“No” to noise.
“No” to disputes.
What was the buyer not told?

A home purchased. Problems allegedly withheld.

Miss E and Mr J accuse the Jenkins of material misrepresentation in the sale of Lower Barley Hayes: withholding known shooting disturbance, earlier disputes and longstanding failures to comply with the conveyance. They allege that the resulting purchase exposed Miss E to financial loss, distress and litigation she would otherwise have avoided. They also accuse Rosalind June Jenkins of giving misleading evidence about the property’s history to protect the sellers from liability.

The challenge is specific: compare the sale answers, the later accounts and the documents. The Jenkins deny the allegations. Their substantive response is set out below, alongside the evidence it must answer.

Start with the written answers

The questionnaire gives a concrete point of comparison.

On 3 June 2025, Webbers supplied what its covering email called the previous owners’ PIQ. This six-page Property Information Questionnaire is dated 9 May 2023. It is a different document from the Law Society TA6.

Boundary disputes with neighbours?

No.

Excessive noise or disturbance a potential purchaser should know about?

No.

Other material issues, or anything affecting an average buyer’s transactional decision?

No.

Easements/covenants?

No.

Rights of way/shared access?

Yes — SHARED ACCESS.

The access was disclosed, including in the reviewed TA6 extract. The unresolved question is what was said about its obligations, known problems and the surrounding disturbance—not whether a shared drive was mentioned at all. Read the exact questions and the TA6 distinction.

The formal demand—and the sellers’ denial.

On 30 June 2025, Mr J emailed the Jenkins a three-page letter before action, signed by Miss E and Mr J. It alleges misrepresentation concerning nearby commercial shooting, a longstanding dispute and conveyance non-compliance, and adjacent works. It records a £320,000 purchase and says:

“Had these facts been disclosed, I would never have purchased the property.”

The letter proposed a £350,000 buyback, describing that figure as a valuation, and threatened proceedings. Those are the family’s asserted loss and proposed resolution, not an agreed entitlement.

On 9 July, the Jenkins said they were instructing solicitors and “totally refute” the claims. Their 15 July 2025 reply went further:

“We could not disclose what we were unaware of.”

“We have NEVER had a boundary dispute with Mr Mayo or indeed any other disputes.”

They said they had not experienced shooting so close as described; referred Miss E to her conveyancer and the disclosed right of way; said the road had been agreed when Mayo purchased; and disputed the claim that he had built the neighbouring house. A categorical denial makes the underlying record more important: which documents and observations support each answer? Read the reply in fuller context and the sending chronology.

Would disclosure of the shooting have stopped the purchase?

Miss E’s 6 October 2024 email to Rosalind Jenkins says it would: “I do wish you had told me about it, as I would not have bought this house if I had known.” That predates the letter before action by almost nine months.

The family describes organised commercial shooting on neighbouring land, repeated during the season, and says the organisers told them it had operated for years. The published investigation contains the film of Miss E’s distress, Council monitoring and recurrence correspondence. The question for the sellers is what they knew before the sale—not merely whether shooting is permitted in season.

The commercial-shooting account · Council readings and assessment · Watch the film and read its context

The driver’s recollection challenges the “no disputes” account.

The 31 May 2025 CCTV conversation records a delivery driver recalling an earlier problem involving the neighbouring property and access/boundary setting. Miss E and Mr J say it places similar problems before their purchase and contradicts the later denial. Its candid setting is part of why they consider it important.

Watch the continuous, face-blurred excerpt—not an isolated sentence. It is evidence of the driver’s recollection. Establishing the incident’s date, participants and what the Jenkins knew is the next step; the conversation should not be given an exact 2018 date that it does not establish.

Watch the delivery-driver conversation with its full context

Shared access is not an answer about undisclosed obligations.

The family alleges that the 2 June 1987 conveyance had not been complied with over decades. Miss E’s October 2024 correspondence raises the gate, fencing, road and water arrangements. Her objection is that she inherited a longstanding problem without a truthful account of it.

The PIQ’s “No” to easements/covenants sits beside its “Yes” to shared access. Why that distinction—and where was the buyer given the deed, plan and known compliance history? Clause 2(ii) includes care obligations to avoid damage, injury, nuisance or disturbance “as far as possible” in exercising the granted rights. The published conveyance analysis allows the actual wording to be checked.

The conveyance wording and disturbance complaints · Access and forestry context

The later witness account must be tested against the sale record.

On 16 November 2024, Miss E asked why a historic boundary position different from her understanding of the sale plans had not been disclosed before purchase. Rosalind June Jenkins’s signed statement of 14 March 2025 later gives her boundary and access account. Paragraph 14 says:

“I did not witness any commercial activities being conducted by Mr Mayo from Higher Barley Hayes.”

The statement describes visits rather than permanent residence. The family alleges that her account was misleading and says she later portrayed matters in court as previously problem-free. The written statement, the categorical July denial and the reported oral evidence must each be identified accurately. Peter Jenkins’s role in the sale and joint replies is documented; this record does not attribute Rosalind’s witness statement to him.

The forestry gallery includes dated images from 23 September 2017, 8 July 2019, 26 April 2021 and 15 May 2025. They provide a chronology to investigate, not a verified match between a 2018 felling event and the driver’s approximate recollection. Ask what changed, who knew and what was disclosed.

Inspect the dated aerial and forestry images · Read the witness-statement references · Continue to the boundary expert’s evidence

What Miss E says changed

The call described real ground. What happened to that evidence?

Miss E says that, after Mayo erected a fence which she believed excluded part of Lower Barley Hayes, she telephoned the Jenkins before the litigation. She asked whether Rosalind’s mother had kept land at the top of the bank. In her recollection, Rosalind immediately confirmed a retained area for plants and shrubs, and the need to walk along the top to maintain the bank. Miss E describes it as connecting to the upper garden.

She says Peter independently described access from the driveway by walking up a small bank—a description she recognised as matching the terrain. She told them the new fence had removed access to the upper strip. She also reported destroyed plants and alleged use of poison to kill vegetation.

Peter Howard Arthur Jenkins: did you give that description of access? Rosalind June Jenkins: did you confirm why that land had been retained? Mark the area on the contemporaneous plan and explain the position of the later fence.

At trial, Miss E says, she challenged Rosalind’s account that stakes placed by her father marked the boundary. She asked why those stakes had not been disclosed during the sale and contrasted them with the PIQ’s Land Registry map reference. She recalls receiving no adequate explanation.

When she raised their telephone call, Miss E says Rosalind acknowledged both the call and a small area above the bank containing saplings or trees. Her account distinguishes that acknowledgment from the disputed question of the strip’s legal ownership and exact extent. The relevant transcript passage should identify precisely what was accepted, qualified or disputed. Miss E’s full account, document references and dates

Not an innocent difference in emphasis, Miss E alleges.

Miss E alleges that the later boundary narrative was contrived to favour Mayo and protect the sellers from the consequences of non-disclosure. She accuses Rosalind of dishonesty, rather than merely mistaken recollection. Rosalind Jenkins: explain the map reference, the undisclosed stakes and your reported acknowledgment of the planted strip together. Which part of Miss E’s account do you dispute, and what contemporaneous record answers it?

The existing signed statement describes stakes and a bottom-of-bank boundary; Miss E describes the later fence excluding an upper strip. Those descriptions need to be located on the same plan—not treated as interchangeable. Written statement, paragraphs 8–10 · The actual PIQ entries

Why sell then—and what did the agent already know?

Miss E recalls being told that Mayo, who bought in 1987, had been away for more than twenty years before returning around the period she places at 2018–19. She says extensive clearing and the Jenkins’ first estate-agent valuation occurred around the same period. She suspects a connection between the changed neighbouring activity and the decision to sell.

The valuation date, first marketing instructions and contemporaneous seller–agent correspondence are therefore material. Produce them. When did the decision to sell arise, and what discussions took place about Mayo’s activities or their effect on the property?

In a later discussion about resale, Miss E says the agent who had sold the house to her reported approximately 25 prospective viewers during the Jenkins’ original sale and attempts by Mayo to discourage purchase. The family has expressly confirmed that this concerns the original sale, not Miss E’s later marketing. What did Mayo tell those viewers, what did the agent report to the Jenkins, and what was then disclosed to Miss E before exchange? Produce the original viewing notes, feedback and seller–agent correspondence.

The published aerial sequence includes 23 September 2017, 8 July 2019, 26 April 2021 and 15 May 2025. Compare the actual images with the valuation and marketing dates. The driver’s recorded recollection remains an additional, separately dated source. Inspect the aerial chronology · Watch the driver’s account · The marketing-record question

“Not very much” shooting—and a gate said never to be closed.

Miss E recalls asking Rosalind why shooting had not been disclosed and receiving an answer that there had not been much when they were there. She contrasts this with her account that David Daniels told her earlier shoots involved forty people, after she complained of around twenty. These are the respective statements she reports, not independently counted attendances.

Rosalind Jenkins: what did you know about the shooting, over which years, and what did you actually observe? How does your reported trial answer fit the pre-sale “No” to excessive noise and the later claim that you were unaware of shooting so close? Miss E recalls infrequent visits by sellers living elsewhere. The signed statement gives its own, more specific attendance history, including increased visits from approximately 2021. Read the recorded visiting pattern · The earlier written shooting complaint

Miss E also recalls evidence that the front gate was never closed. She challenges that account against the conveyance made on the original subdivision and what she describes as Mayo’s unfulfilled obligations to install gates and shared boundary fencing. Her point is practical: why provide for a front gate if its protective function was never intended to be used?

The Jenkins and Mayo: identify the actual gate and fencing clauses, the arrangements made, what was installed and maintained, and what compliance history was disclosed before purchase. A duty to install and a continuing duty to close are different questions of the instrument’s wording and interpretation; the specific clause, plan and historic practice should be examined together. The conveyance wording and connected complaints

The judicial question / Timothy Edmund Walsh

Where did the judgment resolve the retained-strip evidence?

Miss E alleges selective treatment of the evidence: that Timothy Edmund Walsh accepted the boundary outcome favouring Mayo while disregarding Rosalind Jenkins’s reported acknowledgment of the planted area above the bank. She says that evidence supported her challenge to the fence and demanded a reasoned answer.

Timothy Edmund Walsh: where did you address the telephone-call evidence, the reported trial acknowledgment, the map reference and the competing stakes account? Identify the findings and reasoning that reconcile them with the boundary declared.

This particular challenge is grounded here in Miss E’s account, not presented as a quotation from an approved transcript. The transcript and relevant judgment passages will allow the exact evidential treatment to be placed side by side. The question is about the reasons, not an assumption that every piece of testimony had to be accepted.

Read the direct judicial question · The wider judgment challenge · The expert-evidence and boundary strand · Miss E’s full account, document references and dates

The family’s case / A duty, a disputed history and consequences

Did an unfulfilled promise leave the next owners to fight the boundary?

The family’s argument is that this dispute need not have been inherited. They say prompt compliance with the 1987 fencing obligation could have provided a physical record of the division while the original vendor was available to clarify its position, rather than leaving later purchasers to contest a new fence and competing accounts. That is their explanation of an avoidable dispute—not an assertion that the deed expressly required a joint boundary-marking exercise.

1. The obligation: clause 2(viii) of the 2 June 1987 conveyance requires the purchasers “to forthwith erect and forever thereafter maintain” suitable dividing boundary fencing. Mayo is a named original purchaser. The precise source and scope.
2. The condition on arrival: Mr J says there was no dividing fence at all. His account identifies the condition he encountered. Installation, maintenance, removal and replacement records are needed to establish the intervening history, rather than infer from one observation that no fence ever existed.
3. The representations and later challenge: the pre-sale questionnaire refers to a Land Registry map. After purchase and the appearance of the disputed fence, Miss E says the Jenkins confirmed a retained planted strip and access from the drive. She says those assurances reinforced her challenge; the later stakes account conflicted with her understanding. Read the actual sequence.
4. The alleged consequences: Miss E and Mr J say non-compliance and misleading information created or prolonged the uncertainty that led them into the boundary dispute. They seek an account of what proper compliance and accurate disclosure would have changed, and recovery of losses they can establish were caused.

The question is not simply “was there a fence?” It is: was the promised division implemented correctly, what were the buyers told, and which subsequent harm would proper performance and truthful information have avoided?

The 1987 deed, its plan, historic photographs, original sale file and later fence must be compared on the same marked plan. The stakes, bottom of the bank and retained upper strip are different descriptions requiring reconciliation. A standard Land Registry title plan does not by itself fix the exact legal line. Land Registration Act 2002, section 60.

Two stages of reliance. Keep both in view.

Before purchase: identify each sale representation, who made it, what was false or omitted from the answer, and how it affected the decision to buy. After purchase: identify the telephone assurances, the decisions to challenge the fence that followed, and resulting expenditure. The later call cannot have induced an already completed purchase; its potential importance is to the later dispute. Misrepresentation Act 1967, section 2 · The questionnaire · Miss E’s account.

Turn the consequences into an evidenced loss schedule.

For each item, identify the claimant, responsible act or representation, date, amount, supporting document and why the expense or harm would have been avoided. Separate survey and investigation costs, any remedial works, alleged loss of use or value, sale-related losses and litigation expenditure. Record actual health effects and seek advice about any applicable remedy; do not assume distress or every hour spent fighting the case is automatically compensable.

Miss E’s and Mr J’s rights and losses need separate identification. Do not count the same loss twice against Mayo and the sellers. The sale-interference record has a linked evidence route for later marketing losses. The wider claims-and-loss record.

Require the fencing history from Mayo · Require the disclosure and reliance record from the Jenkins · Read the sellers’ existing denial in context

Why the alleged non-disclosure matters.

A false representation inducing a purchase can support a civil misrepresentation claim. The sale answers, reliance and resulting loss need to be established; fraud is a separate allegation requiring evidence of dishonesty and intent. A dispute about truthful disclosure is not resolved simply by saying the buyer should consult her solicitor. Misrepresentation Act 1967, section 2.

For the witness challenge, CPR 32.14 concerns a false verified statement made without honest belief in its truth. The family’s dishonesty allegation calls for a precise evidential comparison; a contradiction alone is not a finding of perjury or fraud.

Fourteen questions · Documents, knowledge and responsibility

Answer the particulars. Produce the sale record.

These follow-up questions address Rosalind June Jenkins and Peter Howard Arthur Jenkins, with a fencing-performance question for Mark John Mayo (claimant in L00BP152; Higher Barley Hayes, Torrington area, Devon) and a separate evidence-and-reasons question for Timothy Edmund Walsh (Circuit Judge, Western Circuit; appointed to Exeter Law Courts on 27 June 2022). The letter before action was sent; these consolidated questions are prepared for follow-up and are not represented as separately served.