How to find out who owns a scruffy bit of land?

RHemmings

user1977 said:

RHemmings said:

user1977 said:

RHemmings said:

ThisIsWeird said:

RHemmings said:

propertyrental said:

RHemmings said:

propertyrental said:

RHemmings said:

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.

https://search-property-information.service.gov.uk/?_ga=2.227252893.1011285419.1624257816-2123334908.1623227908

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? 

Using map search for LE3 9TE I found:

30 results found

• 48 Stoneleigh Way, Leicester (LE3 9TE)

• 50 Stoneleigh Way, Leicester (LE3 9TE)

• 46 Stoneleigh Way, Leicester, (LE3 9TE)

• 52 Stoneleigh Way, Leicester, (LE3 9TE)

• Fronting Anstey Lane and Groby Road, Leicester

• 191 Groby Road, Leicester and garage (LE3 9EF)

• 189 Groby Road, Leicester and garage (LE3 9EF)

• 187 Groby Road, Leicester (LE3 9EF)

• 185 Groby Road, Leicester and garage, (LE3 9EF)

• 189 Groby Road, Leicester and garage (LE3 9EF)

• 183 Groby Road, Leicester and garage (LE3 9EF)

• 31 Stoneleigh Way, Leicester (LE3 9TE)

• 29 Stoneleigh Way, Leicester (LE3 9TE)

• 33 Stoneleigh Way, Leicester (LE3 9TE)

• 32 Fineshade Avenue, Leicester

• 27 Stoneleigh Way, Leicester (LE3 9TE)

• 181 Groby Road, Leicester and garage (LE3 9EF)

• 36, 38, 40 and 42 Courtenay Road 27, 29, 30, 32 and 33 Combe Close, 139, 141, 143, 145, 147, 149, 151 and 153 Groby Road, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15 Ranton Way, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30 and 32 Whitely Close and 2, 6, 8 and 10 Whitwick Way, Leicester

• the Upper Maisonette being 32 Whitley Close, Leicester, garden ground and garage (LE3 9TF)

• 187 Groby Road, Leicester (LE3 9EF)

• 179 Groby Road, Leicester and garage (LE3 9EF)

• 35 Stoneleigh Way, Leicester (LE3 9TE)

• 25 Stoneleigh Way, Leicester (LE3 9TE)

• 28 Whitley Close, Leicester (LE3 9TF)

• 177 Groby Road, Leicester and garage (LE3 9EF)

• 30 Fineshade Avenue, Leicester (LE3 9TN)

• Airspace above 27 Stoneleigh Way, Leicester (LE3 9TE)

• 185 Groby Road, Leicester and garage, (LE3 9EF)

• 23 Stoneleigh Way, Leicester

• The site of an Electricity Sub-Station lying to the North-East of Groby Road, Leicester

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.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/adverse-possession-of-1-unregistered-land-and-2-registered-land/practice-guide-5-adverse-possession-of-1-unregistered-and-2-registered-land-where-a-right-to-be-registered-was-acquired-before-13-october-2003

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 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. 

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. 

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'.
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. 

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.

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.

I'd agree that it functions like council land, but the legal situation may be more murky. 

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.

I would hope so. But, I think these cases are very rare, and typically of the type given in the page I linked to above where it's only between two neighbours. 

Even if it's rare, we're in this thread where people have been suggesting actions like this. Which may be more likely to succeed (and not be newsworthy) if the location is, e.g., more remote than inner city.