss E in the family’s instructions to this publication on 2 October 2026. It is her recollection of the conversations and cross-examination, not a newly supplied signed statement or approved hearing transcript. Its reporting date is not the date of the telephone call or trial.
- Before purchase: Miss E says the Jenkins did not explain the conveyance obligations or disclose the boundary position later supported in court. She relies on the sale questionnaire’s reference to the Land Registry map and says she was not told that stakes supposedly defined a different line.
- The earlier setting: she recalls being told Mayo bought in 1987, was absent for more than twenty years and returned around 2018–19. She recalls the first valuation in approximately that period and connects it with extensive clearing. Valuation, marketing and return dates require their own records.
- The telephone call: after the fence appeared and before the court proceedings, she says Rosalind confirmed a retained upper strip for her mother’s plants and shrubs and access to maintain the bank. Peter, she says, described reaching it from the driveway up a small bank. She reported loss of access, destruction of plants and alleged poisoning of vegetation. The call’s exact date, any notes and the plan identifying the area are requested.
- The trial: she recalls challenging Rosalind’s stakes account against the pre-sale map reference, then raising the phone call. She says Rosalind acknowledged the call and a small area above the bank containing saplings or trees. Precisely what was admitted about location, ownership and extent must be established from the passage—not assumed from an acknowledgment that a call happened.
- Judicial treatment: Miss E alleges Walsh ignored the part favourable to her and upheld the fence position. Her account supplies the challenge; the relevant transcript exchange and judgment paragraph will permit a direct comparison of evidence and reasons.
- Marketing and viewings: she says that, during a later discussion about resale, the original selling agent reported around 25 prospective viewers and efforts by Mayo to discourage them. The family expressly confirmed that these viewings concerned the Jenkins’ original sale. Miss E heard the agent’s report later; the original viewing notes and seller–agent correspondence are requested to establish dates, what was said and what the sellers knew before her purchase.
- Shooting: she recalls Rosalind describing limited shooting when present. She reports Daniels saying there had previously been forty shooters, after she complained of around twenty. The timing, wording, frequency and sellers’ actual knowledge are separate questions.
- Gates and fencing: she recalls evidence of the gate never being closed and contrasts it with the original subdividing conveyance and alleged longstanding non-compliance. She says those problems were not disclosed and would have prevented the purchase.
Document distinctions that keep the challenge precise
The reviewed PIQ has the Land entry “SEE LAND REGISTRY MAP WHICH YOU HAVE”; the separate Boundaries row is blank. The boundary-dispute question is elsewhere, on page 3, with “No” circled. Miss E draws attention to the faint marking: retain a clear original copy for comparison rather than infer alteration from faintness alone. The questionnaire source note
HM Land Registry title plans generally show general boundaries, not the exact legal line. The conveyance and plan, historic features and other admissible evidence must be assessed together. The challenge here is to what was disclosed and how later evidence was reconciled, not that a title-plan line alone settles the dispute. HM Land Registry practice guide 40, supplement 3
The gate’s installation, intended function and ongoing closing arrangements require the complete clause and context. A statement about its existence does not by itself settle every obligation in its use.
Miss E alleges that the later account was knowingly misleading and coordinated to support Mayo. Her belief about coordination is attributed to her; no direct communication arranging false testimony has been supplied with this account.
Return to the prominent comparison · Read all named questions
Primary deed / Clause 2(viii), physical page 2
2 June 1987: the obligation to erect and maintain dividing fencing
The supplied conveyance copy identifies Ronald Roy Britton as vendor and Mark John Mayo as one of the original purchasers. Higher Barley Hayes is the conveyed property; Lower Barley Hayes is the retained land. Clause 2 introduces the purchasers’ covenants with the vendor.
Clause 2(viii) begins “to forthwith erect and forever thereafter maintain”. It requires suitable boundary fencing to divide the conveyed property from the retained land. The quoted words are a verbatim excerpt; the remainder is summarised. This is separate from the gate-maintenance contribution in clause 2(vii) and the care/disturbance obligation in clause 2(ii).
Source checked: the supplied four-page PDF titled Conveyance Agreement between the two properties, physical page 2, visually inspected against the alternative supplied copy. The fourth page contains the plan. The copy’s footer refers to a preceding notes page not included in that file; this source note does not describe it as a complete certified original or determine the exact boundary from the plan.
Mr J’s arrival account and the family’s causal allegation
In his account supplied on 2 October 2026, Mr J says there was no fence at all subdividing the properties when the family moved in. He alleges longstanding non-compliance and argues that prompt fencing in 1987 would have prevented the later dispute. His observation on arrival and his allegation about the longer history are distinct. The requested installation, maintenance, removal and replacement records would test that history.
Miss E’s earlier account places the retained-strip telephone call after purchase and after Mayo’s later fence appeared, but before litigation. That is not a pre-sale assurance. The pre-sale questionnaire, later call and witness evidence must therefore be considered as separate stages of the alleged loss. Pre-sale questionnaire · Miss E’s full account · Signed witness-statement references.