Complex one... Adverse Possession

Slinky

One thing that occurs to me, are you sure the 'tenants' were actually tenants and not the owners themselves? Has anybody ever actually met the owners?

Colin_Winter

Yes - the tenants are the tenants. The owners (whereabouts unknown) were last seen 5 years ago. They never changed their title on the land registry - always registered at the flat. That is why a creditor secured his debts against the property - that is (was) the only asset they could be tied too.

Guest101

Colin_Winter wrote: »

Yes they do under the terms of their lease. As a freeholder I am allowed access to inspect their flat under the terms of their lease. Example: installation of fire alarm system, throughout the whole building including their flat. Could not gain access - letters written, emails sent - no reply.

No, under the terms of the head lease. Which may well, and often isn't, supplied to tenants.


I very much doubt the tenancy agreement granted you access

moneyistooshorttomention

Guest101 wrote: »

No, under the terms of the head lease. Which may well, and often isn't, supplied to tenants.


I very much doubt the tenancy agreement granted you access

Now I would be thinking precisely the opposite way - ie that anything the flat owner had to comply with would also have to be complied with by their tenant.

The other thought I have is that the fact that these awkward characters were tenants (ie rather than the owner) makes it still more unlikely they could claim "adverse possession".

I would have thought theft by "adverse possession" would only be something an owner can do - ie a tenant couldnt (as they werent the owner).

I think it highly highly unlikely these characters could pull that stunt on you imo - as in your odds of them being able to do so rating at 99 to 1 in your favour that they couldnt do so.

Land_Registry

Adverse possession is a very complex area of the law and the fact that the Flat was leased, but did not include the additional 'room', complicates things even more.

Based on what you have posted it seems unlikely that the tenants had any intention of trying to claim the additional 'room' in such a way and the fact that they were tenants, may negate that anyway as suggested by others.

If they have effectively surrendered/forfeited the lease then contemplating trying to claim the 'room' seems even more unilkely but something to get legal advice on as it is the law you need advice on ratehr than the registration process here.

cloo

This is definitely one to get solicitor's advice and it probably won't be complicated... the other party would have to be actively seeking adverse possession for it to be an issue and, as others have said, this seems unlikely from what you describe of their behaviour.

Colin_Winter

It wasn't the tenants who knocked through the wall into the communal cellar and created a third bedroom - it was the owners *around 10 years ago*.


The owners have now provided vacant possession to another creditor.


Flat now empty.


I am thinking forfeiture of the lease - as they still own the property until the creditor sells it.
Or - reclaim the cellar, open up the door way to the communal area (presently plastered over) and brick up the doorway they have created with an angle cutter.

G_M

I don't understand why this thread is ongoing.

It sems no claim for AP has been made to date.

The potential claimants (either the leaseholder or tenant) have both vacated.

The owner of the land has re-occupied the land in question.

How can a claim for AP possibly be made if the claimant is not 'in possession'?

Guest101

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Now I would be thinking precisely the opposite way - ie that anything the flat owner had to comply with would also have to be complied with by their tenant. - No if they aren't made aware of it.

The other thought I have is that the fact that these awkward characters were tenants (ie rather than the owner) makes it still more unlikely they could claim "adverse possession". - agreed.

I would have thought theft by "adverse possession" would only be something an owner can do - ie a tenant couldnt (as they werent the owner). - not necessarily. It depends on many things. Leaseholders are 'tenant's too, ie they own a lease.

I think it highly highly unlikely these characters could pull that stunt on you imo - as in your odds of them being able to do so rating at 99 to 1 in your favour that they couldnt do so.

I tend to agree, but I'd get legal advice, face to face, before making any decisions. Especially as this is a forced sale.

Colin_Winter

So the occupier of the property has to get the AV recognised / logged at the Land Registry? It cannot 'just happen' if it goes unnoticed my the freeholder for 12 years?


My worry is that if I seek forfeiture of the lease (by altering the building) they will counter that by saying they have been there for 12 years, and the room is now legally theirs ---- can they do that, at this point, when I take them to court for forfeiture?