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

Title to Pumphouse - Squatter's rights

Options
  • 01-02-2020 12:30pm
    #1
    Pumpiton
    Registered Users Posts: 17 ✭


    Hi, looking for some opinions / perspectives here especially if you are of a legal persuasion..

    There is a dispute locally regarding title to a group water scheme pump house site...

    Aprox 45 yrs ago some locals got together and established a local group water scheme. The pump house was located on a local mans land and at the time I believe the agreement was that he would get free water in his field in lieu of giving the site. The site was never formally transferred to the group water scheme.

    The man subsequently died and my father purchased the field with the pump house on it aprox 25 years ago. Aprox 2 years after he purchased, the GWS allowed him a new connection from the pump house directly to a new water trough in the field. Aprox 1 year later the well borehole failed and my father allowed the GWS bore a new well just outside the pumphouse wall in our land. This was fenced off by the GWS scheme committee.

    All was fine until aprox 2006 when the local county council began to put pressure on the scheme that facilities were not up to standard. So consultants report was produced looking a at 2 options, upgrade the current system or merge with an adjoining GWS. The consultants report at the time stated clearly that the pumphouse was on lands not owned by the local GWS.

    The proposal to merge was agreed, the local council spent some money upgrading both sytems and the legal agreement signed in 2007 specified that all assets owned by the local GWS would be transferred to the bigger GWS. The merger did not proceed however due to disputes it seems between the committees over meters and possible water charges and both GWS continued to operate independently until recent events

    During the summer, the local GWS became polluted and HSE became involved. So pressure came on to get the merger back on track so locals would have potable water. However at this stage the bigger GWS wanted ownership of both the pumphouse and the borehole to the rear, both of which are in my father's name. They claim that these should be assets of the local GWS by squatters right and insist that they are handed over.

    The county council became involved and drafted paperwork to get the pumphouse and site transferred from my father to the local GWS who would then pass it on to the larger GWS.
    My father is not willing to do this as this was not part of the original agreement and he sees it as opportunism / bullying by the larger GWS. At this stage relations locally have become strained, as locals want water and my father is being painted as the reason why the merger is not going through.

    We have been in touch with our Solicitor on a couple of occasions and he seems to think the local GWS have no grounds to claim squatters rights on either the original pumphouse or the extra borehole site.

    Mediation was mooted by the county council and we were willing to engage but the larger GWS will not. Solicitor feels that the legal heat will intensify now to find a solution. At no point up till last summer was the local committee thinking of taking the lands off my father, in fact one of the committee members asked him and myself what our plans were for the pumphouse after the merger had gone through.

    One of our options is of course to give in and sign the lands over for a quiet life, but in that case the bully ie the larger GWS wins.

    What are peoples thoughts on this scenario? I would welcome different perspectives here.

    Thx.


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    jumbone
    Registered Users Posts: 609 ✭✭✭jumbone


    Not well versed in the legalities of the matter but surely the local GWS would not be entitled to squatters rights given that your father (and the previous owner) received water free of charge?

    i.e. He gives use of the land and gets something in return

    New question would be whether the water counts as 'income' and if there may be a tax liability. Might be worth getting advice on that


  • Options
    #3
    elperello
    Registered Users Posts: 14,492 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Is the site directly accessed from the public roadway or do the GWS members need to cross your land to get to it?


  • Options
    #4
    Pumpiton
    Registered Users Posts: 17 ✭Pumpiton


    elperello wrote: »
    Is the site directly accessed from the public roadway or do the GWS members need to cross your land to get to it?

    Site directly accessible from the public road.

    The annual water rent was £100 and then €200 fixed rate. As we were members of the group scheme for other lands, the new connection did not attract any increased fee, but we were allowed it... dunno if that equates to rent for the pumphouse.


  • Options
    #5
    nuac
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,769 Mod ✭✭✭✭nuac


    Mod
    Will leave open for general discussion subject to forum rule on legal advice
    Recommend consideration of mediation to minimise cost and trauma of litigation


  • Options
    #6
    Pumpiton
    Registered Users Posts: 17 ✭Pumpiton


    nuac wrote: »
    Mod
    Will leave open for general discussion subject to forum rule on legal advice
    Recommend consideration of mediation to minimise cost and trauma of litigation

    Thx, as mentioned, we are open for mediation. The larger GWS is not. They are the ones backed up by the Co.Co putting pressure on the local GWS to obtain the site from us either voluntarily or adversely.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    https://www.odwyersolicitors.ie/what-are-squatters-rights/
    Squatters Rights is not a legal term but one that is commonly known where somebody tries to claim land without acknowledging the true owner.

    The correct legal term is Adverse Possession. There are a number of conditions which must arise before anybody can claim Squatters Rights or Adverse Possession. The very first thing that must be done is that the occupier, or squatter, must have used the property as their own for more than 12 years.


  • Options
    #8
    elperello
    Registered Users Posts: 14,492 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Pumpiton wrote: »
    Thx, as mentioned, we are open for mediation. The larger GWS is not. They are the ones backed up by the Co.Co putting pressure on the local GWS to obtain the site from us either voluntarily or adversely.

    Has anyone from either of the GWSs or the Council explained why they want to get ownership of the land?


  • Options
    #9
    Pumpiton
    Registered Users Posts: 17 ✭Pumpiton


    elperello wrote: »
    Has anyone from either of the GWSs or the Council explained why they want to get ownership of the land?

    Hard to say exactly. The council say they want the boreholes decommissioned. The other GWS say it's part of the assets so they want it.. they may want to put a monitoring station on it but other locals have offered sites free of charge for a monitoring station if its required.

    We are of the opinion that it's just pure stubbornness..... it should be part of the assets so they we want it...... or maybe they intend to re-open the borehole st some future date...

    BTW meant to say earlier that we have no problem handing over the contents of the pump house ie pumps, storage, piping etc... s they are GWS assets...it's just the ownership of the site/land we want to retain.


  • Options
    #10
    louis346789
    Registered Users Posts: 320 ✭✭louis346789


    Is it possible to successfully claim adverse possession when the Gws appear to have the consent of the registered owners to occupy the property


  • Options
    #11
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,169 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    OP would also want to be aware of possible sterilization of ground around the borehole, if it's going to be used as public water supply. Some CC are more fussy about this than others. It could be a radius of 50m.
    The original scheme should have had trustees, more recently most of these have been converted into coops.
    IWS the CC have legally feck all to do with the assets of any of the schemes. The scheme may be anxious to hold it as a back up source.
    Really annoying when the generosity of people is abused.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,169 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    The free annual water seems to me to be a form of rental. So the ground belongs to the OP.


  • Options
    #13
    elperello
    Registered Users Posts: 14,492 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Pumpiton wrote: »
    Hard to say exactly. The council say they want the boreholes decommissioned. The other GWS say it's part of the assets so they want it.. they may want to put a monitoring station on it but other locals have offered sites free of charge for a monitoring station if its required.

    We are of the opinion that it's just pure stubbornness..... it should be part of the assets so they we want it...... or maybe they intend to re-open the borehole st some future date...

    BTW meant to say earlier that we have no problem handing over the contents of the pump house ie pumps, storage, piping etc... s they are GWS assets...it's just the ownership of the site/land we want to retain.

    There seems to be goodwill on your side.

    The GWS really only needs continued use of the site.It's hard to see why they are pushing so hard to get ownership.

    Would a long term lease be acceptable to you?


  • Options
    #14
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,169 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    They have to be fair with the OP and explain exactly why they need to buy. Telling OP it's to decommission is a porkie.


  • Options
    #15
    Pumpiton
    Registered Users Posts: 17 ✭Pumpiton


    Water John wrote: »
    OP would also want to be aware of possible sterilization of ground around the borehole, if it's going to be used as public water supply. Some CC are more fussy about this than others. It could be a radius of 50m.
    The original scheme should have had trustees, more recently most of these have been converted into coops.
    IWS the CC have legally feck all to do with the assets of any of the schemes. The scheme may be anxious to hold it as a back up source.
    Really annoying when the generosity of people is abused.

    Yes we are aware of the 50m zone around the borehole and had been observing that from the point of view of slurry and ferttiliser for years.

    It is concern alright that the borehole could be re opened In the future with possibly increased exclusion zone...


  • Options
    #16
    Pumpiton
    Registered Users Posts: 17 ✭Pumpiton


    elperello wrote: »
    There seems to be goodwill on your side.

    The GWS really only needs continued use of the site.It's hard to see why they are pushing so hard to get ownership.

    Would a long term lease be acceptable to you?

    Yes a lease would be acceptable to us. We have already offered a way-leave to use the site for monitoring purposes but this was rejected...


  • Options
    #17
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,169 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    A question that needs answering is, are the GWS pumping and treating the water themselves or is this contracted out to a Water Company? Many now would be buying the treated water at a wholesale price and a private firm running the assets.


  • Options
    #18
    Pumpiton
    Registered Users Posts: 17 ✭Pumpiton


    Something has just occurred to me....

    Is there an expiry date on a contract if it hasn't been executed?

    The original contract was signed in summer 2007, the local council delivered the agreed updates and a new treatment plant was commissioned. The contract specified that once the treatment plant was commissioned the two GWS schemes would merge... this never happened....

    It it possible that the larger GWS could walk away from the agreement as it's so long going on?


  • Options
    #19
    Pumpiton
    Registered Users Posts: 17 ✭Pumpiton


    Water John wrote: »
    A question that needs answering is, are the GWS pumping and treating the water themselves or is this contracted out to a Water Company? Many now would be buying the treated water at a wholesale price and a private firm running the assets.

    The local GWS is pumping and treating the water themselves using outdated equipment.... we are on a boil water notice since the summer...

    The larger GWS got an upgrade of their infrastructure as part of their agreement to merge the two schemes...


  • Options
    #20
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,169 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    That water treatment equipment was 100% funded by the Dept of Envir.
    The CC will continue to give the smaller scheme grief until it's sorted.


  • Options
    #21
    elperello
    Registered Users Posts: 14,492 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    It might be worth your while getting your local County Councillor to have a word with the Director of Services dealing with it in the County Council.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,169 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    What to require is honest answers from everybody, then you can make an informed decision.


  • Options
    #23
    elperello
    Registered Users Posts: 14,492 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Water John wrote: »
    What to require is honest answers from everybody, then you can make an informed decision.

    This is what is needed.
    There are so many questions.

    Who are the trustees of the other GWS looking to take the OP's land?
    Are they farmers?
    If not what do the farmers on that committee think of what is going on?


  • Options
    #24
    Pumpiton
    Registered Users Posts: 17 ✭Pumpiton


    elperello wrote: »
    This is what is needed.
    There are so many questions.

    Who are the trustees of the other GWS looking to take the OP's land?
    Are they farmers?
    If not what do the farmers on that committee think of what is going on?

    Some of the other committee would be farmers alright... why are they looking to get their hands on the pump house site, as I said already we don't know really, they say they need a site for a monitoring station but alternative sites are available. .... as stated earlier there were some disagreements between both committees going back over the years so it may be as simple as we are stuck for water and they are in a strong position so want to drive home their advantage.

    BTW my father is not on the committee of the local GWS so not privy to all the details of what went on.


  • Options
    #25
    elperello
    Registered Users Posts: 14,492 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    It doesn't ring true.

    Farmers above all know the value of preserving the integrity of a holding.
    Why would they be involved in what is essentially a land grab from one of their own?
    All they need is the use of a bit of land which as you have said is available via a lease.

    Perhaps the IFA might intercede.


  • Options
    #26
    Pumpiton
    Registered Users Posts: 17 ✭Pumpiton


    Water John wrote: »
    What to require is honest answers from everybody, then you can make an informed decision.

    We are not going to get straight answers from the big GWS as to what there intentions are.. they have pulled out of mediation.... basically they are sitting back while the pressure increases locally...

    The only way I can see out of this for us is to try get the local council to put pressure on the larger GWS to go ahead with the merger....
    To help us do this we need to clearly show

    1. The pump house was not owned by the local GWS when the agreement was signed and both parties to the agreement knew this. (consultants report proves this)

    2. Squatters rights or adverse possession cannot apply.

    If we can convince the council that we are a party that have no part to play in the agreement between the 2 GWS the council may go after the real villain in the piece.... the larger GWS.

    Hence my OP about squatters rights/adverse possession.


  • Options
    #27
    Pumpiton
    Registered Users Posts: 17 ✭Pumpiton


    Water John wrote: »
    That water treatment equipment was 100% funded by the Dept of Envir.
    The CC will continue to give the smaller scheme grief until it's sorted.

    Yes this was the CC original position. Put pressure on the small GWS to put pressure on the the land owner to transfer the site of the pump house to the small GWS who will then transfer the site to the large GWS.....


  • Options
    #28
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,169 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Water failing tests puts pressure, not on you but the committee of the small GWS. They have that responsibility and not resolving the water quality carries a risk for, either if their still trustees or the Coop Board. The risk to trustees is a personal risk.
    Whilst they have the water source they seem to think they can flout the requirements to provide a potable supply, that's water of a drinking standard.
    What is proposed I presume is a merger.


  • Options
    #29
    Pumpiton
    Registered Users Posts: 17 ✭Pumpiton


    Water John wrote: »
    Water failing tests puts pressure, not on you but the committee of the small GWS. They have that responsibility and not resolving the water quality carries a risk for, either if their still trustees or the Coop Board. The risk to trustees is a personal risk.
    Whilst they have the water source they seem to think they can flout the requirements to provide a potable supply, that's water of a drinking standard.
    What is proposed I presume is a merger.

    Yes a merger was proposed and agreements signed in 2007.. small GWS to hand over its assets to large GWS and CC to upgrade both systems to cope.. That happened (cc work) but merger did not due to disagreements between 2 committees about meters, rate, connections, etc etc. Both GWS operated independently... until pollution problem last summer...

    Small GWS committee and CC not without blame here either.... but our family are being painted as the ones holding up the water as we wont hand over the pump house... you know the simplified way things are painted sometimes..


  • Options
    #30
    Pumpiton
    Registered Users Posts: 17 ✭Pumpiton


    Water John wrote: »
    Water failing tests puts pressure, not on you but the committee of the small GWS. They have that responsibility and not resolving the water quality carries a risk for, either if their still trustees or the Coop Board. The risk to trustees is a personal risk.
    Whilst they have the water source they seem to think they can flout the requirements to provide a potable supply, that's water of a drinking standard.
    What is proposed I presume is a merger.

    There were trustees originally but I think every member is a trustee or a member of a coop or company now so everyone within the group liable now?

    Incidentally there has not been an AGM or a committee meeting in 5 or 6 years so may not even be a properly constituted committee at this stage ...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,169 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    IT really needs to be a merger, even if one scheme is a lot bigger than the other.
    You have nothing to be aggrieved for. You and your family have been very generous.
    BTW can all the two schemes be fed by gravity from the reservoir, if they have one? Maybe they need you're site as a pumping distribution station?

    There is also a water committee, in each CC. This has reps from GWS, some councillors and the water engineer and an officer of the National Federation of GWS.


Advertisement