Charging Order? The myth

eggbox

Land Registry Rep

Thank you again. I'm just a little annoyed that paid "professionals" don't have the common sense to request the same information from the Land Registry in order to help their clients?

I've afforded the Solicitor concerned the opportunity to provide details of which LR district made this decision but, as with the previous Solicitor we approached (who had actually had helped a board member sell up but then withdrew on accepting further clients due to "case law"); the further details requested to back up their decision never arrives?

The Law is a difficult enough subject as it is, but when you have (in my opinion) irresponsible hearsay being thrown into the mix it makes it near impossible for the average person to deal with? (but then that's probably the intention?)

Land_Registry

eggbox largely rhetotical ?s of course but even so difficult to pass comment as we are very much at the end of the line re such matters as we only see the actual applications to register rather than the thought processes followed prior to that submission.

Case law and one's own experience are often crucial in such matters but I am a little surprised that more research is perhaps not done by such solicitors/conveyancers as the information is out there on the www and our own guidance covers as well.

eggbox

Land_Registry_representative wrote: »

I am a little surprised that more research is perhaps not done by such solicitors/conveyancers as the information is out there on the www and our own guidance covers as well.

Maybe because it would need "solicitors", "effort" and "helpful" to be in the same post code and, as this board knows only too well, that's not an easy thing to achieve?

DAKOTA45

Hi all…. still in litigation….

As you know, I had a restriction placed on my property when a trial in the Land Tribunal collapsed when I withdrew, (due to being a deaf LIP and the judge refusing to adjourn when the court failed to provide a hearing loop), and I lost my case for Adverse Possession by default.

I have been going over the old paperwork this morning and have a question for LRR, please….

At the time of the trial, (July 2013), I had been in occupancy of the land for 12 and a half years.

Is it the case that time was still running and by that point, there was no case to answer due to a 12 year occupancy? Or does time stop running once you have made an application?

I know I'm probably grabbing at straws here, but every little helps!

Thanking you in anticipation…

D45

eggbox

Dakota

This may help a little until LRR calls in?

LR Act 2002

It came into force October 13th 2003 in case that affects your date?

Land_Registry

DAKOTA45 - I suspect PG 5 may be more relevant to you if your claim clock started before October 2003.

And with regards mention of the Land Tribunal section 6 applies in that the owner objected to your application to register the claim.

If so then I don't think the time aspect really matters here as presumably you had passed the 12 year requirement otherwise your application would not have got past first base, namely our consideration.

If you mean that they objected on the basis of a dispute over whether the 12 years had eleapsed then it may be something to consider but it really is legal advice you would need to understand the law around adverse possession

DAKOTA45

Eggbox & LRR…

It's complicated… because nothing is ever simple, is it?!

In 2000, when we were liaising with the vendor of our property, our solicitor wrote quite close to exchange of contracts, advising us to pull out as the vendor had not indicated on the plan, either the correct boundary of the property, or more importantly, to us, the location of the septic tank.

The vendor, whom we had got to know and seemed very genuine, told us that although he knew the tank was close to the house, he wasn't sure of the exact position… he assured us though, that it would all be sorted and that he would ensure the tank would be included in the land.

Our property was a staff cottage on a larger estate which the vendor owned (he would be our next door neighbour)… we had no reason to believe he would not keep to his promises, so we ignored our solicitor and moved in, in February 2001.

Shortly after moving in, our builders found the tank, which was just outside of the agreed land boundary… we told our neighbour and he said he would transfer the extra land to us following his imminent trip abroad.

He went off and shortly after, we heard that he had fallen from a balcony whilst overseas, and was killed.

After a decent period, I contacted his father, explaining the problem we had in that his son had promised to transfer a small piece of land to us, so as to include our septic tank. We would not have bought the property without having the tank on our own land, obviously.

His father stated that he was unable to help, as his son's assets had been frozen… apparently, there was a huge tax bill and other stuff to sort out.

Probate was lengthy and after 2 years, the remaining estate… all the land surrounding my property, was bought by a neighbour, (this is the man who has a CO against me).

I was still in occupation of the land promised to me by the original owner, the new owner never sought to remove me and nor did he ever enter the land since he purchased it as it was fenced off and occupied by my animals.

So, after 10 years I applied for Adverse Possession, the landowner objected and it took a couple of years to reach Trial.

But… here's the thing; I had never heard of 'promissory estoppel'… had I known this, I would have made an application to the court much earlier.

Whether or not Adverse possession is needed when there has been estoppel… that's the thing… and even at the Trial, the judge was saying the same and neither he nor the barrister for the other side was sure of the rules surrounding estoppel and AP.

When I moved onto that land with the original owner's consent, I did so believing that the land was to be transferred to me. This was not a license to rent the land, it was land that should have been included when I purchased the property, being as the vendor had told me quite categorically that the septic tank would be included in the purchase of the land.

'Complicated' is probably an understatement.

There was never any decision at the trial as to whether or not I was entitled to AP. I withdrew, as I've said due to being unable to continue, where I was a deaf LIP without a hearing loop and unable to understand what was being said and had a bit of a panic attack under cross examination. Obviously, the Judge had no alternative other than to award costs to the other side, hence the Charge.

D45

DAKOTA45

Can I just say; Adverse Possession was a last resort… I had tried several times to purchase the land from the new owner, making offers well in excess of the value… he was an absolute dog in a manger… he didn't need the land, had never set foot on it… it was just a few yards of land with my septic tank on it.
A couple of times he indicated that he was willing to accept offers… telling me I would have to bear the expense of survey and solicitor fees… I spent money, gave him deposits, none of which were returned to me when he inevitably pulled out each time.
Now I owe him £30k! D45

DAKOTA45

And it gets much, much worse… when I get my breath back I'll bring you the next instalment of this sorry saga! D45

Hootin_Heck

Just been on to the Land Registry about the restrictions on our property (we are trying to sell, and wife doesnt believe what I am telling her about the restrictions)...and lo and behold the lady spoken to at the Land Registry told us that the restrictions have to be settled before a purchase can proceed.

She said that only the creditor can have the restrictions removed...

This has not helped at all as now my wife is convinced we are all wrong.... any advice anyone??