Leasehold & Freehold Titles on our property

Leasehold & Freehold Titles on our property

Postby dubs » Sun Apr 10, 2016 11:47 am

We have finally had our day in court for the above boundary dispute (First Tier Tribunal Hearing) on the 1st March 2016 with our Determined Boundary and rear garden fence Adverse Possession applications being successful and the other party’s front garden Adverse Possession also being successful.

We are grateful for the advise we received on this forum which was helpful as we represented ourselves at that Hearing.

We are pleased with this decision until we read in detail the decision on Mr Smith’s Adverse Possession which is based on the Leasehold Title we discovered during this dispute is still on our property even though we purchased the Freehold in 2008 for £3800 (both are shown on the Land Registry site)

We also applied for these titles to be merged in November 2014 via an AP1 Land Registry form and paid the £40 fee; this has not yet being fully processed by the Land Registry.

With the Judge’s decision relying on the old Leasehold Title does anyone on this site have any advise or experience on this type of issue as not only does it affect the Judge’s decision on the Adverse Possession application but also the possible award of our costs as she has stated that with there being no overall successful party she is minded not to award costs.

Any advise appreciated.



We have now digesting the full content of Judge Elizabeth Cooke decisions and in particular paragraphs 70 and 71 below on Mr Smith’s successful application for Adverse Possession of part of our front garden strip on the above case.

The more I read the Judge's decision on Smiths front garden Adverse Possession being successful against our old Leasehold Title the more unjust it seems to us, see paragraph 70 and 71 below.

We were not to concerned about the front garden area but when you take the Judge's ruling on Costs into account stating that with Mr Smith being successful on his Adverse Possession there is no overall successful party it becomes very important.
With us paying thousands of pounds for the Freehold in 2008, about £3800 if I remember correctly, surly we are the Freehold Owners of our property and the time to claim Adverse Possession starts running again.

I did mention this particular issue to the Judge at the Hearing and at first before lunch, she said she was not sure, after lunch she made a quick remark to me stating adverse possession could be claimed.

The Judge is more than lightly correct but I would like to know your thoughts on this, as again it seems unjust that through no fault of our own and after paying thousands for the Freehold it is not working in our favour.

70. The law of adverse possession is about the bringing to an end of the right to take
action; if a landowner does not remove a trespasser by bringing an action against him
within 12 years (under the pre-2003 law) then the right to remove the trespasser comes
to an end and the landowner's title is lost. The complication that arises when land is
let is that while the lease is running its course the freeholder cannot remove the
trespasser because he does not have possession of the land but once the lease comes
to an end, time starts running again. In 2008, Mr and Mrs Davis bought the freehold to
their house. The freehold and leasehold titles have not merged. The freehold title
remains unaffected by the adverse possession.

71. Accordingly Mr Smith’s application on Form ADV1 succeeds and I have directed the
Chief Land Registrar to give effect to his application as against the leasehold title
dubs
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:15 pm

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 

Re: Leasehold & Freehold Titles on our property

Postby arsie » Sun Apr 10, 2016 12:44 pm

Hi dubs long time no see. Well done for persevering and winning 2-1. I hope this hasn't blighted your life too much although I find that as long as I don't get too wound up there is nothing wrong with having an interest and a cause to fight. As you say though it seems a little unfair on the costs but no costs award is better than what could have been if you had been found completely in the wrong.

I would take issue with the Land Registry why they have not actioned your application to merge titles after so long. Is there a complaints channel for them to reimburse your resulting unpaid costs?

I would make representation - if you have a right to do so - asking for a 'stay' by the judge pending HMLR's response assuming the outcome on Mr Smith's AP application would have been affected had your title as freehold, granted in 2008, been merged as you requested well before the court hearing.

After all this time the pics and plans you posted are no longer accessible? I for one have forgotten the details. It may be helpful to put them up on a 'cloud' web site for us to see. The URL button can then be used to post hyperlinks to them.

Again well done it is nice to hear a report of a (mostly) successful outcome.

edit: dubs, two threads will be confusing henceforward I think. Posting here has alerted those who had responded to the original thread but I think you must decide one way or the other. You need to post the pics anew so I would do that in one place then make that the active thread. You can post a link to one thread from another so people can read the old history.

My preference (nothing since Nov'13 and it is now Apr'16) would be your new thread. You have been to court on the original topic and you now raise a new problem re your merging of titles application.
arsie
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Norfolk


Return to Boundaries

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests