Land grab

notsosimple

We have rented a property for twenty plus years and maintained a small field which is attached to the property and has never been part of the rent agreement, the owner has never used it or shown any interest in its condition. Are there any adverse possesion benefits here.

princeofpounds

If you have enclosed it and used it as your own for that long, probably yes.

However, if it's a stranded plot with access only through a property you rent but do not own then it's utility might be small in future

jatos

Time to give a lawyer a phone call I think!

G_M

Who owns the field? You say it is attached to the property so I assume your LL owns it?

What makes you say it is not part of the tenancy agreement?

For example, if the field is part of the property (eg the Land Registry Title Plan includes both the building and the field) and your tenancy agremement is for (address of property"), then the field would be included.

http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/professional/guides/practice-guide-4

martinsurrey

I'll add on to this,

I do believe that if a tenant gains adverse possession of land through the use of their tenancy agreement (as in this example, the OP uses the tenancy boundary to gain possession of more land) that the land becomes part of the tenancy, so the benefit of the adverse possession will end up benefiting the landlord.

So you can claim the land through adverse possession, but when the tenancy ends, the LL gets everything, and if he owned it originally, we’re back to the status quo.

princeofpounds

I do believe that if a tenant gains adverse possession of land through the use of their tenancy agreement (as in this example, the OP uses the tenancy boundary to gain possession of more land) that the land becomes part of the tenancy, so the benefit of the adverse possession will end up benefiting the landlord.

I guess this is the key point. I'm not so sure that is the case, as tenancies cannot 'possess' land, only individuals can, but worth trying to find out.

martinsurrey

princeofpounds wrote: »

I'm not so sure that is the case, as tenancies cannot 'possess' land,

I am sure

from

http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/professional/guides/practice-guide-4

12.2 Encroachments onto registered land from leasehold land

As explained above, adverse possession requires "the intention, in one’s own name and on one’s own behalf, to exclude the world at large". There is a legal presumption that a tenant who encroaches onto other land does so for the benefit of their landlord. At least on one view, this presumption means that there is no adverse possession by a tenant and that any application under Schedule 6 to the Act should be by the tenant’s landlord.

princeofpounds

Thanks for the link. That sounds pretty unequivocal, it would really be interesting to know what the legal logic is, I might try to track down and read one of the cited cases.

ValHaller

martinsurrey wrote: »

I am sure

from

http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/professional/guides/practice-guide-4

12.2 Encroachments onto registered land from leasehold land

As explained above, adverse possession requires "the intention, in one’s own name and on one’s own behalf, to exclude the world at large". There is a legal presumption that a tenant who encroaches onto other land does so for the benefit of their landlord. At least on one view, this presumption means that there is no adverse possession by a tenant and that any application under Schedule 6 to the Act should be by the tenant’s landlord.

The words "at least on one view" appear in the LR practice guide section. This is far from unequivocal and the guide goes on to say

However, the presumption, by its nature, can be rebutted by evidence that the tenant actually intended the encroachment to be for their own benefit; and we are prepared to treat the fact that the application has been made as sufficient evidence of this intention for us to proceed with the application.

On an academic (rather than legal) reading, it suggests that if you can produce evidence that the encroachment was for your own benefit, you stand a fair chance of having the application go in your favour. My take on this is that by default only, the application would be presumed to be on behalf of the LL - but if you can produce evidence that the encroachment was in your own right, the default may be easy to overturn.

However, if the only access to the land was through the tenanted land, it might be hard to overturn the default position - in which case, a side deal with the LL may be required, because as tenant, your testimony is essential to the adverse possession claim. Bear in mind that the LL may not feel disposed to support an adverse possession claim against a neighbour, particularly in a rural setting.