Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Adverse possesion time limits, change of ownership

  • 27-11-2017 10:56pm
    #1
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭


    A general info question about adverse possession time limits

    The time for a private individual owning land to prevent adverse possession is 12 years, whereas its ~30 years for public landowners.

    How does this difference in time limit work if say a housing estate is taken in charge after a part of the land has been squatted on for say 11 years? Does the clock restart to 30? is it pro-rata'ed

    Another example is land being squatted on, owned by a management co which failes to file accounts and ends up struck off and the assets go to the Finance Minister, and subsequently reinstated. is there a switch to a 30year regime and a reversion to 12 years? or how does it work out?


Comments

  • #2
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,998 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    The ownership of land is not affected when it is taken in charge. If you've been squatting for 11 years and then the land is taken in charge, it still belongs to the owner against whom you were squatting and (assuming that's a private owner) at the end of 12 years - i.e. a year later - you'll have possessory title as against the owner. The land will still be in the charge of the local authority, though.


  • #3
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #4
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,998 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    There isn't any obvious benefit. But it may be that only a part of the land has been taken in charge - e.g. a strip along the margin which is being used as a public roadway. Claiming the entire lot, and accepting that part of it is in charge of the local authority, still gives you ownership and control over the rest of the lot.


  • #5
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    I assumed land taken in charge gave the council some charge or title to it.

    Any thoughts about a company's land taken over by a minister?


  • #6
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,998 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    I assumed land taken in charge gave the council some charge or title to it.
    Nope. Taking land in charge gives the local authority a high degree of (a) control and (b) responsibility, but actual ownership of the land is unaffected. It still belongs to whoever owned it before it was taken in charge.
    Carawaystick wrote: »
    Any thoughts about a company's land taken over by a minister?
    Sorry, no. It's a good question, though.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement