Claiming adverse possession and leasing

paranoid pete

My girlfriend leases a room in Rathmines. She's been there about four years and the house next door to her has been abandoned with all its contents for the past 4 years.

We were discussing the law of adverse possession and we were debating how we could take possession of the house and not be convicted of trespassing (just hypothetically).

I said the best way to do it would be to break in and change the locks like the Jack Blackburn case. I would then have the electricity reconnected and have any bills put in my name. Then I would put the property online and lease it to tenants. By leasing it to tenants I would still be in possession.

Is that correct; can an adverse possessor remain in possession of a property by leasing it?

Bepolite

You wouldn't be in adverse possession. You'd be in hot water with various agencies that regulate the rental sector.

mickdw

You can look up the owner on landdirect.ie in most cases. Could it be a council owned property?

paranoid pete

mickdw wrote: »

You can look up the owner on landdirect.ie in most cases. Could it be a council owned property?

No it's privately owned.

ezra_pound

paranoid pete wrote: »

My girlfriend leases a room in Rathmines. She's been there about four years and the house next door to her has been abandoned with all its contents for the past 4 years.

We were discussing the law of adverse possession and we were debating how we could take possession of the house and not be convicted of trespassing (just hypothetically).

I said the best way to do it would be to break in and change the locks like the Jack Blackburn case. I would then have the electricity reconnected and have any bills put in my name. Then I would put the property online and lease it to tenants. By leasing it to tenants I would still be in possession.

Is that correct; can an adverse possessor remain in possession of a property by leasing it?

Lol. It shouldnt be too hard not to be convicted of trespassing. Last time I was on planet earth it wasn't a crime.

ezra_pound

ezra_pound wrote: »

Lol. It shouldnt be too hard not to be convicted of trespassing. Last time I was on planet earth it wasn't a crime.

Oops ... It is an offence!

Pat Mustard

paranoid pete wrote: »

Is that correct; can an adverse possessor remain in possession of a property by leasing it?

See the definition of Adverse Possession from the Land Registry website. Link:

2.1. Possession
Possession of land implies actual occupation of the land, and/or receiving the rents and profits out of lands and generally performing those acts of ownership in relation to the lands that are inconsistent with the interest claimed. Of necessity, this involves dispossession of the owner. The Irish Courts have interpreted this liberally in favour of the dispossessed owner.

I would also imagine that if someone broke into a house, changed the locks and began to occupy it, such person could be charged with criminal damage and also entering and occupying land without consent under s.19C of the Public Order Act, amongst other things.

EDIT: I should have quoted s.19C. Post now amended.

Pro Hoc Vice

ezra_pound wrote: »

Oops ... It is an offence!

That depends,

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0013.html

paranoid pete

The Mustard wrote: »

I would also imagine that if someone broke into a house, changed the locks and began to occupy it, such person could be charged with criminal damage and also entering and occupying land without consent under s.19A of the Public Order Act, amongst other things.

I would be proving intention to possess (animus possidendi) by changing the locks would I not?

Your post suggests that squatting is illegal when it is not.

Pat Mustard

paranoid pete wrote: »

I would be proving intention to possess (animus possidendi) by changing the locks would I not?

Theoretically speaking, it might contribute to evidence of animus possidendi, I suppose. I don't believe that changing locks would amount to occupation of land, of itself. I assume that you mean to say that changing the locks and entering occupation would amount to animus possidendi, in which case there would be no argument from me.

paranoid pete wrote: »

Your post suggests that squatting is illegal when it is not.

I pointed out two offences. If you say that they would not apply, then, by all means, feel free to refute my point.

nuac

ezra_pound wrote: »

Lol. It shouldnt be too hard not to be convicted of trespassing. Last time I was on planet earth it wasn't a crime.

Breaking into the property?