Garden in dispute

princeofpounds

The OP should talk to a solicitor ASAP, but is very unlikely to be screwed. The tenant did not own the land and is unlikely to have established any kind of easement over it thanks to their status.

I would also refuse any access. You don't want to compromise your stance legally. If he wants his stuff from next door he can go ask them for it.

princeofpounds

The deciding factor is what does the land registry plan state? The land registry deeds and documents are, by law, the definitive statement of the ownership of the property and the owner is entitled to rely on that.

That's not true. Many easements are not on the land registry. Much land is not on the land registry. It's closer to evidence of what you were sold, than evidence of what you actually got.

Guest101

I think it's been raised that he could not gain an easement of the property of his landlord.

Errata

BUT in simple terms - OP, if the title deeds say the land is yours, then that is the legal position.

Indeed it is, but that doesn't override any rights to the land a secure tenant may have.

princeofpounds

Indeed it is, but that doesn't override any rights to the land a secure tenant may have.

It doesn't override any rights a third party might have.

A secure tenant might actually be less likely to have rights over the land that are your liability, unless you are the landlord of that secure tenant.

zzzLazyDaisy

Errata wrote: »

Indeed it is, but that doesn't override any rights to the land a secure tenant may have.

It does, as far as OP is concerned, if those rights are not noted on the deeds registered at the land registry. If the property is registered as being free of encumberances, OP is entitled to rely on that as being the definitive legal position.

The tenant may have been deprived of rights granted by his landlord in the rental agreement, but his contract is with the landlord and he must pursue the matter with the landlord. He has no contract with OP, and if OP has bought the land free of encumberances, he has no right of redress against OP as he is only a tenant. He may have a right to financial compensation from his LL, but that is a different issue.

The landlord may have a right of redress if he has rights to the land which were not noted on the land registry, in which case he must apply for rectification of titled and OP will be informed of this.

But there is no legal relationship between the tenant and OP unless/until his LL's right of use of the land is recorded on the land registry documents.

gazter

sirmosh wrote: »

One thing I will say is that you can get planning permission even if you don't have a right to build on the land. Planning doesn't deal with whether or not someone has a right to that land.

Yes, it can cause a lot of (needless) worry for some people, you dont need to own a piece of land or have any interest in it to apply or receive planning permission.

Strapped

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

It does, as far as OP is concerned, if those rights are not noted on the deeds registered at the land registry. If the property is registered as being free of encumberances, OP is entitled to rely on that as being the definitive legal position.

The tenant may have been deprived of rights granted by his landlord in the rental agreement, but his contract is with the landlord and he must pursue the matter with the landlord. He has no contract with OP, and if OP has bought the land free of encumberances, he has no right of redress against OP as he is only a tenant. He may have a right to financial compensation from his LL, but that is a different issue.

The landlord may have a right of redress if he has rights to the land which were not noted on the land registry, in which case he must apply for rectification of titled and OP will be informed of this.

But there is no legal relationship between the tenant and OP unless/until his LL's right of use of the land is recorded on the land registry documents.

Sorry, but you are wrong there. Read my earlier post where some people bought part of the lane we live on, not realising that it was subject to easements. There was nothing at the LR to say so. (There is now, courtesy of the appropriate form :rotfl:)

zzzLazyDaisy

Strapped wrote: »

Sorry, but you are wrong there. Read my earlier post where some people bought part of the lane we live on, not realising that it was subject to easements. There was nothing at the LR to say so. (There is now, courtesy of the appropriate form :rotfl:)

Yes I know, I read your thread and I understand about easements. However this is a different situation. The tenant does not own the property that he lives in and has no PROPRIETOR rights. He has contractual rights with his landlord. He has no rights at all against OP. His landlord cannot give him rights that he himself does not have. If the landlord has rights over OP's land, it is for the landlord to assert them, not the tenant.

In your case, you had rights which were not registered and applied for rectification of title. That is exactly what the tenant's landlord must do if he has a right of way over OP's land. Only the person with the right of easement can enforce it, and that is not the tenant.

Unless and until the person with right of easement asserts that right (as you did) the owner of the land is entitled to treat it as being unencumbered.

I suggest you re-read my post - we are saying the same thing.

Land_Registry

Thanks to zzzLazyDaisy for signposting the thread. I had not posted sooner as the advice already provided seems to cover it.

The freehold/leasehold aspects do alter the way in which a right (easement) can be acquired and the guidance in our Practice Guide 52 helps with this as linked by others.

Clarity over what is registered and to whom is the starting point, add in the details regarding any tenancy and then look at what the tenant is claiming - armed with that information a legal adviser should be able to advise where you stand.

The legal opinion is of course only one part of the whole situation and that applies to both sides of course although you would hope the understanding of the legal points would be the same.

The issues around what the tenant may or may not do in the future should be looked at separately but naturally are not something I can comment on.