Adverse possession

Foreverex

Boohoo said:

Foreverex said:

Thanks everyone.

The area is fenced, the adjacent woodland locates in greenbelt owned by a developer. 

I suspected because the boundary on title plan is general and for indicative purpose, I did mention to my solicitor but they didn't raise any questions.

I want to know first if the land is part of my curtilage. If not, should I proceed to claim it now (assuming the previous owner would not write me any declaration) with existing evidence such as date on consumer unit, map on gov website, Google maps satellite image; or wait another 10 years?

Have you asked the neighbours about this building/land you're wanting to obtain by adverse possession?

Consumer unit in the building, is there meter anywhere in this building?

If you don't know how power is getting to this building you could leave a light on or if sockets in there plug in a radio or something like that and go to your house and turn the power off at your consumer unit and see if the power goes off in that building.

If it goes off then you could assume that it belongs to your property if still on then that's a different matter.

I have no neighbours within half a mile ...

The shed is powered by a plug inside the main house.... Yes plug it in a 3 pin socket like a kettle in the main house, the wire just come out from the wall. No separate meter. No visible cable between the main house and the shed, so I believe it is under the tarmac.

Section62 said:

Foreverex said:

...
I want to know first if the land is part of my curtilage. If not, should I proceed to claim it now (assuming the previous owner would not write me any declaration) with existing evidence such as date on consumer unit, map on gov website, Google maps satellite image; or wait another 10 years?

Consumer units can be reused (and reusing an older consumer unit in an outbuilding could be called moneysaving), so the date on the consumer unit isn't evidence it has been in that shed in that location since 1999.  If there were a separate electricity supply and the meter/service head had a seal or installation record which was dated then that might be more persuasive.

If the map is just OS mapping then the lines aren't conclusive proof of legal boundaries - they are just what the cartographer sees and records in accordance with the standards used for that level of mapping.  It also won't tell you how long the shed has been there, beyond the date the map was drawn or revised.

As others have said, you need to confirm whether the neighbouring land is registered.  Whether you can keep the land or not will probably depend on whether the developer needs it for the development.  This might be a case where if the land is unregistered you'd be best off keeping quiet and not doing anything to change the status quo.

If the cable is underneath the tarmac, maybe I can say the occupation date was the same as the house was built in 1990s?

The adjacent land is registered under a developer. I'm sure the developer do not need the land as the woodland has a TPO on it plus it is greenbelt. On the other side of the woodland is a big field I think thats What's they are after. 

WIAWSNB

Ok, it's being supplied by your house! That's surely a biggie.
Is 'your' property open to this area, or is there a fence between you? If the latter, I'd change that and begin properly using that land, incorporating it into your curtilage, and blurring the joint line.
Keep lots of records of the CU and stuff, so that if you remove it - or the shed - in a few years, you'll still be able to prove today's date.
Also try and trace how the cable runs, and determine as best as possible when it could have been installed. You mention tarmac, for example? So go on historic Google Maps and see when that area was tarmacked - the cable will almost certainly have been laid prior to that.
There isn't much you've yet said that could determine exactly when your property began using that land and shed - the date on the CU isn't evidence of installation, but it adds usefully to the circumstantial. And hopefully more investigation will strongly suggest, "It must have been before this date...". See what you come up with.
Make sure you fully record this evidence before you change anything, like remove the shed!
From what you've described, it's still an obviously 'separate' area? If so, I'd change that, use it, keep records, and wait as long as possible.
If it isn't included in the development plan for the land beyond it, then it's extremely unlikely they will try and claim it. So that, hopefully, just leaves you.
If you find, for example, that the tarmac strip is ~12 (?) years old, then you could be home and dry.
If you find the tarmac was only added, say 8 years ago, I'd keep schtum and wait until you are confident you can demonstrate the adequate time interval. It appears currently to be the only proper 'evidence', since it's highly unlikely anyone would have moled a cable under it to this shed, certainly not a supply from a domestic socket.
So, ID age of tarmac. And keep quiet? 🤐 

Section62

WIAWSNB said:

....
If you find, for example, that the tarmac strip is ~12 (?) years old, then you could be home and dry.
If you find the tarmac was only added, say 8 years ago, I'd keep schtum and wait until you are confident you can demonstrate the adequate time interval. It appears currently to be the only proper 'evidence', since it's highly unlikely anyone would have moled a cable under it to this shed, certainly not a supply from a domestic socket.
So, ID age of tarmac. And keep quiet? 🤐 

If "The adjacent land is registered under a developer." means the land is registered then the OP will need a lot more than a cable under some tarmac to advance an AP claim.

Foreverex said:

The adjacent land is registered under a developer. I'm sure the developer do not need the land as the woodland has a TPO on it plus it is greenbelt. On the other side of the woodland is a big field I think thats What's they are after. 

It depends on the circumstances - the developer might want to use retention of the woodland as justification/compensation for covering the adjacent swathe of land with brick boxes, particularly if the adjacent land is also greenbelt.  Arguments can be put forward that the development area includes x% of woodland providing natural habitat etc etc.

In that case it might come to light that there has been encroachment into land (which is greenbelt?).  Your area of land looks quite small, but if there is likely to be opposition to the development then those who are against the development might use anything, no matter how trivial, as a stick to beat the developer.

If the shed is encroachment into the greenbelt then you might have the council planners after you as well.

Your best bet is probably to do and say nothing, and hope nobody notices.

WIAWSNB

Section62 said:

If "The adjacent land is registered under a developer." means the land is registered then the OP will need a lot more than a cable under some tarmac to advance an AP claim.

If. I don't think it's clear it incudes this piece? 

The TPO is promising, tho', as it hopefully means the developer won't encroach on the OP's boundary in any case.

Boohoo

I may have missed this bit but when viewing the property did you not ask the estate agent or owners ( if they were present) about the building?

If not is there any way you can contact them to ask that is assuming the last owner is alive.

Do you a photo of building with the fencing around it to show or anything relating the property sale advert?

Foreverex

Thanks guys!

I have found an aerial photos (paid ones) online clearly showing that the fence and shed has been there since 2015 at least ( the 1999's one is too blur in the thumbnail)

I may just wait a few more years or until one day they come to me.

The property was an inheritance so I got a lot of "I don't know" from them to my questions. And I thought asking my solicitor would be my best bet for example they will ask for clarification on my behalf. 

For the shed, I think it has fulfilled the 4-year rule from 2015 so I don't worry about it.