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
bona vacantia/ intestacy to unregistered land
Comments
-
Exactly what i am saying!elsien said:
In your own words though “I mean how can the crown steal it off of a dead man/ woman with no relatives if they have no record of who owned it in the first place”, how can you steal it off a dead/man woman with no relatives if they have no record of who owned it on the first place?NoseyParkersHelper said:elsien said:elsien said:NoseyParkersHelper said:elsien said
Regardless of what the land is used for, whether sold off by the crown or taken by you for your garden, you are still appropriating it from the dead person’s estate.
I dont understand the point that you are making?
0 -
But unregisted the goverment or Crown will have no record of this will they no?Section62 said:elsien said:The OP also appears to be confusing 'no record' and 'not registered with Land Registry' - the two aren't the same thing. Unregistered property doesn't mean there is no record of who owns it/has an interest in it.0 -
That going on your logic and terminology, by using adverse possession you would be stealing the land.NoseyParkersHelper said:
Exactly what i am saying!elsien said:
In your own words though “I mean how can the crown steal it off of a dead man/ woman with no relatives if they have no record of who owned it in the first place”, how can you steal it off a dead/man woman with no relatives if they have no record of who owned it on the first place?NoseyParkersHelper said:elsien said:elsien said:NoseyParkersHelper said:elsien said
Regardless of what the land is used for, whether sold off by the crown or taken by you for your garden, you are still appropriating it from the dead person’s estate.
I dont understand the point that you are making?All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.
Pedant alert - it's could have, not could of.1 -
If you assume the Land Registry is the only source of information about property ownership then you might be right, but that assumption would be wrong.NoseyParkersHelper said:
But unregisted the goverment or Crown will have no record of this will they no?Section62 said:elsien said:The OP also appears to be confusing 'no record' and 'not registered with Land Registry' - the two aren't the same thing. Unregistered property doesn't mean there is no record of who owns it/has an interest in it.
0 -
elsien said
From whom?
That going on your logic and terminology, by using adverse possession you would be stealing the land.0 -
so what other sources of information are there then?Section62 said:
If you assume the Land Registry is the only source of information about property ownership then you might be right, but that assumption would be wrong.NoseyParkersHelper said:0 -
Lots. A quick google will help you research the subject more thoroughly than could ever be achieved through discussion on this forum.NoseyParkersHelper said:
so what other sources of information are there then?Section62 said:
If you assume the Land Registry is the only source of information about property ownership then you might be right, but that assumption would be wrong.NoseyParkersHelper said:
0 -
NoseyParkersHelper said:
so what other sources of information are there then?Section62 said:
If you assume the Land Registry is the only source of information about property ownership then you might be right, but that assumption would be wrong.NoseyParkersHelper said:Title Deeds and conveyancing documents - Copies may be held in local archives.Any language construct that forces such insanity in this case should be abandoned without regrets. –
Erik Aronesty, 2014
Treasure the moments that you have. Savour them for as long as you can for they will never come back again.0 -
I’m out now. Can’t be doing with going round in circles for no clear reason. It’s all perfectly self-explanatory with a little bit of effort.NoseyParkersHelper said:elsien said
From whom?
That going on your logic and terminology, by using adverse possession you would be stealing the land.All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.
Pedant alert - it's could have, not could of.1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards