Claim Unregistered Land

Re: Claim Unregistered Land

Postby DIYBath » Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:06 am

Thanks for your time everyone.

I think I have it now.

Essentially I am OK to build the gate.

And...

The land in front of the neighbours drive is likely adopted. I am not trying to be a NFH I could rant about the neighbour's activities that have brought me to this but I won't bother you with that. I just want him to stop pestering me.
DIYBath
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:52 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: Claim Unregistered Land

Postby arborlad » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:12 pm

ukmicky wrote: arborlad

You pointing out to people that they shouldn't create more than one thread holds true here because number 5 above would have been noticed a lot sooner if it was one single thread.




See this thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=20629&p=204604#p204604
arborlad

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

Re: Claim Unregistered Land

Postby ukmicky » Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:41 pm

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi ukmicky,

Mac ,not quite correct because a prima facie case will still need to be shown , showing why the presumption should stand.

proof of ownership of the OP’s property would be suffice.


kind regards, Mac

There are 2 forms of legal presumptions,conclusive and rebuttable . If this were a conclusive presumption, proof of ownership of the OP’s property would be suffice as you say as the presumption is regarded as fact . This is however a rebuttable presumption which provides you with a starting point for your case and a place to return to if no evidence can be found that casts doubt on the presumption , It is not your whole case. . As its not a conclusive presumption and it is not considered as fact from the outset anyone wishing to use the presumption would need to investigate the history of their property and the land they are after and show that based on the balance of probabilities there is no unregistered owner out there who could rebut the presumption . In this case the OP couldn't do that as the ROW and adoption history would have provided evidence rebutting the presumption.

Imagine the scenario below and the potential damages claim against the land registry if the above was not the case.

Let say the highways department decided that they no longer required this road to be highway ,because that is the only time there would be a need to use the legal presumption. . The OP then asked the land registry to correct the register and place this bit of land within his red boundary line as its now potentially become a valuable asset . Now based on what your saying simply owning the OPs property should be enough for that to happen . A legal problem then arises if this land was actually owned by someone else who could prove he owned it ,but due to it being unregistered he has now lost title to it because he didn't know the OP had put in a claim for it ,even though legally the OP had no legal right to it and legally the land registry had no right to place it on the OPs title .
Advice given is not legally qualified and you are advised to gain a professional opinion
ukmicky
 
Posts: 4546
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:13 pm
Location: London

Re: Claim Unregistered Land

Postby Collaborate » Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:16 am

All factual presumptions are rebuttable. They serve to shift the burden of proof.

Conclusive presumptions usually refer to legal principles, eg the presumption that a child under 10 cannot be criminally liable for their actions.
Collaborate
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 10:17 am

Previous

Return to Boundaries

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron