Adverse possession claim rejected - any advice?

Thrugelmir

niccafc wrote: »

The adjoining fields are owned by a family in our village who disagree with building and would never sell to the builders.

Never say never. One day.

Miss_Samantha

steampowered wrote: »

In the case of registered land, the owner gets a notice from the land registry and can object. If the owner objects, the adverse possession claim will fail automatically, subject to a few very narrow exceptions. In practice the owner would always object, so it is much more difficult to get land by adverse possession than it used to be ...

It will not necessarily ultimately fail but the procedure is longer and more complex.

martindow

If you have the right to pass and repass over this land, wouldn't that continue after a sale and prevent any new owner building anything on the land?

martinsurrey

steampowered wrote: »

As you had the right to use the land, your possession was not "adverse".

...

but of course you would still fail as your possession was not "adverse".

Dont be so quick to dismiss.

OP, my comment is based on you having the land fenced off for your own personal use (no access for others).

Although the OPs ACCESS to the land is not adverse, their possession of the land is, as in they had no legal right for possession.

you can look at a house of lords case for the definition Powell v McFarlane

the long and the short of it, a right of access would not meet the definition of legal possession, as it doesn't deny the owner possession, and the 2 party's cannot both have possession at once, and since the OPs granted use was not EXCLUSIVE, I think they've got a good shout that their claim of adverse possession is valid (ONLY IF THEY HAVE EXCLUSIVE ACCESS), of at least forcing the owner to evict.

OP you need a lawyer to respond to the LR.

“Factual possession signifies an appropriate degree of physical control. It must be a single and [exclusive] possession, though there can be a single possession exercised on behalf of several persons jointly. Thus an owner of land and a person intruding on that land without his consent cannot both be in possession of the land at the same time. The question what acts constitute a sufficient degree of exclusive physical control must depend on the circumstances, in particular the nature of the land and the manner in which land of that nature is commonly used or enjoyed … Everything must depend on the particular circumstances, but broadly, I think what must be shown as constituting factual possession is that the alleged possessor has been dealing with the land in question as an occupying owner might have been expected to deal with it and that no one else has done so.”

steampowered

martinsurrey wrote: »

OP, my comment is based on you having the land fenced off for your own personal use (no access for others).

Yup, if the Op fenced off the land without permission to do that, I suppose that could be "adverse". Professional legal advice is required if the Op wants to push this.

OP you need a lawyer to respond to the LR.

In the case of registered land, this is now all regulated by statute. The old common law regards gaining unregistered land by adverse possession is now only part of the story, there are a lot of other legal hoops to jump through.

Per the Land Registration Act 2002, Schedule 6, if a registered owner objects to an adverse possession application (as has happened here), the Op is only entitled to be registered as owner if some very narrow conditions are met ...:

5(1)If an application under paragraph 1 [i.e. an adverse possessor] is required to be dealt with under this paragraph [i.e. by the registered owner], the applicant [i.e. the adverse possessor] is only entitled to be registered as the new proprietor of the estate if any of the following conditions is met.

(2)The first condition is that—
(a)it would be unconscionable because of an equity by estoppel for the registered proprietor to seek to dispossess the applicant, and
(b)the circumstances are such that the applicant ought to be registered as the proprietor.

(3)The second condition is that the applicant is for some other reason entitled to be registered as the proprietor of the estate.

(4)The third condition is that—
(a)the land to which the application relates is adjacent to land belonging to the applicant,
(b)the exact line of the boundary between the two has not been determined under rules under section 60,
(c)for at least ten years of the period of adverse possession ending on the date of the application, the applicant (or any predecessor in title) reasonably believed that the land to which the application relates belonged to him, and
(d)the estate to which the application relates was registered more than one year prior to the date of the application.

martinsurrey

steampowered wrote: »

Yup, if the Op fenced off the land without permission to do that, I suppose that could be "adverse". Professional legal advice is required if the Op wants to push this.


In the case of registered land, this is now all regulated by statute. The old common law regards gaining unregistered land by adverse possession is now only part of the story, there are a lot of other legal hoops to jump through.

Per the Land Registration Act 2002, Schedule 6, if a registered owner objects to an adverse possession application (as has happened here), the Op is only entitled to be registered as owner if some very narrow conditions are met ...:

5(1)If an application under paragraph 1 [i.e. an adverse possessor] is required to be dealt with under this paragraph [i.e. by the registered owner], the applicant [i.e. the adverse possessor] is only entitled to be registered as the new proprietor of the estate if any of the following conditions is met.

(2)The first condition is that—
(a)it would be unconscionable because of an equity by estoppel for the registered proprietor to seek to dispossess the applicant, and
(b)the circumstances are such that the applicant ought to be registered as the proprietor.

(3)The second condition is that the applicant is for some other reason entitled to be registered as the proprietor of the estate.

(4)The third condition is that—
(a)the land to which the application relates is adjacent to land belonging to the applicant,
(b)the exact line of the boundary between the two has not been determined under rules under section 60,
(c)for at least ten years of the period of adverse possession ending on the date of the application, the applicant (or any predecessor in title) reasonably believed that the land to which the application relates belonged to him, and
(d)the estate to which the application relates was registered more than one year prior to the date of the application.

yup all correct, but first the OP needs to get their claim of adverse possession registered, its being blocked as the owner is claiming that there is no adverse possession, this is a first hurdle to get over, and will need the OP to correctly challenge the owners claim of a lack of adverse possession, which would be better done with legal help.

after that they will correctly reject the application as they don't meet the criteria you posted, and then the 2 year clock starts, and if the owners don't evict correctly, the OP can re apply and get the title. (schedule 6 part 6)

rtho782

steampowered wrote: »

If the owner objects, the adverse possession claim will fail automatically, subject to a few very narrow exceptions. In practice the owner would always object, so it is much more difficult to get land by adverse possession than it used to be ...

I thought this, but it's more for situations where the registered owner is registered as living on that land, and then the land registry can't contact him if he is not there... so it goes through.

martinsurrey

rtho782 wrote: »

I thought this, but it's more for situations where the registered owner is registered as living on that land, and then the land registry can't contact him if he is not there... so it goes through.

no, it gives them time to kick you off, your first claim will fail unless you meet the very narrow conditions (which basically boil down to you already own it, but the title wasn't updated), the owner then has 2 years to legally get you off the land (or be in the process of doing it), and if they don't, you can reapply for the title and you DONT need to met the narrow conditions, your claim will succeed at the second asking.

paddyrg

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Never say never. One day.

Parents die, kids live in London and sell off the house and land for what they can get... happens all the time. They may even need to do so in order to fulfill the wills distribution.