Land advice

Davesnave

stator wrote: »

Adverse possession was not meant to allow people to acquire land they know they don't own. It was meant to regularise the defacto status of land. It's to stop someone claiming they own your garden if you've been living there for decades and genuining thought the garden was yours. In the old deeds based system this was possible but isn't really possible once the land is registered.

That's one good reason for the law surrounding adverse possession, but it isn't the only one.

It simply isn't in anyone's best interests if land and buildings are neglected and left unproductive, as in the example here.

You could argue that the state should take control of it, and indeed councils do have the power to intervene in cases where extreme neglect threatens the integrity of buildings or public health, but councils aren't minded to do that often.

So, we have the adverse possession route for situations where councils aren't interested, and there are many of those. The rules are known, and it's a legal process, so accusing the OP of attempting theft seems ill-judged, especially as attempts are still being made to trace the owner.

stator

If it were meant to bring unused land into use then the new rules regarding registered land would reflect that. The new rules deliberately stop this sort of thing from happening and make no provision for claiming neighbours unused land. From that you can judge that it is not the intended use.

Theft is any attempt to deprive someone of their lawful property.

I hope the OP does find the owner and buys the land. I suspect the price will be more than they are willing to pay.

Davesnave

stator wrote: »

Theft is any attempt to deprive someone of their lawful property.

I don't think it's as simple as that, or the police wouldn't hold regular auctions of property whose owners cannot be traced. I think the presumption is that the owners, whoever they are, have been careless and neglectful with their assets.

You make a good point about the new rules, which reflect a different world from that where owners of land and property rights, and the relevant deeds, could become impossible to trace. This property remains stuck in the past, however, but because of what it is, I also doubt that it will pass to the OP through adverse possession.

I don't know for sure, but I think the the Crown would probably have an interest here, so if the OP succeeded in their plan, it would hardly be subterfuge. Therefore, I don't think 'stealing' is the right term to use.

phoebe1989seb

Davesnave wrote: »

You could argue that the state should take control of it, and indeed councils do have the power to intervene in cases where extreme neglect threatens the integrity of buildings or public health, but councils aren't minded to do that often.

Many of the rural ones certainly don't seem to

When we bought our last house (a non-listed Georgian house in a Wiltshire village) the attached property (also non-listed Georgian) was unoccupied and according to neighbours had been so for some years. Like our house it was thatched, but unlike ours which had been rethatched a couple of years before we purchased the house, this one had been allowed to fall into serious disrepair. In the three and a half years we were there the thatch partially collapsed and rain/snow poured into the otherwise very pretty cottage. The remaining roof had grasses/other plant life several feet high growing from it.

Several villagers - ourselves included - contacted the council, but they weren't interested. It turned out that the property had been owned by a chap that went bankrupt. A nasty piece of work by all accounts who had narrowly escaped prison after an employee (he was a property developer that had built several new homes behind the empty one) had been severely injured on one of his building sites.

Between our third of an acre garden and the new builds behind the semi derelict cottage was another (completely overgrown) plot of about half an acre - divided from ours by hedging - that he also owned. In 2004 - seven years before we bought our house - he had been turned down on appeal when applying to build a detached house there. That plot was ripe for adverse possession as it was not visible from the village unless paddling in the stream that bordered our garden, lol!

Rumour had it that he had transferred ownership - unlawfully apparently - of all his property to family members, but that was most likely village gossip! Twice we had visitations from people working for the Official Receiver, asking questions - had we seen any comings/goings there etc - and we assumed the property would be sold, but no, nothing happened to either plot or cottage. The other houses he owned in the village were sold off during 2013/14 though.

We sold our house in 2014 but recently had cause to drive through our old village. The cottage appears to still be empty and having kept an eye on RM and the LR for any local sales, I can confirm it's not been sold......we were half expecting to see it had been attempted to be incorporated into our former larger home next door as our buyers had joked about adverse possession themselves!

Davesnave

There are several cases local to me where property has been allowed to fall down through neglect. This seems incredible, but I can see how it happens.

I have in mind a house which is sitting there, waiting for the marriage of the eldest son in the family.

However, as he's now into his 40s and possibly not of the persuasion where the sort of marriage envisaged could take place, I have my doubts about it ever passing to him......

Meanwhile, it sits there, quietly rotting. Such is country life! :rotfl:

moneyistooshorttomention

Davesnave wrote: »

There are several cases local to me where property has been allowed to fall down through neglect. This seems incredible, but I can see how it happens.

I have in mind a house which is sitting there, waiting for the marriage of the eldest son in the family.

However, as he's now into his 40s and possibly not of the persuasion where the sort of marriage envisaged could take place, I have my doubts about it ever passing to him......

Meanwhile, it sits there, quietly rotting. Such is country life! :rotfl:

Well - I guess they havent specified the sex of the person they think the eldest son will marry...:rotfl:. What a shame they aren't giving him the house anyway - as, after all, single people need more financial help than married people anyway per se.

[Deleted User]

You almost need an ' heir hunter' type person, with those investigatgive skills to find out if heirs are alive / dead and who they are and hopefully to find decendants.

I personally don't think there will be anyone, ususally when someone dies with an asset like property relatives are over it like a swarm of bees.

I think begin with a ' cheap' boundary fence and stick a few sheep on it. Then just wait and see what happens. In my area if anyone was using a parcel of land who they know didnt belong to them it wouldnt take long for things to start moving and then perhaps the thought that someone may be going for adverse possession will glavanise any owner into action.

Paulg1986

Hello everyone

Well yesterday i have had some news, i traced down a will and probate for the former owner and in reading this i found out that all of his estate passed on to the nephew, but this is the funny part carrying on reading it did not identify and property into the will or anything and at the end of the will the estate was valued at a mere 61,000 which i find extremely strange as my family friends home is valued at 400,000+ all it says in his will is that the nephew inherits the residue what is left after all his debts are payed which i think is the care home expense, and his nephew has moved back to Australia as ive been to his last known address.

Any ideas?

moneyistooshorttomention

as per post 21 on this thread.

Fuzzyness

Paulg1986 wrote: »

Hello everyone



Any ideas?

trip to Australia perhaps?