Title to Pumphouse - Squatter's rights

Pumpiton

Water John wrote: »

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.

Thanks John, you obviously have some expertise in this area given your username.

We are trying to arrange a meeting with an Engineer in the Water services division in the CC to see what can be progressed. It really shouldn't be our problem but we need to clear our name and put the monkey where the monkey should be so to speak.

Yes the merger should go ahead, the smaller local GWS are now anxious that this happen, but the larger GWS wont proceed unless they get the Pumphouse site and borehole ... so stalemate...

Pumpiton

Water John wrote: »

.
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?

/QUOTE]

The chlorinating capacity, storage, pumping stations, pipe network of the larger GWS were upgraded at cost of in excess of €5m to be able to cope with the merger so all infrastructure is in place... it is just a matter of opening a sluice valve... and the will to do so.

Water John

It's not in the small GWS gift as they don't own it. A direct discussion with the CC water engineer may be your best option. The big GWS are being smartass. they're may also be a money issue as the members of the big GWS contributed 15% of the capital cost, outside of strictly treatment infrastructure. They may feel the small GWS want a, free ride.

Pumpiton

Water John wrote: »

It's not in the small GWS gift as they don't own it. A direct discussion with the CC water engineer may be your best option. The big GWS are being smartass.

Yes thats what we are trying to get.... they are not really that helpful... seem to be in the large GWS corner... spent over 3 month refusing to acknowledge that we were the owners of the site at all ... insisting that they had no input / responsibility and the matter should be solved locally .. ie we hand over the site.

randomrb

Adverse possession can not be claimed where the person alleging adverse possession has the permission of the landowner to be there.

In this case it is very clear that the GWS operated on the land with the permission on the land owner and that that never changed. They have no case based on the facts you have given.

Pumpiton

randomrb wrote: »

Adverse possession can not be claimed where the person alleging adverse possession has the permission of the landowner to be there.

In this case it is very clear that the GWS operated on the land with the permission on the land owner and that that never changed. They have no case based on the facts you have given.

Thank you, as I said at the outset, our own solicitor was pretty confident that there is no adverse possession case initially, but has recently recommended getting a barrister's advice. So I was looking for different perspectives and angles on the scenario. That element that adverse possession cannot be claimed if some gives permission for the use of the property is one I was not aware of.

Water John

The 'free' water you're allowed in return for the site, I think is the best proof of a de facto rental. Nobody else on the scheme gets that benefit.