Section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925

Juleszoemay

Please can someone tell me what this means on a Title from Land Registry?

2. The land has the benefit of the rights granted by but is
subject to the rights reserved by the Transfer dated 11 June 2013
referred to in the Charges Register.
3 The Transfer dated 11 June 2013 referred to above contains
a provision excluding the operation of section 62 of the Law of
Property Act 1925 as therein mentioned.

Basically I'm wondering if this has any bearing on the ability of the owners of this 'land' to turn it into a Gypsy/Traveller site!

Many thanks,
Julie

molerat

s62 seems to deal with things on the land and rights of the owner being transferred with the title, excluding s62 would imply that the land has been transferred but not everything on it. I doubt it has anything to do with traveller sites.


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/62

A conveyance of land shall be deemed to include and shall by virtue of this Act operate to convey, with the land, all buildings, erections, fixtures, commons, hedges, ditches, fences, ways, waters, water-courses, liberties, privileges, easements, rights, and advantages whatsoever, appertaining or reputed to appertain to the land, or any part thereof, or, at the time of conveyance, demised, occupied, or enjoyed with, or reputed or known as part or parcel of or appurtenant to the land or any part thereof.

SmashedAvacado

Section 62 of the LPA automatically passes the rights enjoyed by the land (for example rights of way over neighboring land) to tenants / sucessors. Excluding Section 62 has the effect of not passing such rights, with the typical intent that such rights have to be expressly granted.

Example - you are a tenant - your landlord has a property - he has lots of different rights of access to get to the property. He excludes section 62 from the lease he has granted you but gives you an express right of access over a particular route. you can't use the rights he has, just the one express one. if he hadn't excluded s62, you could use the same rights that he had.

Juleszoemay

molerat wrote: »

s62 seems to deal with things on the land and rights of the owner being transferred with the title, excluding s62 would imply that the land has been transferred but not everything on it. I doubt it has anything to do with traveller sites.



I think think it had anything to do with traveller sites, I just wondered if the wording meant it would stop that taking place, but I don't think it does

Juleszoemay

So is it worded in such a way that means that there is some ROW or something over said land, that the previous owners still have? Sorry, this is all new to me!
We have spent a fortune and a lot of time, buying and renovating a house to live in, and 2 caravans have rocked up and pitched up the road, and started putting up a 2m fence around the perimeter, its just the start.
They had planning declined 2 years ago, and they appealed a year ago and it was again declined. But they've started with a new application now.

AdrianC

Juleszoemay wrote: »

2 caravans have rocked up and pitched up the road, and started putting up a 2m fence around the perimeter, its just the start.
They had planning declined 2 years ago, and they appealed a year ago and it was again declined. But they've started with a new application now.

...which will almost certainly be declined again, and again. And maybe appealed.

But, eventually, enforcement action will happen. And costs will follow.



Do the occupants actually own this land?

Juleszoemay

They do own the land. Its agricultural land previously owned by a vegetable growing company, and much of the land around it still is. It is 4 acres and it was sold for £28k, thats agricultural land, not land for development..... I still cannot believe that the 'Ltd company' sold out to them, it isnt a secret that they are travellers, their address on the land registry title is a well known local traveller site. And two of the directors of the company still live in the village, I think their popularity is diminished....
The village has a population if 1800, we could all club together and buy it back..... although I doubt the owner be open to that idea..

AdrianC

Juleszoemay wrote: »

...agricultural land, not land for development...

Which counts against them on any planning application. Has your parish got a neighbourhood development plan adopted yet?


If you want any credibility on this, drop the anti-traveller stance - it's utterly irrelevant - and go for the actual facts of the issue. If there's an adopted NDP, great - get that quoted in any planning objections. Work proactively and intelligently with the planning officers. Melodrama helps nobody.

Juleszoemay

Ha, my husband is actually good friends with a few travellers, I'm not anti traveller, i'm anti the way they just 'chance their arm' and above the law that the rest of the home owners have to adhere to. We had to go through the correct planning consultation to do the works to our house, and so should everyone else.

They started erecting a 2m close board fence around the perimeter of land a few weeks back, a fence that was refused planning for because of the height and the fact it obscured visibility for drivers around a nasty bend. Planning officers came out, they stopped work. 3 weeks later they tried again (on a bank holiday weekend) so they'd got a fair way round by the time the council came back to work, they once again were asked to stop works. then another few weeks later they just arrive with 2 caravans, and start on the fence again.... and then the planning application goes up.

AdrianC

Juleszoemay wrote: »

I'm not anti traveller

That's not the way your posts read.

i'm anti the way they just 'chance their arm' and above the law that the rest of the home owners have to adhere to. We had to go through the correct planning consultation to do the works to our house, and so should everyone else.

I'm sorry - I thought you said they'd applied twice and been rejected. Just like anybody else.


...and then you go on to explain how they've already been subject to enforcement action by the council. Just like anybody else. Enforcement stops when an application goes in. This applies to anybody and everybody. When the application is rejected, enforcement can begin again. For anybody and everybody.

Juleszoemay

AdrianC, I don't think the village has an adopted neighbourhood plan, there is a taskforce set up from what I can see, but they don't appear to have gotten very far. I'm attending a meeting on Monday in the village hall, where I shall mostly listen ;-)