Garden Boundary - Adverse Possession Question

PennineLady

JGB1955 said:

The neighbour had 21 feet  but now has 20....and you're complaining about being given back your land?

I'm complaining that the neighbour says that I can't touch the land or make good the large concrete mounds that extend well into my space. Sorry that I didn't originally make this clear.

JGB1955

PennineLady said:

JGB1955 said:

The neighbour had 21 feet  but now has 20....and you're complaining about being given back your land?

I'm complaining that the neighbour says that I can't touch the land or make good the large concrete mounds that extend well into my space. Sorry that I didn't originally make this clear.

Well, in that case maybe you should just out up your own fence on the 19' line.

PennineLady

Section62 said:

TheJP said:

OP your title is misleading. You say adverse possession but what has really happened is the neighnour has decided to replace the fence, looking at the deeds realised the boundary was out by 1ft and rectified this. You are now complaining that you have more land but its ugly. What are you asking/do you want as a solution?

JGB1955 said:

The neighbour had 21 feet  but now has 20....and you're complaining about being given back your land?

I'm not sure either of you have understood the OP.

The neighbour has moved the fence but is still claiming ownership of the 1 foot strip by adverse possession.

The OP is asking whether or not the neighbour has a leg to stand on.

I don't see that as a complaint about anything.  The just need to know whether they are entitled to clear up the mess the neighbour has left behind.


My response would be that they should take lots of pictures showing the fence in the new location.... then get gardening asap.

Thank you so much Section62 - Your reply is spot on. The replies you mention upset me a little as I thought I didn't write my original post clearly!

TheJP

Section62 said:

TheJP said:

OP your title is misleading. You say adverse possession but what has really happened is the neighnour has decided to replace the fence, looking at the deeds realised the boundary was out by 1ft and rectified this. You are now complaining that you have more land but its ugly. What are you asking/do you want as a solution?

JGB1955 said:

The neighbour had 21 feet  but now has 20....and you're complaining about being given back your land?

I'm not sure either of you have understood the OP.

The neighbour has moved the fence but is still claiming ownership of the 1 foot strip by adverse possession.

The OP is asking whether or not the neighbour has a leg to stand on.

I don't see that as a complaint about anything.  The just need to know whether they are entitled to clear up the mess the neighbour has left behind.


My response would be that they should take lots of pictures showing the fence in the new location.... then get gardening asap.

The neighbour has moved the fence back to their boundary as per the deeds, neighbour says you cant touch whats on your land. Nothing to do with adverse possession. OP if the posts are within your boundary you can remove them and return them to the neighbour, if the posts are actually on the boundary line then you need to make an agreement as to who will tidy it now new posts are in.

Surely with the neighbour putting the fence back on the original boundary as per the deeds there is no claim for adverse possession. OP Talk to a solicitor for legal advice.

Section62

TheJP said:

The neighbour has moved the fence back to their boundary as per the deeds, neighbour says you cant touch whats on your land. Nothing to do with adverse possession.

...that might be true, if the neighbour wasn't claiming they had adverse possession.

As the neighbour is making that claim it makes total sense to come to this forum and ask an "Adverse Possession Question".

The problem is with the neighbour's understanding, not the OP's.

canaldumidi

Except that the neighbour does not appear to have made a claim for AP. He has simply misused that term in attempting to convince the OP that the land is his.

AP is a legal process which a) the neighbour does not appear to have attempted and b) would in any case fail.

Bendy_House

Verbally 'claiming' adverse possession means next to now't on its own. There is a process that the claimant needs to go through after, say, having had 'possession' of a piece of registered land for more than 10 years; they apply to the Land Registry for Possessory Title of the land, and - since 2003 - this should trigger a notice from the LReg to the 'true owner' of the land for their response. That gives the true owner (ie, you) a chance to respond and challenge with a counter notice.

However, see the third exception in bold below. That surprised me:

Claiming adverse possession of registered land

After 10 years in possession of a piece of registered land, you are entitled to apply to the Land Registry for Possessory Title of the land that you are occupying. If your possession can be proven, a successful application will mean that you become the ‘owner’ of the land. However, those seeking to claim registered land should be aware of the ‘new’ rules involving objections and counter-notices.

Objections and counter-notices

Since 13 October 2003, a ‘new’ set of rules (although, no longer quite so new!) have applied to adverse possession claims involving registered land. An application for adverse possession of registered land will trigger a notice from the Land Registry to the ‘true owner’ of the land. The owner can object if they feel you do not meet the criteria and serve a counter-notice.

If a counter-notice is served, the application will fail unless one of the following exceptions apply:

• It can be reasonably argued that it was unfair for the ‘true owner’ to object to the application – E.g. you have built a mansion on the land and throughout the planning and build phases, the ‘true owner’ helped you with the build, knowing full well they were the owner.
• You are entitled to be registered as the owner for some other reason – E.g. you had actually paid for the land but there was an issue in the contract and it wasn’t technically transferred to you.
• The land in question is adjacent to yours and you have mistakenly been under the impression that you own it. The land must have been registered for over a year before the adverse possession application was made.

E.g. this usually occurs when a fence is built in good faith but in the wrong place. The strip of land between the ‘true’ boundary and the fence can generally be claimed by adverse possession if all other criteria are met and particularly where it is only a very nominal amount of land.

Thankfully, this guy has done something truly weird - he's put up the new fence in the correct position, whilst still verbally claiming adverse possession. What a favour he's done you!

Take lots of photos of the new fence, and remove as much as you can of the old one - certainly get rid of the old tatty wire fence. Then do with that strip as you wish - it's yours. Act and behave as if it's always been yours. Do not engage in any conversation that acknowledges that the old fence was accepted as being the boundary. Just stick to the mantra - "My, and your, deeds show clearly where the true boundary is, and that's where the fence is. If you really believe for some reason that this isn't correct, then you need to prove it."

Although the bold part of the extract above might suggest that a genuine error in the boundary location might be lead to a valid claim of Adverse Possession, he'd still need to go through the Land Reg process, and I think we can safely say that the location of his new fence will completely scupper his plans; it will surely be read as him effectively acknowledging that he knew where the true boundary lay, so he cannot claim a 'mistaken' impression of ownership.

Can you clarify the following - "To make things worse, there are big & ugly concrete mounds at the bottom of each fence post. He won't level them off or break them down because he says they are actually on his land due to Adverse Possession. So, not only are we not allowed to do anything about the concrete, we're apparently not even allowed to touch the foot gap."?

Which fence posts - the old ones, or the new? If 'old', then get someone in to break them up if you wish (or DIY...). If 'new', however, I think I'd personally be considering how it could be counter-productive to try and have them removed, as this will likely damage/loosen his new fence, and you really don't want that...

I'd be looking for simple solutions such as fitting a running gravel board in front of them, (ie, where the old fence used to be), filling the gap with soil or decorative gravel, and planting some nice border plants in there. Ie, make it pretty, and make it yours.

Bendy_House

Do you have Leg Prot on your house insurance?

TheJP

Section62 said:

TheJP said:

The neighbour has moved the fence back to their boundary as per the deeds, neighbour says you cant touch whats on your land. Nothing to do with adverse possession.

...that might be true, if the neighbour wasn't claiming they had adverse possession.

As the neighbour is making that claim it makes total sense to come to this forum and ask an "Adverse Possession Question".

The problem is with the neighbour's understanding, not the OP's.

You don't make a claim for adverse possession and then rectify the boundary. The OP in my opinion thinks that because the neighbour has said do not touch the posts (on their land) it implies adverse possession. Also the property has been habituated the whole time which i think means you cant just claim its yours as the owner would be notified and given the chance to provide evidence of ownership.

Bendy_House

I think this neighb has done the OP, Pennine Lady, a huge favour.

It would appear that a misplaced boundary line, which both parties have 'mistakenly accepted as being correct' for at least 10 years, could be valid justification for a successful PossTitle with the Land Reg, especially since the width involved is not particularly significant.

However, this neighbour would seem to have shot themselves in t'foot by putting up the new fence in what appears to be the correct location according to the deeds. They didn't place it 'just' their side of the old fence, but moved it a whole foot, placing it where it should have been all along. Just weird. But good.