Handing over an adverse possession

Re: Handing over an adverse possession

Postby jonahinoz » Sun Apr 23, 2017 9:45 am

Hi,

In the 1980s, I bought seven and a half acres of Welsh mountain ... £4,000. A couple of years later my solicitor told me that I had to go and sign an affidavit with a DIFFERENT solicitor, so that I could claim absolute title for a half acre of land that I thought I already owned.

Whatever, the affidavit was a painless process, cost me £5.

I later sold that half acre for £750, but the buyer took out Indemnity insurance, in case a "paper owner" emerged from the woodwork. I recently took out two indemnity insurances, connected with my house sale (garage with no PP), they cost me £22 each.

If I was Cardiffbloke, I'd be tempted to take a punt, subject to price. His solicitor will (I think) want paying separately for the plot. Land Registry will want their pound of flesh. And there will be bills to pay in ten years time. It's a gamble, but the chances are it is one that Cardiffbloke will regret not taking. If the Paper Owner does appear, make him prove his case, not too onerously, and hand the land back with good grace.

Adverse possession (Squatter's Rights) is not stealing, you cannot steal something that has been abandoned ... a recent High Court ruling, I understand. There are laws that now prevent you occupying an abandoned building, however.

You might have to search you conscience to decide if you have a moral right to claim this land. I had an argument with the local squire ... he said his forefathers fought for the land I was walking over. So I offered to fight him for it. :D

John W
jonahinoz
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:15 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: Handing over an adverse possession

Postby Cardiffbloke » Sun Apr 23, 2017 5:24 pm

IMG_0026.JPG
IMG_0025.JPG
Hi guys, there has been a development.... I have done some research and it seems the parcel of land the current owner fenced off and 'adversely possessed' was actually part of the estate in the first place' as evidenced by the photo of the deed of sale in 1931. Some how between then and now this parcel of land became 'unregistered' and detached from the ownership. This parcel remains unregistered.
What do I do now? Is there a way to correct this situation?
H
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Cardiffbloke on Sun Apr 23, 2017 5:59 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Cardiffbloke
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:03 am

Re: Handing over an adverse possession

Postby arborlad » Sun Apr 23, 2017 5:46 pm

Until you are more certain of the situation I think it would be wise to delete the above images.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7386
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Handing over an adverse possession

Postby pilman » Sun Apr 23, 2017 7:08 pm

Some how between then and now this parcel of land became 'unregistered' and detached from the ownership. This parcel remains unregistered.
A possible interpretation of that fact is that after 1931 part of the land was sold off.
Since compulsory registration of land was imposed on the area in which this land is situated there may have been no dealings with the land, which is why it is unregistered.

The owner of the legal estate in that parcel of land now remains unknown, so the act of possession started the period of 12 years running which is the length of time that the true legal owner has to start repossession proceedings.

The Limitation Act 1980 applies to the current situation.
Section 15 specifies that after 12 years no legal action can be taken by the legal owner.
Section 17 specifies that after 12 years the legal title is extinguished.

The Land Registration Act 2002 now applies to when someone in adverse possession, which has to be exclusive possession with the intention to possess, can provide evidence that there has been in excess of 12 years adverse possession when making an application to Land Registry to be registered as owner with a possessory title.

The first part of that evidence will be statements of truth signed by the person who first started adverse possession that confirms when this possession started.
The second part of that evidence will be statements of truth from the person who continued that adverse possession beyond the 12 year cumulative period.

Despite what others may have posted, under English law there is no such thing as theft of land.
There is only possession of land that is adverse to the legal owner's right to possession.
Then the Limitation Act kicks in to extinguish that legal title if after 12 years the legal owner has done nothing about this possession by another person.

I can only repeat my earlier advice, which is to obtain statements from the person and his family who can confirm when adverse possession started and then continue to use the land as though it was part of the property being transferred to you.

The seller needs to sign a TR1 form to transfer registered land to you.
He should also be asked to provide the signed statement or statements of truth (if his family also provide ones) That is the evidence you can use to show that you continued to use the land next to the registered land from the time you completed the purchase.

After the full period 12 years is up, which will be after you complete the remaining period of time as successor in possession, this evidence can be used to support you claim to be registered as owner of that additional parcel of land.

I can't understand why people think that is difficult, because you will definitely be the new owner of the registered land once the TR1 form is in your possession and you will be beginning a period of time after which you will be intent on claiming ownership of the adjacent parcel of land.
pilman
 
Posts: 2840
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:08 pm

Re: Handing over an adverse possession

Postby Cardiffbloke » Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:24 pm

Thank you Pilman, that's very clear...
Cardiffbloke
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:03 am

Re: Handing over an adverse possession

Postby Cardiffbloke » Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:26 pm

Quick one.... does the fact that I have a mortgage preclude me from taking this course of action?
Cardiffbloke
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:03 am

Re: Handing over an adverse possession

Postby pilman » Mon Apr 24, 2017 12:43 am

does the fact that I have a mortgage preclude me from taking this course of action?
The mortgage is granted against the security of the registered property, so a subsequent claim to be in adverse possession of any other property is of no interest to a mortgagee.

It's no different to you having a mortgage on one parcel of land and then buying several adjacent parcels using your own money. In the example being posted about you want to acquire ownership of the adjacent land through possession.

The Mortgagee has no interest in anything other than the security over the area of land that was valued before the mortgage was granted.
pilman
 
Posts: 2840
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:08 pm

Re: Handing over an adverse possession

Postby Cardiffbloke » Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:29 pm

Thank you
Cardiffbloke
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:03 am

Re: Handing over an adverse possession

Postby jonahinoz » Wed Apr 26, 2017 9:07 am

Hi,

My experience was that the Land Registry would not put my house, and an adjacent "adverse" plot, onto the same register, until I had absolute (freehold) possession of both. Not a problem, just a long wait before the paperwork could look reassuringly tidy.

John W
jonahinoz
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:15 pm

Re: Handing over an adverse possession

Postby arborlad » Sun Apr 30, 2017 7:30 am

mr sheen wrote:
arborlad wrote:
mr sheen wrote:This is a long process complicated by the fact that multiple squatters are going to be involved..




Not sure about this comment, currently there's one, if the OP decides to go ahead with the purchase, he will be the second.


What are you not sure about Arborlad? Is the definition of ''multiple' your problem?

'Multiple'. Adjective...having more than one part. In the sentence given multiple is used as an adjective to describe the number of squatters ie....more than one.

Or is it the tense used?..... The future tense is used to indicate that 'multiple squatters' ie more than one, is not the current situation but 'is going to be' involved. Here the present tense of the verb 'to go' is used along with an infinitive..this is common usage to indicate the future and an action that has not yet been completed.

Anything else I can help you with?




I would define multiple as several or many, which doesn't match with the current situation of one.

Your continued jibes at my lack of educational qualifications is not worthy of you or the forum.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7386
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Handing over an adverse possession

Postby jonahinoz » Sun Apr 30, 2017 8:38 am

Your continued jibes at my lack of educational qualifications is not worthy of you or the forum.

Hi,

OT ... a member of an other forum (Hillman Imps) criticised some "atrocious" spelling in a previous mail.

Another (new) member replied , saying he did not want to be a member of a forum where such petty attitudes existed, and was intending to unsubscribe.

"Hang on!" said the Complainer, "It was my own spelling I was commenting on!"

My? The characters are worn of my keyboard, I'm dyslexic, I'm not PC literate, and I suffer from "fat finger". And anyway .... I can't spell.

John W
jonahinoz
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:15 pm

Re: Handing over an adverse possession

Postby pilman » Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:10 pm

I didn't intend to hi-jack this thread but the pedantic comments about what is the meaning of the word "multiple" seems to indicate that some people seem to consider themselves to have a better grasp of the English language than others do.

There has never been multiple people in possession of the land that originally started as the subject of this thread. There was a single person in possession who now has a successor, who is also a single person in possession.
Each successor was in possession that was adverse to the true legal owner.

To claim that multiple people were in possession does imply that there was a group of people in possession, so the word "multiple" can be taken out of context.

I thought that offering advice to a poster was a good thing.
I think that criticising grammar, grasp of English, or spelling is uncalled for and hope it won't start to become a trend when someone wants to show how clever they are, without offering sensible advice about the subject of the thread.
pilman
 
Posts: 2840
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:08 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.
 
Previous

Return to Boundaries

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests