News1 min ago
Property question
I have vehicular right of access at land at rear of my property, granted between previous owner of house and previous owner of that land (was a factory, no longer exist), granted in 1957. I own first 8 feet, on deeds the people who now own other land have next 9 feet. A pallasade fence has been at boundary (17 feet) for at least 8 years since I've been here, and previous fence for at least 25, according to neighbours. If they have not used that strip of land for so long, and I have maintained it, given that they fenced it off, can they be deemed to have given up their right to it, and could I claim it?
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by TheGrump. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
To claim adverse possession the right shouldn't have already been granted as it defies the lack of knowledge, consent etc... issue.
If you have an established right in writing then it may not be possible to claim adverse possession unless maybe you have used and maintained it for other purposes over and above the right of access granted? Still very tenuous though.
If you have an established right in writing then it may not be possible to claim adverse possession unless maybe you have used and maintained it for other purposes over and above the right of access granted? Still very tenuous though.
Forgive my stupidity here, but could you try that again in simpler terms? I am presuming from your reply that because way back 50 years ago, an agreement was made between a now dead man and a now defunct factory, because that agrrement was there then it is still there now. The main issue is the time they have not used, and fenced off the land.
Thanks for your prompt answer by the way.
Grump
Thanks for your prompt answer by the way.
Grump
I'll have a go - then Jenna (who I know to be legally trained) can put me right.
On the first 8 feet, you own it.
On the next 9 feet, the land is part of the same where the factory used to be. You have an easement over that 9 feet.
To claim adverse possession you must have occupied the land for at least 10 years (registered land).
The trouble is that you have an easement over that 9 feet - so there is already an agreement established between you and the owner. The fact that he doesn't use it - having fenced it off - is immaterial.
If you did not have that easement, you could be made a claim for Adverse Possession.
On the first 8 feet, you own it.
On the next 9 feet, the land is part of the same where the factory used to be. You have an easement over that 9 feet.
To claim adverse possession you must have occupied the land for at least 10 years (registered land).
The trouble is that you have an easement over that 9 feet - so there is already an agreement established between you and the owner. The fact that he doesn't use it - having fenced it off - is immaterial.
If you did not have that easement, you could be made a claim for Adverse Possession.
That's what I meant BM and good idea about offering to buy it :)
To claim adverse possession your possession of the land must be adverse.
Adverse would mean without consent or permission (among other things).
You have a right of way (is it written any of the house deeds?) over the land owned by the factory.
Rights usually pass (unless stated otherwise and other technicalities I won't get into here) from owner to owner of property.
The right of way granted to the former owner passed to you in the same way your right of way is binding on the current owners of the factory's land.
You have a right to use the land.
Having a right to use the land implies you have consent/persmission.
As you have consent/permission, it would more than likely defeat any claim for adverse possession.
Consent/permission = possession is not adverse, so...
Right of way giving consent/permission = no adverse possession.
Does that make more sense?
To claim adverse possession your possession of the land must be adverse.
Adverse would mean without consent or permission (among other things).
You have a right of way (is it written any of the house deeds?) over the land owned by the factory.
Rights usually pass (unless stated otherwise and other technicalities I won't get into here) from owner to owner of property.
The right of way granted to the former owner passed to you in the same way your right of way is binding on the current owners of the factory's land.
You have a right to use the land.
Having a right to use the land implies you have consent/persmission.
As you have consent/permission, it would more than likely defeat any claim for adverse possession.
Consent/permission = possession is not adverse, so...
Right of way giving consent/permission = no adverse possession.
Does that make more sense?
All makes more sense now. Thank you all so much for your replies.
As far as I see it, and this is where the problem lies, there is reference to agreement in 19dot between factory who now do not exist, and previous owner of this house. Now I can understand that agreement passing between subsequent owners of properties. What I was really trying to get to was given the timescale involved, firstly could I claim it as mine, and perhaps a more valid question is ; if the current owners decided to remove their fence of 25 years or so, would I and 9 other tenants be able to stop them ? I cannot see they could gain anything from the land by doing so.
The main reason for all this exploratory questioning is I am trying to buy the land immediately behind next two houses, with a view to car storage in a wooden garage, and it would be nice if I could build bigger.
The idea of bunging them a few quid sounds good, but I want to know legal position first before trying to haggle.
If I already have a legal right to it, I'm not going to throw money away.
Thanks once again.
Grump
As far as I see it, and this is where the problem lies, there is reference to agreement in 19dot between factory who now do not exist, and previous owner of this house. Now I can understand that agreement passing between subsequent owners of properties. What I was really trying to get to was given the timescale involved, firstly could I claim it as mine, and perhaps a more valid question is ; if the current owners decided to remove their fence of 25 years or so, would I and 9 other tenants be able to stop them ? I cannot see they could gain anything from the land by doing so.
The main reason for all this exploratory questioning is I am trying to buy the land immediately behind next two houses, with a view to car storage in a wooden garage, and it would be nice if I could build bigger.
The idea of bunging them a few quid sounds good, but I want to know legal position first before trying to haggle.
If I already have a legal right to it, I'm not going to throw money away.
Thanks once again.
Grump
Don't confuse a legal right to pass over it with a legal right to own it. You have the former.
The passage of time doesn't change the price of fish - easements (unless worded otherwise) are held forever the benefit of the landowner - not merely the present incumbent who held the land title when the easementwas established.
Yes, they could decide to open up their end and start traipsing up and down there again.
But, like you say, it doesn't seem to be much use to them - so they might sell. Invent some trivial reason why you'd like to buy it - like you want to grow more potatoes - what with the credit crunch and the rising price of food. That way it doesn't seem worth much to you - you'd just be helping them out a bit.
The passage of time doesn't change the price of fish - easements (unless worded otherwise) are held forever the benefit of the landowner - not merely the present incumbent who held the land title when the easementwas established.
Yes, they could decide to open up their end and start traipsing up and down there again.
But, like you say, it doesn't seem to be much use to them - so they might sell. Invent some trivial reason why you'd like to buy it - like you want to grow more potatoes - what with the credit crunch and the rising price of food. That way it doesn't seem worth much to you - you'd just be helping them out a bit.
1 to 10 of 10
