Making claim to unregistered land

CuriousFox · 13-03-2019 11:58pm #1

Hi,
Near where I live there is a piece of land which hasn't been used/farmed for as long as I know. Nobody has showed any interest in the land and it has sat overgrown for decades.
Curiosity got to me, so I did a little research and it turns out nobody owns it. I contacted the PRAI and they said the same and that it is unregistered land.

My question is, can I or someone make a claim to the land now or would I have to start occupying/using the land and wait the 12 years to claim adverse possession.

TIA.

nuac · 14-03-2019 12:48am

Mod
Talk to a local experienced solicitor.
Some land was never registered in the Land Registry for various reasons
]

bornio · 14-03-2019 1:05am

It could be registered in the Registry of Deeds

Peregrinus · 14-03-2019 2:59am

Somebody owns it. Just because it's unregistered doesn't mean its unowned.

Claw Hammer · 14-03-2019 1:48pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Somebody owns it. Just because it's unregistered doesn't mean its unowned.

It may be owned in the sense that somebody may be in a position to make out title to it. It may also be the case that it is owned by many people. The last occupier or his successors may have died Interstate with the lands descending to various parties.

BrokenArrows · 14-03-2019 4:51pm

CuriousFox wrote: »

Hi,
Near where I live there is a piece of land which hasn't been used/farmed for as long as I know. Nobody has showed any interest in the land and it has sat overgrown for decades.
Curiosity got to me, so I did a little research and it turns out nobody owns it. I contacted the PRAI and they said the same and that it is unregistered land.

My question is, can I or someone make a claim to the land now or would I have to start occupying/using the land and wait the 12 years to claim adverse possession.

TIA.

Yes the law is that you can occupy and use the land for 12 years and then make a claim for ownership. You will have to show a clear use and improvement of the land.

But if the owner wanders along after 11 years and 51 weeks and tells you to **** off then you have no choice but to leave.

4ensic15 · 14-03-2019 7:57pm

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Yes the law is that you can occupy and use the land for 12 years and then make a claim for ownership. You will have to show a clear use and improvement of the land.

But if the owner wanders along after 11 years and 51 weeks and tells you to **** off then you have no choice but to leave.

It is not that simple. If the owner does any act consistent with ownership such as paying insurance, the 12 years goes. Also, a squatter can only squat against the interest of the person in possession. If the property is leasehold the squatting ends on the expiry of the lease and then has to start again against the superior interest. If you squat on land subject to a 50-year lease you only oust the tenant and after 51 years the landlord can toss you out.

Mr. Incognito · 15-03-2019 3:13pm

You can register Possessory Title.

If no-one challenges it when the statute expires you can convert that to full possession.

You need to speak to a solicitor about doing this.

Dig all · 18-03-2019 12:55am

Hi there , check in the valuation office to see who paid rates on the land back in early years, this will clarify who was renting from the landlord at the time, the valuation office will give you a map with lot numbers on different property's, or check Griffiths valuation, it's digitised now so you can do all online , type in your county and townland and this will bring up around the area where the unregistered land is and it will give you the lot number, the tenent pages comes up as a link on the page so click on each one until your lot number comes up and it will give you a name. Search that name in the registry of deeds to see if they sold it ! .

GerardKeating · 18-03-2019 11:36am

This is purely hypotechical,

But say for example I had "found" some land, which the owners are long lost/emirgrated etc, and started squatting on the land, hoping to gain adverse possession in 12 years.

What would happen if someone else tried the same thing with the same plot of land, would them being on the land restart or stall the clock on my claim?

brian_t · 18-03-2019 12:04pm

GerardKeating wrote: »

This is purely hypotechical,

But say for example I had "found" some land, which the owners are long lost/emirgrated etc, and started squatting on the land, hoping to gain adverse possession in 12 years.

What would happen if someone else tried the same thing with the same plot of land, would them being on the land restart or stall the clock on my claim?

Surely to claim adverse possession you need to show that you have exclusive use of the plot for 12 years.

What steps can you take (if any) to stop other people tresspassing on "your" plot.

Can two people come together to claim adverse possession on a plot.

Peregrinus · 18-03-2019 3:29pm

What brian said. To make a claim for possessory title you need to occupy the land to the exclusion of others. So this will probably require you to fence it (if it's not already fenced) so as to keep out others. If it's already fenced, that make life a bit easier; make sure there's a functional gate and keep it locked. (And of course actually occupy and use the land yourself; it's no use just padlocking the gate and then ignoring the place for 12 years.)

TeaBagMania · 18-03-2019 3:57pm

out of curiosity what do you want to do with this land (build a house, farm, etc) and is it adjacent to land you already own?

madonna123 · 21-03-2019 11:01pm

Adverse Possession is very difficult to prove and the threshold for a successful claim is quite high.

Unregistered land is about 20% of land throughout Ireland. This simply means it is recorded in the registry of Deeds and has unregistered title.

If it hasn't been conveyed since the late 1980's it may be still under the old system.

You would be required to be in active possession of the lands for 12 years if the title is privately held, 30 years if state owned lands or 60 years if the lands are foreshore.

This possession will need to be exclusive to you and exclude all others including the legal owner. Courts refer to this as the Animus Possidendi.

If the owner at any time up until their title is extinguished takes back possession IE, asks you to leave, attempt to enter the land in anyway or even writes to you stating their title your clock stops on possession.

Claw Hammer · 25-03-2019 5:04pm

madonna123 wrote: »

Adverse Possession is very difficult to prove and the threshold for a successful claim is quite high.

Unregistered land is about 20% of land throughout Ireland. This simply means it is recorded in the registry of Deeds and has unregistered title.

If it hasn't been conveyed since the late 1980's it may be still under the old system.

You would be required to be in active possession of the lands for 12 years if the title is privately held, 30 years if state owned lands or 60 years if the lands are foreshore.

This possession will need to be exclusive to you and exclude all others including the legal owner. Courts refer to this as the Animus Possidendi.

If the owner at any time up until their title is extinguished takes back possession IE, asks you to leave, attempt to enter the land in anyway or even writes to you stating their title your clock stops on possession.

Universal compulsory registration only came into effect about 10 years ago. many properties conveyed up into 2007 may well be under the old system depending on the county in which they are situate.

Carawaystick · 27-03-2019 11:15pm

To develop GerardK's point,
if someone litorally found some new land (like Bull Island) What's the rough procedure? occupy and register possession?

Peregrinus · 28-03-2019 2:29am

Carawaystick wrote: »

To develop GerardK's point,
if someone litorally found some new land (like Bull Island) What's the rough procedure? occupy and register possession?

Occupy exclusively, which is going to be difficult since for the duration of the adverse possession period you have no basis for excluding others from the land. Plus, in the case of newly-emergent land like Bull Island, your adverse possession is as against the State, so the period is not 12 years but 30.

Curly Judge · 28-03-2019 2:45am

The best way to find out if someone else owns, or claims to own, a piece of land is to fence it off for your own exclusive use.
If they exist, they'll soon emerge out of the woodwork.

Claw Hammer · 28-03-2019 11:52am

Curly Judge wrote: »

The best way to find out if someone else owns, or claims to own, a piece of land is to fence it off for your own exclusive use.
If they exist, they'll soon emerge out of the woodwork.

The best way to get sued for trespass and face an injunction is to fence it off a piece of land for your own exclusive use.the legal bill might be more than the price of the land.

Curly Judge · 15-04-2019 12:59am

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The best way to get sued for trespass and face an injunction is to fence it off a piece of land for your own exclusive use.the legal bill might be more than the price of the land.

They can't sue for trespass or obtain an injunction without first approaching you and request you remove said fence. Well they can in theory.... but it's highly unlikely they'll get very far.

TeaBagMania · 15-04-2019 2:09pm

Curly Judge wrote: »

They can't sue for trespass or obtain an injunction without first approaching you and request you remove said fence. Well they can in theory.... but it's highly unlikely they'll get very far.

exactly
thats why i asked earlier what the intended purpose was and proximity.
if the land is adjacent and only needed for agriculture than by all means fence it in and use it. "if" the owner happens to show up its a sorry, my bad, lets get this fence sorted, but if twelve years passes without inquiry i guess you can take ownership.
its all a gamble

4ensic15 · 15-04-2019 6:07pm

Curly Judge wrote: »

They can't sue for trespass or obtain an injunction without first approaching you and request you remove said fence. Well they can in theory.... but it's highly unlikely they'll get very far.

Thgey may not get an injunction without asking you to move but they can certainly sue for trespass.

raymick · 23-02-2021 7:39pm

Some of my land was taken by my neighbour and he built some of his house on it
He promised to sort it but he abandoned the property it was then been processed by the bank to repossess it, when I found out I informed the bank, the council and land registry they all said the same thing it wasn’t their problem to get legal representation. so I got my solicitor to inform the auctioneer and the boundary problem was put in the contract for sale. The new owner agreed that some of his house was indeed built on my land and we entered into talks, now he has decided that he wants to go for adverse possession, can he after only one year. Can I go for my land back

Peregrinus · 24-02-2021 2:16am

4ensic15 wrote: »

Thgey may not get an injunction without asking you to move but they can certainly sue for trespass.

They can. But if you leave when challenged they're not going to recover much in the way of damages.

Basically, occupying the land and waiting to see if someone turns up is a low-risk strategy. If someone does turn up, and it becomes apparent that they have a good claim, you can leave. And you've still had the free use of land for however long it was before they turned up.

El Tarangu · 24-02-2021 10:31am

raymick wrote: »

Some of my land was taken by my neighbour and he built some of his house on it

In a case like this (and I am not recommending the poster do this, just to discuss the point of law), what are the rights of the landowner - can they knock down the offending structure as far as the boundary line? Would they need to apply for planning permission to do so; how would it work?

Donald Trump · 24-02-2021 2:30pm

raymick wrote: »

Some of my land was taken by my neighbour and he built some of his house on it
He promised to sort it but he abandoned the property it was then been processed by the bank to repossess it, when I found out I informed the bank, the council and land registry they all said the same thing it wasn’t their problem to get legal representation. so I got my solicitor to inform the auctioneer and the boundary problem was put in the contract for sale. The new owner agreed that some of his house was indeed built on my land and we entered into talks, now he has decided that he wants to go for adverse possession, can he after only one year. Can I go for my land back

A layman's interpretation would be that he can't - he only has been there for one year. The previous fella wouldn't have claimed the adverse possession and I'd imagine the years can't be transferred.

Seems like an arsehole move on his part. If someone tried to pull that on me I'd be tempted to be obstructionist on my end i.e. don't give an inch (literally). If they approached me and offered me a fair price to sort it out and transfer ownership, I probably would have been reasonable.
But given that they instead are trying to "steal" it from you for free, I'd be more likely to be book the wrecking ball for some date in the future and to tell them it's either that or they can pay you what would be an otherwise unreasonable sum of money (i.e. unreasonable for the land/site)

They knew about the issue when they bought. Even if they didn't that is their own fault for not doing their homework.

I'd say to make sure to sort it out now so that he can't later claim it. Because if he figures out he can't do it now, he might be just waiting in the long grass for the time to expire and then pull it out of the bag at that stage.

You could "lease" it to him..........

Corruptedmorals · 24-02-2021 9:21pm

raymick wrote: »

Some of my land was taken by my neighbour and he built some of his house on it
He promised to sort it but he abandoned the property it was then been processed by the bank to repossess it, when I found out I informed the bank, the council and land registry they all said the same thing it wasn’t their problem to get legal representation. so I got my solicitor to inform the auctioneer and the boundary problem was put in the contract for sale. The new owner agreed that some of his house was indeed built on my land and we entered into talks, now he has decided that he wants to go for adverse possession, can he after only one year. Can I go for my land back

We bought a house with a boundary concern. The sellers had to apply for adverse possession as we could not, it restarts the 12 year period once ownership changes.

Peregrinus · 25-02-2021 3:36am

El Tarangu wrote: »

In a case like this (and I am not recommending the poster do this, just to discuss the point of law), what are the rights of the landowner - can they knock down the offending structure as far as the boundary line? Would they need to apply for planning permission to do so; how would it work?

I'd get a court order before I started knocking down part of somebody's house. Just saying.

The key issue here is that A, living in the house that he built, is occupying part of B's land. He's trespassing. The fact that he has put up a structure on B's land is an aggravation of the trespass. So, B wants him out; he brings an action for ejectment, and seeking damages for trespass. The damages will need to cover the cost of removing the structure that A erected, if that's what B wants to do. I don't think B can just demolish the bit of the house that projects into his land, and leave the rest of the house with a gaping hole; the work shouldn't damage the rest of the house unnecessarily and should be done in a workmanlike way, so should include constructing e.g. a new end wall for the house, on the boundary line. The damages sought should cover the cost of doing the job properly. B would be very unwise to start work before he gets his order for ejectment and his award of damages.

Realistically, the work can't be done without some discussion and co-operation between A and B and, realistically, they will consider other solutions than partial demolition of the house - it might suit A better to make an offer to buy the bit of the land that he has occupied, and it might suit B better to accept that offer. Or, depending on the exact facts, they may agree total demolition of the house, or dividing the house into two self-contained premises along the boundary line, or they become joint owners of the house, or whatever.

Any work that is done, or any significant change in the use of the house, will need planning permission (unless it happens to fall into the provisions of the planning regulations dealing with exempt developmen - e.g. maybe if all that has to happen is the removal of a conservatory that projects into B's land, that would probably be an exempt development).

AndrewJRenko · 25-02-2021 8:22am

raymick wrote: »

Some of my land was taken by my neighbour and he built some of his house on it
He promised to sort it but he abandoned the property it was then been processed by the bank to repossess it, when I found out I informed the bank, the council and land registry they all said the same thing it wasn’t their problem to get legal representation. so I got my solicitor to inform the auctioneer and the boundary problem was put in the contract for sale. The new owner agreed that some of his house was indeed built on my land and we entered into talks, now he has decided that he wants to go for adverse possession, can he after only one year. Can I go for my land back

What does your solicitor advise?

Claw Hammer · 25-02-2021 4:45pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

A layman's interpretation would be that he can't - he only has been there for one year. The previous fella wouldn't have claimed the adverse possession and I'd imagine the years can't be transferred.

.........

What good is a laymans interpretation?

Donald Trump · 25-02-2021 6:33pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

What good is a laymans interpretation?

It's a public message board.
Perhaps you are on here as a qualified Senior Counsel giving advice for free, but others can also post opinions even if they aren't qualified barristers

And am I wrong to say that he can't claim for adverse possession after only owning it for one year? What is your free legal expert option on the matter?

Claw Hammer · 25-02-2021 6:40pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

It's a public message board.
Perhaps you are on here as a qualified Senior Counsel giving advice for free, but others can also post opinions even if they aren't qualified barristers

It is a discussion forum. Posting an opinion based on some kind of research is one thing. Posting an "opinion" specifically stating that it is from an unqualified person with absolutely no reference to any publicly available materials or sources is another. If you make an assertion you should be able to back it up in some form. It wouldn't matter what qualifications you purported to have if you could point to some source for your proposition.

Donald Trump wrote: »

And am I wrong to say that he can't claim for adverse possession after only owning it for one year? What is your free legal expert option on the matter?

A person who owns something doesn't have to claim adverse possession. Try again.

Donald Trump · 25-02-2021 6:43pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It is a discussion forum. Posting an opinion based on some kind of research is one thing. Posting an "opinion" specifically stating that it is from an unqualified person with absolutely no reference to any publicly available materials or sources is another. If you make an assertion you should be able to back it up in some form. It wouldn't matter what qualifications you purported to have if you could point to some source for your proposition.

A person who owns something doesn't have to claim adverse possession. Try again.

People posting on a message board should read the details.

A person bought a house. It turns out that part of it is built on land they don't own. It is however owned by the poster

When then don't own it, it tends to mean, and I understand that this may be nuanced for some, that they don't own it.

raymick wrote: »

Some of my land was taken by my neighbour and he built some of his house on it
He promised to sort it but he abandoned the property it was then been processed by the bank to repossess it, when I found out I informed the bank, the council and land registry they all said the same thing it wasn’t their problem to get legal representation. so I got my solicitor to inform the auctioneer and the boundary problem was put in the contract for sale. The new owner agreed that some of his house was indeed built on my land and we entered into talks, now he has decided that he wants to go for adverse possession, can he after only one year. Can I go for my land back

Try again.

Claw Hammer · 26-02-2021 12:25pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

People posting on a message board should read the details.

I recommend you try it sometime

Donald Trump wrote: »

A person bought a house. It turns out that part of it is built on land they don't own. It is however owned by the poster

In case you missed it, that is the point of the thread. There is a dispute about ownership. It would come down to whthere one person can block the other's paper title.

Donald Trump · 26-02-2021 6:06pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

I recommend you try it sometime

In case you missed it, that is the point of the thread. There is a dispute about ownership. It would come down to whthere one person can block the other's paper title.

Ah, I see the problem. You are mixing up the OP with the person I was responding to - who made it perfectly clear that at least part of the house (they are referring to) is built on their land

With all due respect, I wouldn't like to be paying you for advice if you are a solicitor.

If you had done a little less sneering then maybe you wouldn't be being called out on you lack of attention to detail

Claw Hammer · 27-02-2021 12:36pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Ah, I see the problem. You are mixing up the OP with the person I was responding to - who made it perfectly clear that at least part of the house (they are referring to) is built on their land

I am not mixing you up. Your analysis of the situation is defective. The o/p has a piece of paper saying he owns some land but he is not in possession of that land. the issue is whether or not he has a remedy.

Donald Trump wrote: »

With all due respect, I wouldn't like to be paying you for advice if you are a solicitor.

Donald Trump wrote: »

If you had done a little less sneering then maybe you wouldn't be being called out on you lack of attention to detail

I didn't miss any detail. Your analysis of the situation is defective. You have put forward propositions of law with no sources and you plainly don't understand the issues. Not content with that you launch personal attacks as nif you have some understaning of the situation.

topdecko · 27-02-2021 12:53pm

OK can you get back on point here. These threads are fascinating in terms of the legal machinations involved for us lay people.
As regards the second scenario where someone has build a house on the land and sold it on - this then becomes part of the contract for sale.
Surely its a simple solution in that the new owner needs to pay the person for the land that was taken otherwise the house has been built illegally and thus could be knocked down. I assume the courts would always find in favour of the actual landowner in this regard.
Seems a crazy to my mind to apply for adverse possession in this scenario as it is not a derelict piece of unused land unlike OP.

Claw Hammer · 27-02-2021 1:08pm

topdecko wrote: »

O

Surely its a simple solution in that the new owner needs to pay the person for the land that was taken otherwise the house has been built illegally and thus could be knocked down.

Why would the new owner pay anything if the the defence of adverse possession is available.

topdecko wrote: »

I assume the courts would always find in favour of the actual landowner in this regard.

The courts follow the law. A person can, on paper own land, but may be unable to enforce their ownership due to lapes of time.
In any event who is the actual landowner?

topdecko wrote: »

O

Seems a crazy to my mind to apply for adverse possession in this scenario as it is not a derelict piece of unused land unlike OP.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't matter whether or not it is derelict. Sleep on your rights and you canh lose them.

El Tarangu · 27-02-2021 3:05pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'd get a court order before I started knocking down part of somebody's house. Just saying..

Just to change the example slightly - if A has built a sperate, stand-alone structure that had not received planning (like a shed or a prefab office) completely on B's land, would B be on surer footing for going and knocking it down? Or could B be still liable for damages to A's contents in the shed/office during the demolition?

Donald Trump · 27-02-2021 5:34pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

I am not mixing you up. Your analysis of the situation is defective. The o/p has a piece of paper saying he owns some land but he is not in possession of that land. the issue is whether or not he has a remedy.

I didn't miss any detail. Your analysis of the situation is defective. You have put forward propositions of law with no sources and you plainly don't understand the issues. Not content with that you launch personal attacks as nif you have some understaning of the situation.

I think you are still confused.

If you are actually a solicitor and not a mere worthless "layman" then you might want to consider asking for a refund on some of your educational fees.

The post I answered was asking if a person could apply for adverse possession one year after taking possession of a property. I only opined that I wouldn't think that they could. You appear to think they can. You are again sneering at me for lack of sources, but have put forward no basis for your contention, and one can only presume that you plucked it out of somewhere the sun don't shine.

Go on then, give us your source that a person can claim adverse possession after one year? Either that or keep quiet.

What good is your interpretation? :pac:

Edit: Just to remind you, this is the post which contains the question that I responded to, and that you subsequently issued your condescending sneery response to.

raymick wrote: »

Some of my land was taken by my neighbour and he built some of his house on it
He promised to sort it but he abandoned the property it was then been processed by the bank to repossess it, when I found out I informed the bank, the council and land registry they all said the same thing it wasn’t their problem to get legal representation. so I got my solicitor to inform the auctioneer and the boundary problem was put in the contract for sale. The new owner agreed that some of his house was indeed built on my land and we entered into talks, now he has decided that he wants to go for adverse possession, can he after only one year. Can I go for my land back

ohnonotgmail · 28-02-2021 12:25am

El Tarangu wrote: »

Just to change the example slightly - if A has built a sperate, stand-alone structure that had not received planning (like a shed or a prefab office) completely on B's land, would B be on surer footing for going and knocking it down? Or could B be still liable for damages to A's contents in the shed/office during the demolition?

The lack of planning permission is not a licence to knock down a building erected by somebody else.

Claw Hammer · 01-03-2021 1:21pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

I think you are still confused.

If you are actually a solicitor and not a mere worthless "layman" then you might want to consider asking for a refund on some of your educational fees.

The post I answered was asking if a person could apply for adverse possession one year after taking possession of a property. I only opined that I wouldn't think that they could. You appear to think they can. You are again sneering at me for lack of sources, but have put forward no basis for your contention, and one can only presume that you plucked it out of somewhere the sun don't shine.

Go on then, give us your source that a person can claim adverse possession after one year? Either that or keep quiet.

What good is your interpretation? :pac:

Edit: Just to remind you, this is the post which contains the question that I responded to, and that you subsequently issued your condescending sneery response to.

Below is a link which deals with your question.
It shows 3 things.
1. Your proposition is nonsense
2. You did no research before posting.
3. You are so convinced of your own infallibility that when challenged about a source you resort to abuse and double down your nonsensical proposition.

https://www.prai.ie/adverse-possession-title-by-adverse-possession-to-registered-land/

Peregrinus · 02-03-2021 3:07am

El Tarangu wrote: »

Just to change the example slightly - if A has built a sperate, stand-alone structure that had not received planning (like a shed or a prefab office) completely on B's land, would B be on surer footing for going and knocking it down? Or could B be still liable for damages to A's contents in the shed/office during the demolition?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The lack of planning permission is not a licence to knock down a building erected by somebody else.

The lack of planning permission is not the issue, though. The issue is that the structure has been erected on B's land, and B owns the land.

Lets assume that the structure is not mobile or transportable; it's fixed to the land.

Structures fixed to the land form part of the land and, if B owns the land, then B
owns the structure. A has, selflessly and at his own expense, enhanced teh value of B's land by erecting a handsome structure on it. How generous. So on one view, yeah, it's B's structure; he can demolish it if he wants. (Or, if it really doesn enhance the value of the land, he can apply for retention permission.)

But of course there's almost certainly going to be a dispute about whether B does own the land, so B should think twice before demolishing that structure ahead of getting a court to agree with him that, yes, he does own the land.

EVen assumign that B owns the land, the other point, of course, is that the erection of the structure didn't happen in isolation; it's part of a more extensive trespass. A is using the land and, presumably, using the structure. And you're expected to behave reasonably when dealing with a trespasser. You always start by asking him to leave - which in this case means asking A to stop using the land, to vacate it, and to take his structure down and remove the remains. EVen if matters escalate from there to a point where you decide you will take down the structure yourself, A will have - because you will give him - and opportunity to remove stuff that belongs to him. And, if he doesn't take that opportunity, you will remove it, store it and tell A where he can collect it, rather than simply knocking the building down on top of it.

GerardKeating · 02-03-2021 1:15pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

But of course there's almost certainly going to be a dispute about whether B does own the land, so B should think twice before demolishing that structure ahead of getting a court to agree with him that, yes, he does own the land.

Would "B" not need some form of planning permission to delete the building that "A" built on his land.

raymick wrote: »

The new owner agreed that some of his house was indeed built on my land

Also (according to the OP) the building is seem to only partially built in his land, how you that impact your theory that "B" might own the building.

02-03-2021 1:20pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

What good is a laymans interpretation?

As good as you’ll get on a forum where legal advice is not permitted. Can you put your handbag away, you’ll only cause yourself an injury…

Claw Hammer · 02-03-2021 1:27pm

Deleted User wrote: »

As good as you’ll get on a forum where legal advice is not permitted. Can you put your handbag away, you’ll only cause yourself an injury…

A lot better can be done. Most lay people can read and look up points instead of taking things out of their ass.

MacDanger · 02-03-2021 2:20pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

The lack of planning permission is not the issue, though. The issue is that the structure has been erected on B's land, and B owns the land.

Lets assume that the structure is not mobile or transportable; it's fixed to the land.

Structures fixed to the land form part of the land and, if B owns the land, then B
owns the structure. A has, selflessly and at his own expense, enhanced teh value of B's land by erecting a handsome structure on it. How generous. So on one view, yeah, it's B's structure; he can demolish it if he wants. (Or, if it really doesn enhance the value of the land, he can apply for retention permission.)

But of course there's almost certainly going to be a dispute about whether B does own the land, so B should think twice before demolishing that structure ahead of getting a court to agree with him that, yes, he does own the land.

EVen assumign that B owns the land, the other point, of course, is that the erection of the structure didn't happen in isolation; it's part of a more extensive trespass. A is using the land and, presumably, using the structure. And you're expected to behave reasonably when dealing with a trespasser. You always start by asking him to leave - which in this case means asking A to stop using the land, to vacate it, and to take his structure down and remove the remains. EVen if matters escalate from there to a point where you decide you will take down the structure yourself, A will have - because you will give him - and opportunity to remove stuff that belongs to him. And, if he doesn't take that opportunity, you will remove it, store it and tell A where he can collect it, rather than simply knocking the building down on top of it.

Thanks for your informative posts Peregrinus, it makes for interesting reading.

Some others on here who appear to have some legal knowledge might consider using that knowledge in a similarly helpful manner instead of attempting to prove how "clever" they are.

Notascoobydoo · 05-05-2021 12:54am

I live on the edge of a housing estate built in 90s... 3 housing estates since been built around me leaving a piece of nó man's land next to my house. Council says they have no interest in it and are just care takers, no registered owner so we think it must belong to original building company who have been liquidation 20 years. Land is of no use to anyone unless you are a teenager and want to hide while you drink... There's no access except for ours so we want to build a wall and take it into our garden to secure it and stop anti social behaviour. The council had offered to sell if they owned but we now know they don't. Any advice

SouthWesterly · 05-05-2021 2:02am

Notascoobydoo wrote: »

I live on the edge of a housing estate built in 90s... 3 housing estates since been built around me leaving a piece of nó man's land next to my house. Council says they have no interest in it and are just care takers, no registered owner so we think it must belong to original building company who have been liquidation 20 years. Land is of no use to anyone unless you are a teenager and want to hide while you drink... There's no access except for ours so we want to build a wall and take it into our garden to secure it and stop anti social behaviour. The council had offered to sell if they owned but we now know they don't. Any advice

Had a laneway at the back of my house which residents had gated before I moved in 30 years ago. The neighbours behind took in the bit behind their house into their yard and we did the same.

When selling we regularised the extra 60 sq feet incorporating it into our boundary and sold the house.

Making claim to unregistered land

Comments