Squatters

Mimon · 11-02-2021 02:51PM

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The o/p is unlikely to get an interlocutory injunction which means waiting for a full trial. It will take years and cost thousands. meantime the neighbour is going to be on the land stirring up local sympathy so by the time the o/p wins his case no one in the area will buy it anyway.

The o/ps' family sat on their hands when this guy went onto the land. They are now paying the price.

Sitting on their hands as in incapacitated in a nursing home?

Claw Hammer · 11-02-2021 03:03PM

Mimon wrote: »

Sitting on their hands as in incapacitated in a nursing home?

There was only the uncle in the nursing home, not the whole fanily.

Mimon · 11-02-2021 03:17PM

Claw Hammer wrote: »

There was only the uncle in the nursing home, not the whole fanily.

Maybe no immediate family in the area. Probably why the chancer took advantage of the situation

Doniekp · 11-02-2021 03:40PM

Victor wrote: »

Mere grazing of animals is insufficient to claim adverse possession. I doubt the trailers improve things materially.

If grazing of animals is insufficient, what needs to be done to claim adverse possession?

11-02-2021 03:49PM

Show use of the land by putting Round-up on the land as means of preparing it for further agricultural use after having gone fallow. You will then see how brazen the person is and he will know that you are not entertaining his spurious claim.

893bet · 11-02-2021 03:50PM

I would get a decent solicitor and issue a letter that he is trespassing etc. Make sure the solicitors quotes the right law with regards to adverse possession and how it doesn’t apply etc for the reasons in this thread.

Get your ducks in a row using satellite for when he started using it etc.

**** him. Don’t let the **** have it. Pure utter scum. He will in his arse take you to court. He won’t waste his money.

How big is the area?

11-02-2021 03:52PM

A letter which acknowledges a dispute?
Talk to solicitor about actively using the land and then actively use the land and let him crawl back under whatever rock he is normally to be found under.

Nekarsulm · 11-02-2021 03:56PM

Doniekp wrote: »

If grazing of animals is insufficient, what needs to be done to claim adverse possession?

I think you have to show "improvement", be that fertilizing, repairing fences, clearing drains, cutting weeds etc
There was a case a decade ago where a claim of "adverse possession" failed because the owner could prove he stood on the road and looked in over the hedge at his field.
Farmland is usually mapped to the centre of the road, so in effect the landowner was actually on his own land.

11-02-2021 03:59PM

Also, a gap in a hedge has no justification to exist. If it isn't on an ordinance survey map then close that gap.

Nekarsulm · 11-02-2021 04:01PM

OP, have you got a chance to contact Lands in Cavan?
It's not easy dealing with this class of a hoor when you don't live in the immediate area.
Personally, and speaking as a non-legal person, I'd get that gap closed.
Every day you allow it to exist shows acceptance of his claim.

beertons · 11-02-2021 04:35PM

Plough the whole field?

893bet · 11-02-2021 04:45PM

Deleted User wrote: »

A letter which acknowledges a dispute?
Talk to solicitor about actively using the land and then actively use the land and let him crawl back under whatever rock he is normally to be found under.

That could be a good point.

However I don’t think the OP is in the area to tackle him head on on a daily basis to assert ownership?

11-02-2021 05:07PM

893bet wrote: »

That could be a good point.

However I don’t think the OP is in the area to tackle him head on on a daily basis to assert ownership?

I see not being on site an advantage. Engage Contractor, Round-up, till re-seed.
When the land goes up for sale and the Scrounger sees locals expressing interest in it he'll know he is on a hiding to nothing.
To assert his claim requires a willing solicitor. This isn't a whiplash claim with a good likelyhood of payout. Solicitors will want money up front.

Mimon · 11-02-2021 06:30PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Also, a gap in a hedge has no justification to exist. If it isn't on an ordinance survey map then close that gap.

Safety issue with a tree near the gap and it needs to come down. It's his land so can drop it in the gap if that's the safest place to drop it.

Mimon · 11-02-2021 06:34PM

Farming is a legitimate reason to travel also so I'd be down and walk the fields and take a time stamped video

pockets3d · 12-02-2021 02:12AM

I bet the farmers side of the story reads a lot like the bull mccabes.

Mimon · 12-02-2021 10:00AM

pockets3d wrote: »

I bet the farmers side of the story reads a lot like the bull mccabes.

I think he is just a opportunistic thief who has no morals. Crazy that the law isn't amended so this can't happen.

Claw Hammer · 12-02-2021 01:13PM

Mimon wrote: »

I think he is just a opportunistic thief who has no morals. Crazy that the law isn't amended so this can't happen.

The law isx that if you sit on your hands and don't mind your property, you can lose it. Why should it be changed? Someone could come back after 100 years and claim land otherwise1

Mimon · 12-02-2021 11:15PM

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The law isx that if you sit on your hands and don't mind your property, you can lose it. Why should it be changed? Someone could come back after 100 years and claim land otherwise1

Should set myself up as a land bandit and roam around looking for people who are unfortunate enough to be incapacitated and can't get out to their land.

Yes definitely have the right to have it over the people that the incapacitated person who has now died left it to. All within the "law" of course. It's Bull**** and stop justifying it.

You sound like you have been the beneficiary of stolen land and probably explains the attempted justification

Mimon · 12-02-2021 11:20PM

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The law isx that if you sit on your hands and don't mind your property, you can lose it. Why should it be changed? Someone could come back after 100 years and claim land otherwise1

What Zombie reality do you live in?

Stihl waters · 12-02-2021 11:31PM

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The law isx that if you sit on your hands and don't mind your property, you can lose it. Why should it be changed? Someone could come back after 100 years and claim land otherwise1

I know a lad like you, thinks any blade of grass not ate in last 12 months is his, strange mentality the way some people view other peoples land

Treppen · 13-02-2021 03:01AM

Stihl waters wrote: »

I know a lad like you, thinks any blade of grass not ate in last 12 months is his, strange mentality the way some people view other peoples land

He must be Pat Kenny

Irishphotodesk · 13-02-2021 09:12AM

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The law isx that if you sit on your hands and don't mind your property, you can lose it. Why should it be changed? Someone could come back after 100 years and claim land otherwise1

The owner of the property was in a care home, how is that "sitting on your hands" , given the circumstances, I think your post is very unfair.

I could agree with you in respect of a residential/city dwelling or a commercial unit, but a rural farm .... No.

The new owner, lives a distance from his asset and is not able to visit the area, do you honestly believe that anyone should be allowed take possession,.... There are thousands of pubs that have not opened or other businesses that will never reopen... Are these to be seen as targets for land grabbers?

OP, not sure I mentioned it earlier, but ... Sorry for your loss.

Claw Hammer · 13-02-2021 07:05PM

Mimon wrote: »

Should set myself up as a land bandit and roam around looking for people who are unfortunate enough to be incapacitated and can't get out to their land.

Yes definitely have the right to have it over the people that the incapacitated person who has now died left it to. All within the "law" of course. It's Bull**** and stop justifying it.

You sound like you have been the beneficiary of stolen land and probably explains the attempted justification

Time doesn't run against people who are incapicatitated. The law operates a use it or lose it system. The o/p would likely nwin a court case over it so there is nothing wrong with the law.
There are two sides to every story so if he gets into a self help situation he may well cause himself problems. If that was not the case anybody could find somebody blocking their entrance on the basis that their uncle charlie left the land to them in a will 50,60 or more years ago.

The law doesn't need to be changed. What needs to be changed is people sleeping on their rights. The o/p ignored his uncles land for years. Now he has problems. Hardly a surprise.

BattleCorp · 14-02-2021 02:46PM

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The o/p would likely nwin a court case over it so there is nothing wrong with the law.

The problem with the law is that even if you are right, it can cost an awful lot of money to enforce those rights.

I'm not a solicitor but I'd guess it's not cheap to go to court to get an illegal squatter off your land.

14-02-2021 02:49PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

The problem with the law is that even if you are right, it can cost an awful lot of money to enforce those rights.

I'm not a solicitor but I'd guess it's not cheap to go to court to get an illegal squatter off your land.

They are not living in a house. They are saying that that there land belongs to them. They could just be as easily be pointing to a star in the sky. Kill off the scrub, till it and let them find a solicitor who is willing to make it their life's mission to claim a tenuous right to land that they cannot prove belongs to their client.

BattleCorp · 14-02-2021 02:57PM

Deleted User wrote: »

They are not living in a house. They are saying that that there land belongs to them. They could just be as easily be pointing to a star in the sky. Kill off the scrub, till it and let them find a solicitor who is willing to make it their life's mission to claim a tenuous right to land that they cannot prove belongs to their client.

From the OP's post

My solicitor is telling me I can only get him out by applying for an injunction or court order, which apparently is in the region of €5k upwards.

It'll be about €5k if the squatter goes quietly. If the squatter won't go, it'll cost an awful lot more.

BattleCorp · 14-02-2021 03:01PM

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The law doesn't need to be changed. What needs to be changed is people sleeping on their rights. The o/p ignored his uncles land for years. Now he has problems. Hardly a surprise.

How did the OP sleep on their rights? They aren't from the area and only recently inherited the farm.

I’ve recently inherited a farm from a distant relation and unfortunately I’m not from the area the land is in and wouldn’t be too familiar with the layout.

14-02-2021 03:03PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

From the OP's post

It'll be about €5k if the squatter goes quietly. If the squatter won't go, it'll cost an awful lot more.

It will cost the squatter money to pursue his perceived rights. All you have from the squatter at the moment is bravado.

BattleCorp · 14-02-2021 03:07PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It will cost the squatter money to pursue his perceived rights. All you have from the squatter at the moment is bravado.

On the contrary. The squatter currently has use of the land and has even made his own entrance. It's the OP who has to remove the squatter from the land. So guess where most of the cost will lie?

Squatters

Comments