Property Law - Adverse possession

brehayes

Heya. Could someone just advise whether or not this is true:

Apparently, under Property Law in this state, if a property is vacant for a considerable period of time (unspecified what 'considerable' is), that the duty to upkeep the premises lies with the local authoruty?

Secondly, if a property IS vacant, is it true that squatting on such premises for 12years or more turns ownership of the property over to the squattor, i.e. provided that there is no legal owner for such a period of time?

I'd apreciate your help - I heard this enigma this evening and it seems odd to me!

Wishbone Ash

brehayes wrote:

Apparently, under Property Law in this state, if a property is vacant for a considerable period of time (unspecified what 'considerable' is), that the duty to upkeep the premises lies with the local authoruty?

Presumably they would have to make adequate efforts to contact the owner first. Failing that, AFAIK the local authority can clean up the property if they believe that it is a health hazard or if there are complaints about it, eg. littered/rat infested etc. The owner, if established, can be prosecuted under litter legislation.

if a property IS vacant, is it true that squatting on such premises for 12years or more turns ownership of the property over to the squattor, i.e. provided that there is no legal owner for such a period of time?

AFAIK, provided that no one claims ownership during that time. This often occurs with farmland.

Lplated

Query has nothing to do with property law, at least in the sense of the ownership, transfer of or responsibility over same. However it is the case under certain of the many, many statutes conferring functions on local authorities (see Consol Local Govt Leg, volumes 1 and 2), that a local authority can 'come after' the owners of a property and require them to do certain repairs etc... If the owners don't, the local authority can do certain works to the property and can pursue the owner with the cost of same.

Note that that is not at all the same as the local authority having a 'duty to upkeep' the premises of private individuals.

Your second question is also a bit mixed up legally. In the first place property ALWAYS has an owner (in the legal sense). What you're talking about is the law on Adverse possession - essentially where A takes possession of a property without the permission of the owner. It is the lack of permission that makes it adverse. In Irish law one had to maintain such adverse possession for 12 years before one could claim good title over and above the legal owner.

I gather that there is a fairly recent ECJ (European) judgment which casts into doubt the law on Adverse possession as we used to operate it. I'm unsure how/if this will play in irish courts.

dermot_sheehan

Lplated wrote:

I gather that there is a fairly recent ECJ (European) judgment which casts into doubt the law on Adverse possession as we used to operate it. I'm unsure how/if this will play in irish courts.

The ECHR decision in Pye v. UK?

It appears on the face to be restricted to instances of registered land. The Supreme Court held the irish system constitutional in Cahill v. Sutton. As a statutory provision in irish law the irish courts can only issue a certificate of incompatibility if it infringes the convention.

A simple solution would be do as the UK did in their Registration of Title Act 2000 which provides for notice to be served on the registered owner 2 years before registering ownership by adverse possession. This could be done by amending s. 49 of the Registration of Title Act 1964 in the new Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Bill 2006, but this appears not to have been done.