George Ward evicted.

[Barneyp]

9 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

 

From recollection you have to have used land which you do not own for a period of 12 years unchallenged by the rightful owner under the adverse possssion rules. Where I used to live on the outskirts of London there were quite a few unoccupied building plots which had been purchased before WW11, but were never claimed after the war ended. There were three plots almost opposite our house and one of the neighbours kept chickens on two of them, after about twenty years he registered it as his own land and sold it for development.

 

 

The law has been tightened up in recent years, as I understand it you need to prove you have occupied the property continuously for the 12 years, obviously you can go out for the day or even have the occasional holiday but you can't just visit it occasionally to claim occupation. And there must have been no objection to you being there from the actual landowner for the whole 12 years, even if they just send a letter asking you to vacate it would reset the clock on the 12 years.

Certain types of land are exempt, and the right to moor on a canal is clearly a completely separate issue.

[Tonka]

44 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

 

From recollection you have to have used land which you do not own for a period of 12 years unchallenged by the rightful owner under the adverse possssion rules. Where I used to live on the outskirts of London there were quite a few unoccupied building plots which had been purchased before WW11, but were never claimed after the war ended. There were three plots almost opposite our house and one of the neighbours kept chickens on two of them, after about twenty years he registered it as his own land and sold it for development.

 

 

 

I think you actually mean "New Age Traveller". The term "Traveller" is a generic one used by the Gypsy Community to describe Travelling People of Romany descent, and they disaprove of their historic description being used by by people who they would describe as Gorgers, or Gorgos.

 

 

A proper Gypsy moves around with their caravan and when they leave you would not know where they had been. The site was clean and tidy. There used to be one often by the side of the Banbury to Southam road. You probably passed it a few times going to the boat

[David Schweizer]

2 minutes ago, Tonka said:

A proper Gypsy moves around with their caravan and when they leave you would not know where they had been. The site was clean and tidy. There used to be one often by the side of the Banbury to Southam road. You probably passed it a few times going to the boat

There are many Romany families who live in a house, there are also many who live permanently in a van on dedicated sites. There was permanent site less than a mile from our house back in the 1950's /60's, and I knew some of the residents who bred and trained horses. More recently I remember a site in Banbury next to the canal towpath, opposite the foundry. When we last passed through it was less than tidy, and the noise (Language) did the residents no credit.

[Tonka]

1 minute ago, David Schweizer said:

There are many Romany families who live in a house, there are also many who live permanently in a van on dedicated sites. There was permanent site less than a mile from our house back in the 1950's /60's, and I knew some of the residents who bred and trained horses. More recently I remember a site in Banbury next to the canal towpath, opposite the foundry. When we last passed through it was less than tidy, and the noise (Language) did the residents no credit.

no not that one

[Jon57]

4 minutes ago, Tonka said:

A proper Gypsy moves around with their caravan and when they leave you would not know where they had been. The site was clean and tidy. There used to be one often by the side of the Banbury to Southam road. You probably passed it a few times going to the boat

Yes this is true. Met a proper Gypsy this trip and in conversation mentioned about the old working boat people didn’t like to be called water gypsies but boatmen. He got quite shirty about it for some reason, don’t know why.

[David Schweizer]

46 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

The law has been tightened up in recent years, as I understand it you need to prove you have occupied the property continuously for the 12 years, obviously you can go out for the day or even have the occasional holiday but you can't just visit it occasionally to claim occupation. And there must have been no objection to you being there from the actual landowner for the whole 12 years, even if they just send a letter asking you to vacate it would reset the clock on the 12 years.

Certain types of land are exempt, and the right to moor on a canal is clearly a completely separate issue.

 

It is my recollection that you always needed to occupy or use the land continiously and unchallenged to claim adverse possession. What I believe may have changed is the lenth of time, which I seem to recall used to be 21 years.

 

 

Edited July 23, 2023 by David Schweizer

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

 

It is my recollection that you always needed to occupy or use the land continiously and unchallenged to claim adverse possession. What I believe may have changed is the lenth of time, which I seem to recall used to be 21 years.

 

 

 

It was, and the rule was you had to fence and maintain the fence for 21 years to be able to claim (what was known as) "Squatters Rights".

 

We had a triangular 5 acre 'abandoned' plot of land between our fields and the colliey railway line - after 21 years it became ours.

[Graham Davis]

1 hour ago, David Schweizer said:

 

From recollection you have to have used land which you do not own for a period of 12 years unchallenged by the rightful owner under the adverse possssion rules. Where I used to live on the outskirts of London there were quite a few unoccupied building plots which had been purchased before WW11, but were never claimed after the war ended. There were three plots almost opposite our house and one of the neighbours kept chickens on two of them, after about twenty years he registered it as his own land and sold it for development.

 

 

Since part of the latest action by CaRT orders him off the towpath land on which he currently "resides" means that it has been challenged.

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, Orwellian said:

Not quite right. They registered everything they could satisfy the Land Registry they had good title to. BW started voluntary registration years ago. When CRT were created they were obliged by the transfer legislation/agreements to register the Infrastructure Trust property within a certain timescale which was completed.

Ta

[Barneyp]

1 hour ago, David Schweizer said:

 

It is my recollection that you always needed to occupy or use the land continiously and unchallenged to claim adverse possession. What I believe may have changed is the lenth of time, which I seem to recall used to be 21 years.

I think the level of proof you need to provide of continuous occupation or use is greater, it is certainly upto the person making the claim to prove this, rather than for the other side to prove they haven't.

[Orwellian]

Do avoid further ill-informed speculation here's the definitive advice https://www.land-registry-documents.co.uk/news-blog/claiming-adverse-possession-of-land/

[David Schweizer]

13 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

Do avoid further ill-informed speculation here's the definitive advice https://www.land-registry-documents.co.uk/news-blog/claiming-adverse-possession-of-land/

 

We can all Google "Adverse Possession" and then make a pompous statement. Several of the posters on this subject have demonstrated that they have more than a superficial understanding of the legslation. So far you have failed to demonstrate that you are amongst them.

[kris88]

6 hours ago, magnetman said:

I did mention before that he might be a pikey. The behaviour is very reminiscent of this group. 

 

So what’s the difference between a pikey as you describe mr ward and a posh pukey as you describe yourself? 
 

This thread makes me laugh lots of Gora telling everyone what travellers do or don’t do. 😀
 

 

[magnetman]

Pikeys leave endless rubbish and hardware on the land. Posh pikeys don't. 

 

It is the move from vehicle (be it a caravan or a boat) to the land which is the basic problem. It is a very basic problem given that human nature insists on territorial behaviour. 

 

If it isn't your land don't move onto it. It really isn't complex. 

 

 

 

I've never so much as placed a camp fire on someone else's land in 29 yars of living on boats tied to various pieces of land I don't own. 

 

The Ward geyser was doing precisely this when his boat was nabbed by CBS. 

 

Don't do it. 

 

A chair is ok. 

[Tonka]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Pikeys leave endless rubbish and hardware on the land. Posh pikeys don't. 

 

It is the move from vehicle (be it a caravan or a boat) to the land which is the basic problem. It is a very basic problem given that human nature insists on territorial behaviour. 

 

If it isn't your land don't move onto it. It really isn't complex. 

 

 

Or if you do don't make a nuisance of yourself.  Don't leave rubbish . I am sure the general public would be more tolerant if they did this.

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, Tonka said:

Or if you do don't make a nuisance of yourself.  Don't leave rubbish . I am sure the general public would be more tolerant if they did this.

I have it on good authority from a number of long term and respected boat owners that the Ward geyser on the K&A did make a nuisance of himself verbally. 

 

Obviously this is second hand information but I believe it and the photos of the scene also tell a story. Pictures don't lie and nobody would have photoshopped it. 

 

People like this are not wanted on waterways and should be removed and looked after by social services. 

 

 

 

 

[kris88]

16 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Pikeys leave endless rubbish and hardware on the land. Posh pikeys don't. 

 

It is the move from vehicle (be it a caravan or a boat) to the land which is the basic problem. It is a very basic problem given that human nature insists on territorial behaviour. 

 

If it isn't your land don't move onto it. It really isn't complex. 

 

 

 

I've never so much as placed a camp fire on someone else's land in 29 yars of living on boats tied to various pieces of land I don't own. 

 

The Ward geyser was doing precisely this when his boat was nabbed by CBS. 

 

Don't do it. 

 

A chair is ok. 

I’m not supporting mr wards behaviour I was just interested in the distinction. As you seem to be using pikey in his case as a derogatory term. But yet call yourself a posh pikey. 
personally I don’t think he’s a pikey and a lot of the people called pikeys by society wouldn’t. He’s more affiliated to the freeman of the land bunch, I would have said. 

Edited July 23, 2023 by kris88

[Tonka]

Just now, kris88 said:

I’m not supporting mr wards behaviour I was just interested in the distinction. As you seem to be using pikey in his case as a derogatory phrase. But yet call yourself a posh pikey. 
personally I don’t think he’s a pikey and a lot of the people called pikeys by society wouldn’t. He’s more affiliated to the freeman of the land bunch, I would have said. 

Freeman of the land surely respects the land.

Get real

[kris88]

2 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Freeman of the land surely respects the land.

Get real

The problem with trying to homogenising whole groups of people is not all the individuals will fit the mould you’ve made for them. 

Edited July 23, 2023 by kris88

[Tonka]

3 minutes ago, kris88 said:

The problem with trying to homogenising whole groups of people is not all the individuals will fit the mould you’ve made for them. 

I know. I thought you were sensible

[magnetman]

Posh pikey is a sort of joke term for someone who doesn't fit in a mould. 

 

Anyway I see what you are saying about the free man on the land but large amounts of waste/scrap placed on land -and not removed when the occupier leaves- is closely resembling pikey behaviour. 

 

If you think pikey is a racist term referring to a particular group then you may be falling into the trap of being racist yourself. 

 

I think most people would use the word to describe the behaviour (having scrap around, defecating on someone else's/public land, antisocial behaviour) rather than it being Irish Tinkers. 

 

 

[kris88]

3 hours ago, M_JG said:

 

He's still at it on Thunderboat...

And on here still apparently GHL is his forum name oh here now. 

7 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Posh pikey is a sort of joke term for someone who doesn't fit in a mould. 

 

Anyway I see what you are saying about the free man on the land but large amounts of waste/scrap placed on land -and not removed when the occupier leaves- is closely resembling pikey behaviour. 

 

If you think pikey is a racist term referring to a particular group then you may be falling into the trap of being racist yourself. 

 

I think most people would use the word to describe the behaviour (having scrap around, defecating on someone else's/public land, antisocial behaviour) rather than it being Irish Tinkers. 

 

 

Irish tinkers are a different thing altogether. But I’ll leave all you Gora to it. 

9 minutes ago, Tonka said:

I know. I thought you were sensible

I thought playing the man wasn’t allowed on here? 

[dmr]

1 hour ago, Orwellian said:

Do avoid further ill-informed speculation here's the definitive advice https://www.land-registry-documents.co.uk/news-blog/claiming-adverse-possession-of-land/

 

Yes but, does the land registry or whoever adjudicates in these matters apply the rules correctly, especially if the person making the adverse possession claim is trying to pull the wool over their eyes? They just do not have the will or resources to investigate things in depth.  If I squat a bit of land and say I have had exclusive use of that land for 12 years are they going to make any real effort to prove I am not telling the whole truth? (I speak here with good knowledge of a recent case where somebody successfully claimed ownership of a bit of shared land where they did not have exclusive use😀)

[magnetman]

This is the basic point. 

 

It will all be a protocol and statements of truth. If the existing registered owner or someone (or a body such as the EA) do not make a counter claim then it could be fairly straightforward to do a bulldozer job if you know your way around the law. 

 

it does seem slightly not coincidental that the first news story with Mr Ward was was in 2013 and the latest action was in 2023 given that the ten year rule applies to registered land. 

 

I think this geyser might be a bit more organised than he is letting on and could indeed be looking at claiming the land. 

 

It won't work because the CRT are onto it and it is their land but one does wonder if placing a lot of items on the land could prove that you are 'managing' it. It seems to me it is just fly tipping but this brings up the question as to why the CRT would have tolerated it. 

 

There should be an active zero tolerance policy. Any crap left on towpath = notice on the boat 14 days to remove it then it is binned. 

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

10 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

Yes but, does the land registry or whoever adjudicates in these matters apply the rules correctly, especially if the person making the adverse possession claim is trying to pull the wool over their eyes? They just do not have the will or resources to investigate things in depth.  If I squat a bit of land and say I have had exclusive use of that land for 12 years are they going to make any real effort to prove I am not telling the whole truth? (I speak here with good knowledge of a recent case where somebody successfully claimed ownership of a bit of shared land where they did not have exclusive use😀)

It seems that once the land has been registered to someone that's it, unless it is then lawfully transferred to someone else even if it was registered by someo who wasn't entitled to register it Property fraud: can someone really steal your house? (farrer.co.uk)