We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
How to find out who owns a scruffy bit of land?
Comments
-
user1977 said:
Please explain the legal basis for such a claim. "I tried to park on the private land which I don't own, and a rock jumped out suddenly at me"?ThisIsWeird said:I wouldn't entertain placing rocks there, as an informed person could claim - most likely successfully - for any damage caused to their vehicle as a result.
From an actual case I read quite some time ago. I can't remember the details of the original case, but it did involve rocks being placed along the (I think) owner's grass verge (or possibly similar to the OP's case - not their verge, but outside their house) in order to dissuade folk from going on to it, and someone went on there for some reason, perhaps not to 'park', but possibly to avoid an oncoming car or something, or perhaps it was dark, I can't remember. From what I do recall, the rock-placer was found liable for the damage, as they clearly knew what they were doing, and what would happen if someone went on to the grass.In the OP's case, if someone regularly parked their car on this piece of scrub land without issue, and then went 'crunch' one day because a rock had been placed on there intentionally, then the rock-placer could be liable.In practice, I doubt the crunched individual would attempt a claim, as they wouldn't think they'd have a chance; I think most folk consider it 'tough - you shouldn't have gone on there, pal'. But I don't think it's clear-cut.Coming to think of it, my mil lives in a retirement 'village', and the owners have placed large rocks at certain points to dissuade corner-cutting, and stuff. So, I guess to make a successful claim would be exceptional (some of these large rocks have been knocked over by lorries!)I still wouldn't do it, tho', or suggest anyone else does; I think it could be considered by some judges to be 'reckless'. If the grass grew and partially obscured the rocks, for example. Or if a pedestrian tripped over them. There are folk with the power of their deep pockets who would like to make an issue out of this, and the rock-placer could face significant legal bills if they challenged such a claim, rightly or wrongly. Like the other thread on here where a neighbour's solicitor is saying they'll take court action against that thread's OP because they ain't happy they aren't selling them a strip of land... There are 'oles aplenty.
0 -
RHemmings said:
As an example I tried to find out information on the piece of open land next to 48 Stoneleigh Way, LE3 9TE. However, there's nowhere I can click to bring up a record. I thought this is unlikely to be unregistered land, though it could easily be I suppose. If you are familiar with searching, would it be too much to ask if you can have a go?propertyrental said:Eliza_2 said:Thank you. It seems that to do a map search you need to be a business user, so she's asking around to see if any friends are registered and can help.No.Go here and scroll down to "other ways to search" then "serach by map ".You'll need an account to buy any Titles you find and want to investigate further, but it's quick, easy and free for anyone to set up an account.Using map search for LE3 9TE I found:30 results found
Returning to the thread, I'm wondering if trying to claim a bit of land as in the OP by fencing it off etc. when the OP doesn't own it is both legal and moral. Finding the owner and making an offer: no problem. But, just fencing it off and trying to have it for the OP's exclusive use? Not sure about that.Perfectly legal and moral provided efforts to identify the owner have failed. After 12 years there is a (perfectly legal and moral) process for claiming the land under Adverse Posession - this involves following a (perfectly legal and moral) process.Note just because you make a claim does not mean your claim will be successful!
1 -
I couldn't work out which of the above titles may refer to the open green land there. However, now that I use the property search again the interface seems different from what I found before. I can put a marker on the land and only the land, and it comes up with one title which is 'Fronting Anstey Lane and Groby Road'. If that's the land, then the name is strange as it does not front either Anstey Lane nor Groby Road. That, however, might have been a reasonable name for the entire piece of land that the estate was originally built on.propertyrental said:RHemmings said:
As an example I tried to find out information on the piece of open land next to 48 Stoneleigh Way, LE3 9TE. However, there's nowhere I can click to bring up a record. I thought this is unlikely to be unregistered land, though it could easily be I suppose. If you are familiar with searching, would it be too much to ask if you can have a go?propertyrental said:Eliza_2 said:Thank you. It seems that to do a map search you need to be a business user, so she's asking around to see if any friends are registered and can help.No.Go here and scroll down to "other ways to search" then "serach by map ".You'll need an account to buy any Titles you find and want to investigate further, but it's quick, easy and free for anyone to set up an account.Using map search for LE3 9TE I found:30 results found
Returning to the thread, I'm wondering if trying to claim a bit of land as in the OP by fencing it off etc. when the OP doesn't own it is both legal and moral. Finding the owner and making an offer: no problem. But, just fencing it off and trying to have it for the OP's exclusive use? Not sure about that.Perfectly legal and moral provided efforts to identify the owner have failed. After 12 years there is a (perfectly legal and moral) process for claiming the land under Adverse Posession - this involves following a (perfectly legal and moral) process.Note just because you make a claim does not mean your claim will be successful!
The title deed says that the land found is owned by Turriff Housing and Development LTD. Though, the title plan is not present so I can't confirm that it's all of the green land that was found.
I'm aware of Adverse Possession, and that it's legal and can be moral. However, I was discussing a particular situation. Which is where someone deliberately attempts to take a piece of land by fencing it off - preventing others from using it - with the intention of taking it through Adverse Possession in the future. That specific situation is what I'm discussing - not the concept of Adverse Possession in general. In which case the legality and the morality would depend on the fencing off and taking exclusive possession of bit, not an application for AP later on.
0 -
RHemmings said:propertyrental said:RHemmings said:
As an example I tried to find out information on the piece of open land next to 48 Stoneleigh Way, LE3 9TE. However, there's nowhere I can click to bring up a record. I thought this is unlikely to be unregistered land, though it could easily be I suppose. If you are familiar with searching, would it be too much to ask if you can have a go?propertyrental said:Eliza_2 said:Thank you. It seems that to do a map search you need to be a business user, so she's asking around to see if any friends are registered and can help.No.Go here and scroll down to "other ways to search" then "serach by map ".You'll need an account to buy any Titles you find and want to investigate further, but it's quick, easy and free for anyone to set up an account.Using map search for LE3 9TE I found:30 results found
Returning to the thread, I'm wondering if trying to claim a bit of land as in the OP by fencing it off etc. when the OP doesn't own it is both legal and moral. Finding the owner and making an offer: no problem. But, just fencing it off and trying to have it for the OP's exclusive use? Not sure about that.Perfectly legal and moral provided efforts to identify the owner have failed. After 12 years there is a (perfectly legal and moral) process for claiming the land under Adverse Posession - this involves following a (perfectly legal and moral) process.Note just because you make a claim does not mean your claim will be successful!
I'm aware of Adverse Possession, and that it's legal and can be moral. However, I was discussing a particular situation. Which is where someone deliberately attempts to take a piece of land by fencing it off - preventing others from using it - with the intention of taking it through Adverse Possession in the future. That specific situation is what I'm discussing - not the concept of Adverse Possession in general. In which case the legality and the morality would depend on the fencing off and taking exclusive possession of bit, not an application for AP later on.But that's exactly how adverse possession works.Anyone can "deliberately attempts to take a piece of land by fencing it off - preventing others from using it - with the intention of taking it through Adverse Possession in the future."If you don't fence it off and prevent others using it, you cannot later claim AP. Of course, during the 12 year fencing-off period the real owner may come forward and demand you remove the fence, thus preventing you from later claiming AP.0 -
I think that there is a difference if someone deliberately fences off land that others are currently using with the intention of keeping it. I'm aware that fencing off is a strong indicator of possession which is necessary for adverse possession. But, in this case the land isn't currently fenced off and others are using it. So, I feel the situation is different from, e.g., if someone buys property and then finds that their fences are more extensive than the land they currently own, and that it includes some unregistered land which no-one else has been using.propertyrental said:RHemmings said:propertyrental said:RHemmings said:
As an example I tried to find out information on the piece of open land next to 48 Stoneleigh Way, LE3 9TE. However, there's nowhere I can click to bring up a record. I thought this is unlikely to be unregistered land, though it could easily be I suppose. If you are familiar with searching, would it be too much to ask if you can have a go?propertyrental said:Eliza_2 said:Thank you. It seems that to do a map search you need to be a business user, so she's asking around to see if any friends are registered and can help.No.Go here and scroll down to "other ways to search" then "serach by map ".You'll need an account to buy any Titles you find and want to investigate further, but it's quick, easy and free for anyone to set up an account.Using map search for LE3 9TE I found:30 results found
Returning to the thread, I'm wondering if trying to claim a bit of land as in the OP by fencing it off etc. when the OP doesn't own it is both legal and moral. Finding the owner and making an offer: no problem. But, just fencing it off and trying to have it for the OP's exclusive use? Not sure about that.Perfectly legal and moral provided efforts to identify the owner have failed. After 12 years there is a (perfectly legal and moral) process for claiming the land under Adverse Posession - this involves following a (perfectly legal and moral) process.Note just because you make a claim does not mean your claim will be successful!
I'm aware of Adverse Possession, and that it's legal and can be moral. However, I was discussing a particular situation. Which is where someone deliberately attempts to take a piece of land by fencing it off - preventing others from using it - with the intention of taking it through Adverse Possession in the future. That specific situation is what I'm discussing - not the concept of Adverse Possession in general. In which case the legality and the morality would depend on the fencing off and taking exclusive possession of bit, not an application for AP later on.But that's exactly how adverse possession works.Anyone can "deliberately attempts to take a piece of land by fencing it off - preventing others from using it - with the intention of taking it through Adverse Possession in the future."If you don't fence it off and prevent others using it, you cannot later claim AP. Of course, during the 12 year fencing-off period the real owner may come forward and demand you remove the fence, thus preventing you from later claiming AP.
I understand what you are saying, but I do not agree with your characterisation of it. At least in terms of it being moral. Legal is more complicated, and I've seen some cases that went both ways.
However, returning to moral, the two legally successful cases here: https://www.isonharrison.co.uk/blog/could-you-lose-property-rights-to-adverse-possession/ I would classify as legal theft. Morally.
If the OP did as advised here, then I would think similarly. At present the land is being used by a number of people. If someone who doesn't even own it tries to grab it for themselves alone, I'd think them a bit of a posterior who is behaving in an entitled, bad, manner.
For the legal side, I'm looking into prescribed easements, and whether long use of the land by others would have resulted in such existing. E.g. if I understand correctly, then the land would have had to have been used in its current way for 20 years for an easement to exist. And, someone would have to challenge the OP if they fenced it off, and prevented continued use of the land. And so on - I don't claim that I have an understanding of this yet.0 -
These cases are seemingly based on 2002 law? Has this not been updated (in 2012-ish?) so that the first stage of a subsequent AP claim is for the Land Registry to contact the legal owner and ask if this AP is 'ok' with them? And the claim is dead in the water if the answer is 'non'.RHemmings said:
I think that there is a difference if someone deliberately fences off land that others are currently using with the intention of keeping it. I'm aware that fencing off is a strong indicator of possession which is necessary for adverse possession. But, in this case the land isn't currently fenced off and others are using it. So, I feel the situation is different from, e.g., if someone buys property and then finds that their fences are more extensive than the land they currently own, and that it includes some unregistered land which no-one else has been using.propertyrental said:RHemmings said:propertyrental said:RHemmings said:
As an example I tried to find out information on the piece of open land next to 48 Stoneleigh Way, LE3 9TE. However, there's nowhere I can click to bring up a record. I thought this is unlikely to be unregistered land, though it could easily be I suppose. If you are familiar with searching, would it be too much to ask if you can have a go?propertyrental said:Eliza_2 said:Thank you. It seems that to do a map search you need to be a business user, so she's asking around to see if any friends are registered and can help.No.Go here and scroll down to "other ways to search" then "serach by map ".You'll need an account to buy any Titles you find and want to investigate further, but it's quick, easy and free for anyone to set up an account.Using map search for LE3 9TE I found:30 results found
Returning to the thread, I'm wondering if trying to claim a bit of land as in the OP by fencing it off etc. when the OP doesn't own it is both legal and moral. Finding the owner and making an offer: no problem. But, just fencing it off and trying to have it for the OP's exclusive use? Not sure about that.Perfectly legal and moral provided efforts to identify the owner have failed. After 12 years there is a (perfectly legal and moral) process for claiming the land under Adverse Posession - this involves following a (perfectly legal and moral) process.Note just because you make a claim does not mean your claim will be successful!
I'm aware of Adverse Possession, and that it's legal and can be moral. However, I was discussing a particular situation. Which is where someone deliberately attempts to take a piece of land by fencing it off - preventing others from using it - with the intention of taking it through Adverse Possession in the future. That specific situation is what I'm discussing - not the concept of Adverse Possession in general. In which case the legality and the morality would depend on the fencing off and taking exclusive possession of bit, not an application for AP later on.But that's exactly how adverse possession works.Anyone can "deliberately attempts to take a piece of land by fencing it off - preventing others from using it - with the intention of taking it through Adverse Possession in the future."If you don't fence it off and prevent others using it, you cannot later claim AP. Of course, during the 12 year fencing-off period the real owner may come forward and demand you remove the fence, thus preventing you from later claiming AP.
I understand what you are saying, but I do not agree with your characterisation of it. At least in terms of it being moral. Legal is more complicated, and I've seen some cases that went both ways.
However, returning to moral, the two legally successful cases here: https://www.isonharrison.co.uk/blog/could-you-lose-property-rights-to-adverse-possession/ I would classify as legal theft. Morally.
If the OP did as advised here, then I would think similarly. At present the land is being used by a number of people. If someone who doesn't even own it tries to grab it for themselves alone, I'd think them a bit of a posterior who is behaving in an entitled, bad, manner.
For the legal side, I'm looking into prescribed easements, and whether long use of the land by others would have resulted in such existing. E.g. if I understand correctly, then the land would have had to have been used in its current way for 20 years for an easement to exist. And, someone would have to challenge the OP if they fenced it off, and prevented continued use of the land. And so on - I don't claim that I have an understanding of this yet.
I hope it is, since the two cases cited are clearly unethical - happy to describe them as legalised theft. Only certain types of folks would actually do such a thing - most people have stronger principles that would simply prevent them from entertaining it. So the old law actually favoured the 'uncivilised' amongst us.1 -
My point in giving both of those cases was that I was using them to back up my beliefs that certain actions were immoral. I think that in this context 'unethical' is sufficiently close that we agree. I was putting these forward as ethical/moral examples, not legal.ThisIsWeird said:
These cases are seemingly based on 2002 law? Has this not been updated (in 2012-ish?) so that the first stage of a subsequent AP claim is for the Land Registry to contact the legal owner and ask if this AP is 'ok' with them? And the claim is dead in the water if the answer is 'non'.RHemmings said:
I think that there is a difference if someone deliberately fences off land that others are currently using with the intention of keeping it. I'm aware that fencing off is a strong indicator of possession which is necessary for adverse possession. But, in this case the land isn't currently fenced off and others are using it. So, I feel the situation is different from, e.g., if someone buys property and then finds that their fences are more extensive than the land they currently own, and that it includes some unregistered land which no-one else has been using.propertyrental said:RHemmings said:propertyrental said:RHemmings said:
As an example I tried to find out information on the piece of open land next to 48 Stoneleigh Way, LE3 9TE. However, there's nowhere I can click to bring up a record. I thought this is unlikely to be unregistered land, though it could easily be I suppose. If you are familiar with searching, would it be too much to ask if you can have a go?propertyrental said:Eliza_2 said:Thank you. It seems that to do a map search you need to be a business user, so she's asking around to see if any friends are registered and can help.No.Go here and scroll down to "other ways to search" then "serach by map ".You'll need an account to buy any Titles you find and want to investigate further, but it's quick, easy and free for anyone to set up an account.Using map search for LE3 9TE I found:30 results found
Returning to the thread, I'm wondering if trying to claim a bit of land as in the OP by fencing it off etc. when the OP doesn't own it is both legal and moral. Finding the owner and making an offer: no problem. But, just fencing it off and trying to have it for the OP's exclusive use? Not sure about that.Perfectly legal and moral provided efforts to identify the owner have failed. After 12 years there is a (perfectly legal and moral) process for claiming the land under Adverse Posession - this involves following a (perfectly legal and moral) process.Note just because you make a claim does not mean your claim will be successful!
I'm aware of Adverse Possession, and that it's legal and can be moral. However, I was discussing a particular situation. Which is where someone deliberately attempts to take a piece of land by fencing it off - preventing others from using it - with the intention of taking it through Adverse Possession in the future. That specific situation is what I'm discussing - not the concept of Adverse Possession in general. In which case the legality and the morality would depend on the fencing off and taking exclusive possession of bit, not an application for AP later on.But that's exactly how adverse possession works.Anyone can "deliberately attempts to take a piece of land by fencing it off - preventing others from using it - with the intention of taking it through Adverse Possession in the future."If you don't fence it off and prevent others using it, you cannot later claim AP. Of course, during the 12 year fencing-off period the real owner may come forward and demand you remove the fence, thus preventing you from later claiming AP.
I understand what you are saying, but I do not agree with your characterisation of it. At least in terms of it being moral. Legal is more complicated, and I've seen some cases that went both ways.
However, returning to moral, the two legally successful cases here: https://www.isonharrison.co.uk/blog/could-you-lose-property-rights-to-adverse-possession/ I would classify as legal theft. Morally.
If the OP did as advised here, then I would think similarly. At present the land is being used by a number of people. If someone who doesn't even own it tries to grab it for themselves alone, I'd think them a bit of a posterior who is behaving in an entitled, bad, manner.
For the legal side, I'm looking into prescribed easements, and whether long use of the land by others would have resulted in such existing. E.g. if I understand correctly, then the land would have had to have been used in its current way for 20 years for an easement to exist. And, someone would have to challenge the OP if they fenced it off, and prevented continued use of the land. And so on - I don't claim that I have an understanding of this yet.
I hope it is, since the two cases cited are clearly unethical - happy to describe them as legalised theft. Only certain types of folks would actually do such a thing - most people have stronger principles that would simply prevent them from entertaining it. So the old law actually favoured the 'uncivilised' amongst us.
Legally, I think things are more complex, and depend on easements that may have been gained over a long period of time. E.g. the land in Stoneleigh Way discussed above is not unregistered, but registered to a builder (who may or may not still exist as a company). However, that land has been used as a place for children to play, people to walk their dogs, etc. for decades. If someone tried to fence it off I would hope that they would be opposed and forced to take down any fence, etc.
In the case of the OP, it will depend on whether there are easements as to whether someone could oppose an attempt to (fence off the property with the intention of claiming it in the future). Note: the OP has not said that they would do that - but it has been commonly suggested here.
Over and above the law, I would never do this myself. But, if I lived in the area and someone tried to put a fence up to claim exclusive possession of some commonly used land that they don't own, and someone simply smashed up the fence at night, then that would make me smile. And, if people around then made a point of using the land, I would join in. Note that I am not suggesting in any way that the OP would be so entitled as to try and just fence off the land as described here.1 -
But who maintains it (given it looks like somebody cuts the grass etc)? I would have guessed it's been adopted by the council, so effectively they're the "owners", in the same way that the roads are adopted for maintenance but are probably still registered to the builders.RHemmings said:
the land in Stoneleigh Way discussed above is not unregistered, but registered to a builder (who may or may not still exist as a company). However, that land has been used as a place for children to play, people to walk their dogs, etc. for decades. If someone tried to fence it off I would hope that they would be opposed and forced to take down any fence, etc.ThisIsWeird said:
These cases are seemingly based on 2002 law? Has this not been updated (in 2012-ish?) so that the first stage of a subsequent AP claim is for the Land Registry to contact the legal owner and ask if this AP is 'ok' with them? And the claim is dead in the water if the answer is 'non'.RHemmings said:
I think that there is a difference if someone deliberately fences off land that others are currently using with the intention of keeping it. I'm aware that fencing off is a strong indicator of possession which is necessary for adverse possession. But, in this case the land isn't currently fenced off and others are using it. So, I feel the situation is different from, e.g., if someone buys property and then finds that their fences are more extensive than the land they currently own, and that it includes some unregistered land which no-one else has been using.propertyrental said:RHemmings said:propertyrental said:RHemmings said:
As an example I tried to find out information on the piece of open land next to 48 Stoneleigh Way, LE3 9TE. However, there's nowhere I can click to bring up a record. I thought this is unlikely to be unregistered land, though it could easily be I suppose. If you are familiar with searching, would it be too much to ask if you can have a go?propertyrental said:Eliza_2 said:Thank you. It seems that to do a map search you need to be a business user, so she's asking around to see if any friends are registered and can help.No.Go here and scroll down to "other ways to search" then "serach by map ".You'll need an account to buy any Titles you find and want to investigate further, but it's quick, easy and free for anyone to set up an account.Using map search for LE3 9TE I found:30 results found
Returning to the thread, I'm wondering if trying to claim a bit of land as in the OP by fencing it off etc. when the OP doesn't own it is both legal and moral. Finding the owner and making an offer: no problem. But, just fencing it off and trying to have it for the OP's exclusive use? Not sure about that.Perfectly legal and moral provided efforts to identify the owner have failed. After 12 years there is a (perfectly legal and moral) process for claiming the land under Adverse Posession - this involves following a (perfectly legal and moral) process.Note just because you make a claim does not mean your claim will be successful!
I'm aware of Adverse Possession, and that it's legal and can be moral. However, I was discussing a particular situation. Which is where someone deliberately attempts to take a piece of land by fencing it off - preventing others from using it - with the intention of taking it through Adverse Possession in the future. That specific situation is what I'm discussing - not the concept of Adverse Possession in general. In which case the legality and the morality would depend on the fencing off and taking exclusive possession of bit, not an application for AP later on.But that's exactly how adverse possession works.Anyone can "deliberately attempts to take a piece of land by fencing it off - preventing others from using it - with the intention of taking it through Adverse Possession in the future."If you don't fence it off and prevent others using it, you cannot later claim AP. Of course, during the 12 year fencing-off period the real owner may come forward and demand you remove the fence, thus preventing you from later claiming AP.
I understand what you are saying, but I do not agree with your characterisation of it. At least in terms of it being moral. Legal is more complicated, and I've seen some cases that went both ways.
However, returning to moral, the two legally successful cases here: https://www.isonharrison.co.uk/blog/could-you-lose-property-rights-to-adverse-possession/ I would classify as legal theft. Morally.
If the OP did as advised here, then I would think similarly. At present the land is being used by a number of people. If someone who doesn't even own it tries to grab it for themselves alone, I'd think them a bit of a posterior who is behaving in an entitled, bad, manner.
For the legal side, I'm looking into prescribed easements, and whether long use of the land by others would have resulted in such existing. E.g. if I understand correctly, then the land would have had to have been used in its current way for 20 years for an easement to exist. And, someone would have to challenge the OP if they fenced it off, and prevented continued use of the land. And so on - I don't claim that I have an understanding of this yet.
I hope it is, since the two cases cited are clearly unethical - happy to describe them as legalised theft. Only certain types of folks would actually do such a thing - most people have stronger principles that would simply prevent them from entertaining it. So the old law actually favoured the 'uncivilised' amongst us.1 -
I have seen it being mowed by a big tractor like lawnmower that looks the same as the one used in local parks. Surely the council. I have no idea what would happen if one of the adjoining landowners tried to fence it off. I hope that the council would intervene and force them to take the fence down. Much better than it only being down to local residents. I'm not sure of the legal situation. I'd agree that it functions like council land, but the legal situation may be more murky.user1977 said:
But who maintains it (given it looks like somebody cuts the grass etc)? I would have guessed it's been adopted by the council, so effectively they're the "owners", in the same way that the roads are adopted for maintenance but are probably still registered to the builders.RHemmings said:
the land in Stoneleigh Way discussed above is not unregistered, but registered to a builder (who may or may not still exist as a company). However, that land has been used as a place for children to play, people to walk their dogs, etc. for decades. If someone tried to fence it off I would hope that they would be opposed and forced to take down any fence, etc.ThisIsWeird said:
These cases are seemingly based on 2002 law? Has this not been updated (in 2012-ish?) so that the first stage of a subsequent AP claim is for the Land Registry to contact the legal owner and ask if this AP is 'ok' with them? And the claim is dead in the water if the answer is 'non'.RHemmings said:
I think that there is a difference if someone deliberately fences off land that others are currently using with the intention of keeping it. I'm aware that fencing off is a strong indicator of possession which is necessary for adverse possession. But, in this case the land isn't currently fenced off and others are using it. So, I feel the situation is different from, e.g., if someone buys property and then finds that their fences are more extensive than the land they currently own, and that it includes some unregistered land which no-one else has been using.propertyrental said:RHemmings said:propertyrental said:RHemmings said:
As an example I tried to find out information on the piece of open land next to 48 Stoneleigh Way, LE3 9TE. However, there's nowhere I can click to bring up a record. I thought this is unlikely to be unregistered land, though it could easily be I suppose. If you are familiar with searching, would it be too much to ask if you can have a go?propertyrental said:Eliza_2 said:Thank you. It seems that to do a map search you need to be a business user, so she's asking around to see if any friends are registered and can help.No.Go here and scroll down to "other ways to search" then "serach by map ".You'll need an account to buy any Titles you find and want to investigate further, but it's quick, easy and free for anyone to set up an account.Using map search for LE3 9TE I found:30 results found
Returning to the thread, I'm wondering if trying to claim a bit of land as in the OP by fencing it off etc. when the OP doesn't own it is both legal and moral. Finding the owner and making an offer: no problem. But, just fencing it off and trying to have it for the OP's exclusive use? Not sure about that.Perfectly legal and moral provided efforts to identify the owner have failed. After 12 years there is a (perfectly legal and moral) process for claiming the land under Adverse Posession - this involves following a (perfectly legal and moral) process.Note just because you make a claim does not mean your claim will be successful!
I'm aware of Adverse Possession, and that it's legal and can be moral. However, I was discussing a particular situation. Which is where someone deliberately attempts to take a piece of land by fencing it off - preventing others from using it - with the intention of taking it through Adverse Possession in the future. That specific situation is what I'm discussing - not the concept of Adverse Possession in general. In which case the legality and the morality would depend on the fencing off and taking exclusive possession of bit, not an application for AP later on.But that's exactly how adverse possession works.Anyone can "deliberately attempts to take a piece of land by fencing it off - preventing others from using it - with the intention of taking it through Adverse Possession in the future."If you don't fence it off and prevent others using it, you cannot later claim AP. Of course, during the 12 year fencing-off period the real owner may come forward and demand you remove the fence, thus preventing you from later claiming AP.
I understand what you are saying, but I do not agree with your characterisation of it. At least in terms of it being moral. Legal is more complicated, and I've seen some cases that went both ways.
However, returning to moral, the two legally successful cases here: https://www.isonharrison.co.uk/blog/could-you-lose-property-rights-to-adverse-possession/ I would classify as legal theft. Morally.
If the OP did as advised here, then I would think similarly. At present the land is being used by a number of people. If someone who doesn't even own it tries to grab it for themselves alone, I'd think them a bit of a posterior who is behaving in an entitled, bad, manner.
For the legal side, I'm looking into prescribed easements, and whether long use of the land by others would have resulted in such existing. E.g. if I understand correctly, then the land would have had to have been used in its current way for 20 years for an easement to exist. And, someone would have to challenge the OP if they fenced it off, and prevented continued use of the land. And so on - I don't claim that I have an understanding of this yet.
I hope it is, since the two cases cited are clearly unethical - happy to describe them as legalised theft. Only certain types of folks would actually do such a thing - most people have stronger principles that would simply prevent them from entertaining it. So the old law actually favoured the 'uncivilised' amongst us.
0 -
But the practical situation is that the council would prevent somebody trying to "grab" it in the same way as they would for any other road verge (or road!). Obviously there are countless similar bits of land, but not exactly any problems with people trying to "steal" them.RHemmings said:
I'd agree that it functions like council land, but the legal situation may be more murky.user1977 said:
But who maintains it (given it looks like somebody cuts the grass etc)? I would have guessed it's been adopted by the council, so effectively they're the "owners", in the same way that the roads are adopted for maintenance but are probably still registered to the builders.RHemmings said:
the land in Stoneleigh Way discussed above is not unregistered, but registered to a builder (who may or may not still exist as a company). However, that land has been used as a place for children to play, people to walk their dogs, etc. for decades. If someone tried to fence it off I would hope that they would be opposed and forced to take down any fence, etc.ThisIsWeird said:
These cases are seemingly based on 2002 law? Has this not been updated (in 2012-ish?) so that the first stage of a subsequent AP claim is for the Land Registry to contact the legal owner and ask if this AP is 'ok' with them? And the claim is dead in the water if the answer is 'non'.RHemmings said:
I think that there is a difference if someone deliberately fences off land that others are currently using with the intention of keeping it. I'm aware that fencing off is a strong indicator of possession which is necessary for adverse possession. But, in this case the land isn't currently fenced off and others are using it. So, I feel the situation is different from, e.g., if someone buys property and then finds that their fences are more extensive than the land they currently own, and that it includes some unregistered land which no-one else has been using.propertyrental said:RHemmings said:propertyrental said:RHemmings said:
As an example I tried to find out information on the piece of open land next to 48 Stoneleigh Way, LE3 9TE. However, there's nowhere I can click to bring up a record. I thought this is unlikely to be unregistered land, though it could easily be I suppose. If you are familiar with searching, would it be too much to ask if you can have a go?propertyrental said:Eliza_2 said:Thank you. It seems that to do a map search you need to be a business user, so she's asking around to see if any friends are registered and can help.No.Go here and scroll down to "other ways to search" then "serach by map ".You'll need an account to buy any Titles you find and want to investigate further, but it's quick, easy and free for anyone to set up an account.Using map search for LE3 9TE I found:30 results found
Returning to the thread, I'm wondering if trying to claim a bit of land as in the OP by fencing it off etc. when the OP doesn't own it is both legal and moral. Finding the owner and making an offer: no problem. But, just fencing it off and trying to have it for the OP's exclusive use? Not sure about that.Perfectly legal and moral provided efforts to identify the owner have failed. After 12 years there is a (perfectly legal and moral) process for claiming the land under Adverse Posession - this involves following a (perfectly legal and moral) process.Note just because you make a claim does not mean your claim will be successful!
I'm aware of Adverse Possession, and that it's legal and can be moral. However, I was discussing a particular situation. Which is where someone deliberately attempts to take a piece of land by fencing it off - preventing others from using it - with the intention of taking it through Adverse Possession in the future. That specific situation is what I'm discussing - not the concept of Adverse Possession in general. In which case the legality and the morality would depend on the fencing off and taking exclusive possession of bit, not an application for AP later on.But that's exactly how adverse possession works.Anyone can "deliberately attempts to take a piece of land by fencing it off - preventing others from using it - with the intention of taking it through Adverse Possession in the future."If you don't fence it off and prevent others using it, you cannot later claim AP. Of course, during the 12 year fencing-off period the real owner may come forward and demand you remove the fence, thus preventing you from later claiming AP.
I understand what you are saying, but I do not agree with your characterisation of it. At least in terms of it being moral. Legal is more complicated, and I've seen some cases that went both ways.
However, returning to moral, the two legally successful cases here: https://www.isonharrison.co.uk/blog/could-you-lose-property-rights-to-adverse-possession/ I would classify as legal theft. Morally.
If the OP did as advised here, then I would think similarly. At present the land is being used by a number of people. If someone who doesn't even own it tries to grab it for themselves alone, I'd think them a bit of a posterior who is behaving in an entitled, bad, manner.
For the legal side, I'm looking into prescribed easements, and whether long use of the land by others would have resulted in such existing. E.g. if I understand correctly, then the land would have had to have been used in its current way for 20 years for an easement to exist. And, someone would have to challenge the OP if they fenced it off, and prevented continued use of the land. And so on - I don't claim that I have an understanding of this yet.
I hope it is, since the two cases cited are clearly unethical - happy to describe them as legalised theft. Only certain types of folks would actually do such a thing - most people have stronger principles that would simply prevent them from entertaining it. So the old law actually favoured the 'uncivilised' amongst us.1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 261.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards