OT: Planning / land ownership problem

"Al Reynolds" wrote | Sideways thought - if this piece of land has been used for access, | or could even have been a right of way, can't you just establish the | right of way and not bother buying the land? I think there's something | called easements relating to this, but IANAL so I'm not sure. The | people at No. 35 can't sell it if they don't own it and can't claim | adverse possession, so it'll stay unregistered and serve as a right | of way.

A right of way is for the general public. The owner of adjacent land walking across it would not be sufficient to establish a right of way, because it would not be general public use.

Owain

Reply to
Owain
Loading thread data ...

"Al Reynolds" wrote | Should be fine - the tenants cannot claim adverse possession | because they were there by arrangement and with permission. | Occupation needs to be unauthorised to qualify for adverse | possession.

If the landlord does not have lawful right of posession or occupation then he cannot grant a lawful tenancy to tenants (you cannot grant that which you do not have). The tenants *would* therefore have a claim of adverse possession because their possession would be adverse against the true owner of the land; but they would not have a claim of adverse posession against their landlord.

Whether the landlord renting the property out would defeat his own claim of adverse possession (on the ground he had not taken personal possession of the property) is another matter.

Owain

Reply to
Owain

Agreed. My main point was that if it was originally a right of way then it would remain as such even if the actual owner turned up.

Al

Reply to
Al Reynolds

Sorry - that's what I meant - that they would have no claim of adverse posession against their landlord. I don't think they would have a claim of adverse possession against the true owner, because it would be tricky to show their "intent to possess the land" when they are party to an agreement in which they are merely renting it.

AFAICS there are no requirements about what the "squatter" does with the land while they are waiting their 12 years for adverse possession, so it shouldn't make a difference. I think the OP meant that the solicitor had rented the house at No.35 from them (not the strip of land in question), so any effects on the owner's ability to claim adverse possession may depend on the rental agreement terms.

Al

Reply to
Al Reynolds

If you mean flattening number 35 - then yes, buying that house and knocking it down has been considered (by the likely developer of the site, who has also said that he'll go round every house that borders the land to see if the current owners want to sell and then do the same) but only as a last resort.

As for knocking down the existing house on the plot - that wouldn't give the required access I'm afraid.

Reply to
TRK's dad

I don't know if they have or not. But, they don't own what was an alternative access to the plot (and since the demise of the other one the *only* access) - they tried to buy that a few years ago but couldn't because "no one owns it".

Reply to
TRK's dad

Why on earth not?

If previous owners aquired it then it was theirs to sell.

MBQ

Reply to
MBQ

I think the key is in the use of quotation marks around 'acquired' - I think what the OP meant was that they had qualified for adverse possession, but hadn't actually gone through the process.

Al

Reply to
Al Reynolds

"Al Reynolds" wrote | > A right of way is for the general public. The owner of adjacent | > land walking across it would not be sufficient to establish a | > right of way, because it would not be general public use. | Agreed. My main point was that if it was originally a right | of way then it would remain as such even if the actual owner | turned up.

Of course, as some people have found to their cost, a right of way does not necessarily mean the right to vehicular access. And, AFAIK, you can't get (one of) planning permission / building regs approval for a dwelling that a fire engine can't get to.

Owain

Reply to
Owain

Cheers for that.

What's the position where a strip of land, no longer a public right of way, has not been registered but an adjacent land owner has put a caution on it, despite it never having been enclosed or "occupied" in living memory?

AJH

>
Reply to
sylva

IA(still)NAL

As far as I know, putting a caution on a piece of land just means that you get notified if anyone is trying to do something with that bit of land e.g. claim adverse possession, register it for the first time, sell it, etc. It's one way of declaring an interest (however slight) in the land.

I could be completely wrong on this BTW. I'm going on a vague memory of when a friend of mine was studying land law.

Al

Reply to
Al Reynolds

Fair enough.

In this case the adjacent landowner has indicated he intends to fence the strip and take it into his garden, so I think the caution is an initial stage of his adverse possession. I would like to know what will legally prevent me accessing this piece of land, as until he can prove his claim by squatting it for 12 (??) years, it is not his to prevent me. Even though the highway authority are confirming its extinguishment as a public right of way.

AJH

Reply to
sylva

You could just continue to use the land despite the fence. He can't stop you in any legal sense. You could then offer a compromise: you each fence off half the land and claim half each in 12 years time.

Al

Reply to
Al Reynolds

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.