common law land and boaters

[tony914474]

hi intrested in this ,at rickmansworth boaters with moorings have ripped down part of a woodland area and planted allottments and so called gardens claiming it too be common law land , they have now errected fences there .but surely this then means if it is fenced its not common law land and can it be used by everyone .also would like too know were bwb were when it was getting cut down and whats too stop anyone doing it too areas of woodland

[canalchris]

hi intrested in this ,at rickmansworth boaters with moorings have ripped down part of a woodland area and planted allottments and so called gardens claiming it too be common law land , they have now errected fences there .but surely this then means if it is fenced its not common law land and can it be used by everyone .also would like too know were bwb were when it was getting cut down and whats too stop anyone doing it too areas of woodland

 

 

Freeloaders and scroungers. what makes some individuals think that they are above the law. if something does'nt belong to you then bloody well leave it to the people it does belong to.they should be taken to court for theft . and made to make reparations. thieves!!!

[carlt]

Freeloaders and scroungers. what makes some individuals think that they are above the law. if something does'nt belong to you then bloody well leave it to the people it does belong to.they should be taken to court for theft . and made to make reparations. thieves!!!

Obviously you have intimate knowledge, of this case, to enable you to make such a damning judgement.

 

Could you tell us what you know?

 

Otherwise we may assume you're just making assumptions, based on ignorance.

[Ex- Member]

There's some really strange laws with regard to this that vary a lot in different towns and counties some of the laws going back a century or more. There is a law that if you tend a peice of land for something like seven years you have the right to claim it as yours and fence it off as long as there was no objection in that time. And do that even if the land was owned.

 

I know someone who claimed an extra 15f/t of garden length about 60 f/t wide which 30 years prior was a lane and public walk way owned by the local authority, it became unused and overgrown over the years, the house owners then began using it and it became there's by right as they had tended it for over 10 years. As the bit they claimed was in the middle of the old lane the remaining land either side became useless to anyone except the residents with gardens backing on to it, so they all just took over the land by extending their gardens.

[Tam & Di]

There's some really strange laws with regard to this that vary a lot in different towns and counties some of the laws going back a century or more. There is a law that if you tend a peice of land for something like seven years you have the right to claim it as yours and fence it off as long as there was no objection in that time. And do that even if the land was owned.

 

 

I don't know what they mean by "common law land" (I think they've made that up, like the woman on the anarchy thread recently). Julynian is not quite right - the law goes back to "time immemorial" and is not town or county specific, but if someone has uncontested use of a piece of land for twelve years they can claim squatters rights on it and register it in their own name. Occupation and use would have to be proved, normally by having evidence that the land had been fenced off for their own use for that period. I don't know what land at Ricky is being claimed, but it may not even belong to BW of course - it could be Council land or even owned privately.

Edited February 22, 2009 by Tam & Di

[tony914474]

dont get me wrong its clean and tidy there ,i was just wondering how it could have got too this stage and why bwb didnt stop or repair fence .so its not common law land but squatters rights then .

[gaggle]

Well are bw not doing exactly the same thing , they have people going through all kinds of stuff looking for land they can lay claim to whether they own it or not.

[Ex- Member]

Julynian is not quite right - the law goes back to "time immemorial" and is not town or county specific,

 

I'm no solicitor that's for sure LOL

[Timleech]

I don't know what they mean by "common law land" (I think they've made that up, like the woman on the anarchy thread recently). Julynian is not quite right - the law goes back to "time immemorial" and is not town or county specific, but if someone has uncontested use of a piece of land for twelve years they can claim squatters rights on it and register it in their own name. Occupation and use would have to be proved, normally by having evidence that the land had been fenced off for their own use for that period. I don't know what land at Ricky is being claimed, but it may not even belong to BW of course - it could be Council land or even owned privately.

 

I believe, though quite willing to be corrected if I'm wrong, that if the land is registered then it's much more difficult to claim it even if you do have undisturbed use.

There's some info on the Land Registry website.

 

 

Tim

[Catrin]

I lived in a house in London for many years where the garden had been made 10 feet wider when the common ground behind the house became a school and the old pathway down the side of the house was appropriated by the then owners - so it does happen. However, I think that it happened many years before my family took over the property in the 1950's.

 

On the other hand, when the neighbour behind us tried to appropriate 3 feet of the 'common ground' pathway that ran between our houses when we lived at our previous house I felt that this was unreasonable behaviour. I rang a friend who was studying to become a solicitor, and got some advice, then went to speak to our neighbour. My friend made a number of points (which I cannot now remember in detail) however, the key point was that (and this is a quote from Wikipedia): "The fact that land is common land does not mean it has no owner—all land in England and Wales is owned by someone". My understanding is that it is the right of usage that is common - or the right of access.

 

Having said that I'm sure that someone on the forum must have some more specific legal knowledge about this.

Cheers

Cath

PS - Our former neighbour decided against repositioning his fence after his (very cordial) discussion with me.

[Speedwheel]

If you have exclusive occupation of a piece of (unregistered) land for a period of 12 years you can claim adverse possession. This is where you make a statuatory declaration that you have had exclusive possession and undertaken acts of ownership upon that land. If no one makes any objection then the Land Registry will give you legal title of that land. If the land is registered then you have to have had exclusive occupation for 3 years. You then make an application to the land registry stating that you are inoccupation of the land and wish to claim it for yourself. They will contact the registered owner and inform them of the application. The registered owner then has a certain period of time to evict the occupier. If the registered owner does not do this, then the occupier can make a further application to the land registry and claim the land.

 

If they are taking about 'common land' then they are on very dodgy ground. Fencing of common land is expressly forbidden unless approval is granted by the secretary of state. The people with the right to use the common land will be those with historical interest (or those who have bought or had the land rights passed on to them). They will not be too happy with this occupation. Also the landowner (not necessarally the same people as those who have commoners rights) will have a case against the trespassers. Also even if the common land is claimed under adverse possession then the commoners rights will still exist and they will retain their rights to undertake their rights on the land. The landowner will be the main loser.

 

This is very much a simplified explaination. There are also many exceptions, for example Crown owned land.

Edited February 22, 2009 by Satellite

[cotswoldsman]

Freeloaders and scroungers. what makes some individuals think that they are above the law. if something does'nt belong to you then bloody well leave it to the people it does belong to.they should be taken to court for theft . and made to make reparations. thieves!!!

 

Guess you must have read about it in the Daily Mail.

[stickleback]

If you have exclusive occupation of a piece of (unregistered) land for a period of 12 years you can claim adverse possession. This is where you make a statuatory declaration that you have had exclusive possession and undertaken acts of ownership upon that land. If no one makes any objection then the Land Registry will give you legal title of that land. If the land is registered then you have to have had exclusive occupation for 3 years. You then make an application to the land registry stating that you are inoccupation of the land and wish to claim it for yourself. They will contact the registered owner and inform them of the application. The registered owner then has a certain period of time to evict the occupier. If the registered owner does not do this, then the occupier can make a further application to the land registry and claim the land.

 

 

 

This is very much a simplified explaination. There are also many exceptions, for example Crown owned land.

 

 

I am interested by your statement, as I have recently tried to do exactly this. I was told by my solicitor, and the Land Registry, that there was a change in the law a couple of years back and that this is no longer the case. The result being that I am having to buy the strip of land I have had exclusive use of for 34 years. The cost of the land is not too bad - but the legal costs are becoming eye watering, as the land had not previously been registered, though ownership was known and not in dispute. It is the cost of registering the land to the present owners before it can be transferred to me which is the problem and the costly part.

 

So, I would doubt if the piece of land in the original post can be claimed either. It sounds as though the boaters involved are working on a bar room version of a much older piece of legislation. They would be well advised to take legal advice.....

 

Stickleback

[grahoom]

I don't know what they mean by "common law land"

 

maybe they mean it's - common land.

 

just reading from here -

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommuni...ent/DG_10026177

 

Currently, the general public have no rights to go onto common land unless the land is an urban common, or is crossed by public rights of way (and they follow the line of the right of way). However, the government's legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to permit public access to open countryside may now also include access to common land.

 

The Countryside Agency have published maps showing the land (including commons) to which the public have access in this locality.

 

Rights of common can include:

 

* grazing sheep or cattle (herbage)

* taking peat or turf (turbary)

* taking wood, gorse or furze (estovers)

* taking of fish (piscary)

* eating of acorns or beechmast by pigs (pannage)

 

The people who are able to exercise the rights listed above are generally known as 'commoners'.

 

Common land and rights are a very ancient institution - even older than Parliament itself. They are part of the fabric of life in England and Wales and have their origins in the manorial system.

 

In Oxford Port Meadow is Common land, - Freemen and the Commoners of Wolvercote have grazing rights on the land.

[starman]

I am interested by your statement, as I have recently tried to do exactly this. I was told by my solicitor, and the Land Registry, that there was a change in the law a couple of years back and that this is no longer the case. The result being that I am having to buy the strip of land I have had exclusive use of for 34 years. The cost of the land is not too bad - but the legal costs are becoming eye watering, as the land had not previously been registered, though ownership was known and not in dispute. It is the cost of registering the land to the present owners before it can be transferred to me which is the problem and the costly part.

 

So, I would doubt if the piece of land in the original post can be claimed either. It sounds as though the boaters involved are working on a bar room version of a much older piece of legislation. They would be well advised to take legal advice.....

 

Stickleback

 

You're right; it did change a couple of years back (we finishing claiming a piece of land just before the change). I can't recall the details but I know the reason for the change was to make successful adverse possession ("squatter's rights") type claims harder.

My sympathies with your case; the whole business of establishing ownership and rights to pieces of land can be a nightmare. To call something 'common land' is a common misunderstanding; we're talking 'common rights' - of walking, grazing etc - which is why land with those rights can't be fenced off. As you say, bar room lawyers have been at work here!

[MikeV]

Both my last house and current house have had land appended through adverse possession. In the case of my last house the area was quite small. The previous owner had moved the boundary a few feet into a bridle path which was about 20 feet wide. I maintained the fence on this new boundary line for over 21 years and no one ever complained, so it's unlikely to be a problem in the future.

 

With our current house the previous owner had enclosed an area from adjacent unregistered land about 8 years previous to our purchase. We made it a condition of purchase that we were secure in ownership of this additional land and they had it registered accordingly. I don't know what it cost them but as far as land registry are concerned we own two plots; the original plot and the appended land.

 

At the time I did a bit of reading about adverse possession and remember finding that defining ownership of land is quite tricky. IIRC there are three possible definitions of a plot:

 

1) A verbal description or map may exist in the deeds using topograpical reference points (which may no longer be evident!) and the scale of which may be suspect

2) Physical boundaries which exist on the ground e.g. fences, etc which may or may not be in the right place according to the deeds

3) Land Registry documents. However LR specifically state that their red lines are only an approximate guide to the boundaries

 

Interestingly under in English law, there is no such thing as land theft. From here:

 

"Land can be possessed by someone other than the rightful owner, and if that possession is adverse to the interests of the rightful owner then the adverse possessor may eventually become the rightful owner. But if the rightful owner wins a civil case to recover his land, then the adverse possessor does not gain a criminal conviction for theft and cannot be sent to prison (unless of course he has demonstrated a contempt of court during the course of the trial). The prospect of an adverse possessor being rewarded with the title to the land he is claiming is an encouragement to squatters."

Edited February 23, 2009 by MikeV

[stickleback]

You're right; it did change a couple of years back (we finishing claiming a piece of land just before the change). I can't recall the details but I know the reason for the change was to make successful adverse possession ("squatter's rights") type claims harder.

My sympathies with your case; the whole business of establishing ownership and rights to pieces of land can be a nightmare. To call something 'common land' is a common misunderstanding; we're talking 'common rights' - of walking, grazing etc - which is why land with those rights can't be fenced off. As you say, bar room lawyers have been at work here!

 

 

Here's the relevant changes

 

http://www.propertylawuk.net/adversepossessionsquatters.html

 

The point really is, as you say, to stop potential freeloaders from grabbing what isn't their's - or at least, to make it much harder. Unfortunately, not all land is registered by any means - so there are still grey areas. If the land in the original post belongs to BW then it should be black and white!

 

Stickleback

[carlt]

If the land in the original post belongs to BW then it should be black and white!

British Waterways doesn't own any land. It manages publicly owned property.

 

If this fact isn't reinforced then, if it is privatised, there'll be land theft that will make a few boaters, growing a bit of veg, pale into insignificance.

[stickleback]

British Waterways doesn't own any land. It manages publicly owned property.

 

If this fact isn't reinforced then, if it is privatised, there'll be land theft that will make a few boaters, growing a bit of veg, pale into insignificance.

 

 

Well, you might have to argue that one with this government (who I did NOT vote in) who are eyeing up land that BW "owns" with a view to flogging it off

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business...and-722649.html

 

and lots of other links of a like nature can be found.

 

Whether BW own it or manage it, they can stop people using it as allotments and gardens - and lots looks likely to vanish in any case.

 

Stickleback

[carlt]

(who I did NOT vote in)

That's the beauty of a democracy. Finding someone who actually admits to voting for Blair is as hard as finding someone who admitted to voting for Thatcher, but still they both got in.

 

People using land, that may or may not be theirs, is of little concern to me. If whoever actually owns it is that bothered then they can challenge the people using it.

 

The wholesale theft of our public assets, and the handing over, of it, to the private sector, is far more worrying.

[Dominic M]

hi intrested in this ,at rickmansworth boaters with moorings have ripped down part of a woodland area and planted allottments and so called gardens claiming it too be common law land , they have now errected fences there .but surely this then means if it is fenced its not common law land and can it be used by everyone .also would like too know were bwb were when it was getting cut down and whats too stop anyone doing it too areas of woodland

Seems as though these urban gardeners are ahead of the game - link here

 

Coming soon - return of the Levellers.

[starman]

Well, you might have to argue that one with this government (who I did NOT vote in) who are eyeing up land that BW "owns" with a view to flogging it off

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business...and-722649.html

 

and lots of other links of a like nature can be found.

 

Whether BW own it or manage it, they can stop people using it as allotments and gardens - and lots looks likely to vanish in any case.

 

Stickleback

 

Bit of an old story isn't it - but rather amusing when you look back with the benefit of nine years' hindsight:

 

"The Independent on Sunday (5 March 2000) has learned that the Treasury is putting together a Public Private Partnership to redevelop a chunk of the agency's £250m land and property portfolio, which covers 3,800 acres.

 

"the Treasury is putting together a Public Private Partnership to redevelop a chunk of the agency's £250m land and property portfolio, which covers 3,800 acres... Well-placed sources last week predicted that if it were fully developed, British Waterways could end up jointly owning a commercial property portfolio worth more than £1bn.."

 

Or not!!!

[carlt]

Coming soon - return of the Levellers.

I didn't realise they'd split up

 

Clicky

 

Personally I always preferred TMTCH:

 

[Speedwheel]

I am interested by your statement, as I have recently tried to do exactly this. I was told by my solicitor, and the Land Registry, that there was a change in the law a couple of years back and that this is no longer the case. The result being that I am having to buy the strip of land I have had exclusive use of for 34 years. The cost of the land is not too bad - but the legal costs are becoming eye watering, as the land had not previously been registered, though ownership was known and not in dispute. It is the cost of registering the land to the present owners before it can be transferred to me which is the problem and the costly part.

 

So, I would doubt if the piece of land in the original post can be claimed either. It sounds as though the boaters involved are working on a bar room version of a much older piece of legislation. They would be well advised to take legal advice.....

 

Stickleback

 

Hi there. While I cannot comment on your particular case I would certainly be seeking a second opinion. Remember that unless you have a specialist land law solicitor they are unlikely to have spicific knowledge of adverse possession. Also consider getting a surveyors opinion as they tend to know more about the law and requirements than solicitors. I am a surveyor myself and have had many cases of adverse possession including one for 150 acres .... which was won!

 

My statement of 3 years was incorrect! It is 10 years!

 

http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk/assets/lib...nts/lrpg004.pdf

 

Have a look at this link for more info.

[chris w]

I am interested by your statement, as I have recently tried to do exactly this. I was told by my solicitor, and the Land Registry, that there was a change in the law a couple of years back and that this is no longer the case. The Stickleback

You can still definitely gain land through adverse possession. You need to exclude others for 10 years - eg: fence the property. Then you put in a claim to the Land Registry (LR). The LR write to the official owner and he/she has 65 working days to file a counter claim of ownership.

 

If they do then your claim is dismissed and the owner has 2 years to evict you. If they don't take out a court order to evict you within the 2 years, then you may file a second claim for adverse possession and it will succeed (other than in exceptional circumstances) even if the original owner now gets his/her arse into gear. Too late for them, they had their chance and blew it.

 

I gained 1/2 acre of woodland, that abutted some other woodland I already owned, by fencing it off and going through the above process.

 

Chris