Oxford Boat Fire

[bottle]

 

I have three fire extinguishers in the boat (that do look a bit old) My length of boat should have nearly double that.

 

Is that because they are too small (rating)

 

from BSS

 

Length of vessel Min. number Min. combined fire

of each rating

Under 7m (23ft) 2 10A/68B

7-11m (23-36ft) 2 13A/89B

Over 11m (36ft) 3 21A/144B

Notes – Owners of longer vessels must pay attention to the total

required capacity in the ‘Min. combined fire rating’ column.

[Water Nomad]

Hello. The paragraph above is the one I saw on the BSS website. My fire extinguishers are 1 Litre each, the strange thing is that the 'A' rating is different on some of them. I think two of them are rated 5 'A' and the other one is 3 'A' , so a total of 13 'A' . But my narrow boat is just under 15 meters long, so I need a rating of 21 'A'. I have now bought two 2 Litre fire extinguishers, rated 15 'A' each, just to be on the safe side.

 

John.

[Bee]

Bar Room Lawyer Warning. 'Land grab' To the best of my knowledge you can fence off a bit of land, call it your own and keep people off and if you can prove that you have done that for 12 years its yours. BUT you cannot do that with railway property and I reckon its a safe bet that you cannot do that with bits of BWB / CRT land either so I reckon that piece of land cannot be 'grabbed'.

Edited March 14, 2015 by Bee

[NigelMoore]

Bar Room Lawyer Warning. 'Land grab' To the best of my knowledge you can fence off a bit of land, call it your own and keep people off and if you can prove that you have done that for 12 years its yours. BUT you cannot do that with railway property and I reckon its a safe bet that you cannot do that with bits of BWB / CRT land either so I reckon that piece of land cannot be 'grabbed'.

 

Untrue. Where did you get that from?

 

Norton v London & North Western Railway Co. [1875 N. 13a]

 

The Claimant had succeeded in extinguishing the title of the Railway Company, even though the Co. had regularly entered the land to trim their hedge. That action did avail them to defeat the adjacent owner’s possession, because they were acts taken under their statutory obligations, so could not defeat the claimant’s adverse possession.

[churchward]

Bar Room Lawyer Warning. 'Land grab' To the best of my knowledge you can fence off a bit of land, call it your own and keep people off and if you can prove that you have done that for 12 years its yours. BUT you cannot do that with railway property and I reckon its a safe bet that you cannot do that with bits of BWB / CRT land either so I reckon that piece of land cannot be 'grabbed'.

As I recall you need to make a provisional registration of the land in order to get the 12 year clock ticking. This is usually on land that is not currently registered. We did this with a small bit of land that was at the end of our garden in a previous house so that we could build a garage. After the 12 years are up you and no one has shown prior/superior title you can get full title registered with the land registry. Although adverse possession of land is an odd thing and I certainly don't know all the ins and outs just our own experience and what was explained to us at the time.

 

It seems unlikely to me too that it could be done with BW/CRT land as originally it was part of an act of parliament to grant the original canal company the canal route and purchase of the land from whoever owned it at the time.

[NigelMoore]

As I recall you need to make a provisional registration of the land in order to get the 12 year clock ticking.

 

It seems unlikely to me too that it could be done with BW/CRT land . . .

 

Not necessary at all – you simply need to establish a firm date from which time you could establish exclusive possession with all the necessary intention to treat it as your own. Your idea of ‘provisional registration’ does not exist; the closest would be registering a “Cautionary Title” – but the LR don’t accept these any more [not that they are entitled to refuse, they just do].

 

There are two different sets of law depending on whether the land has been registered or not. Unregistered land is subject to the pre 2002 Regulations, since when registered land is subject to new laws, whereby after 10 years possession you can apply for registration. The ‘true owner’ is notified, thence he has two years to get rid of you [easily enough].

 

The new law has the desirable effect of making it virtually impossible to claim land belonging to others unless they have forgotten it altogether and/or are incommunicado.

 

It appears that the Oxford land under discussion has no registered owner, let alone CaRT ownership. The law in any event, applies to CaRT as much as to everybody else – why should they be any different?

[churchward]

Not necessary at all – you simply need to establish a firm date from which time you could establish exclusive possession with all the necessary intention to treat it as your own. Your idea of ‘provisional registration’ does not exist; the closest would be registering a “Cautionary Title” – but the LR don’t accept these any more [not that they are entitled to refuse, they just do].

 

There are two different sets of law depending on whether the land has been registered or not. Unregistered land is subject to the pre 2002 Regulations, since when registered land is subject to new laws, whereby after 10 years possession you can apply for registration. The ‘true owner’ is notified, thence he has two years to get rid of you [easily enough].

 

The new law has the desirable effect of making it virtually impossible to claim land belonging to others unless they have forgotten it altogether and/or are incommunicado.

 

It appears that the Oxford land under discussion has no registered owner, let alone CaRT ownership. The law in any event, applies to CaRT as much as to everybody else – why should they be any different?

Of course CRT is within the law but of the original act for the canal in question granted them (inherited from the canal company) that land then is theirs on the other hand if title to the land is unknown or ambiguous it may be up for grabs.

 

The advice we received at the time which was indeed over 15 years or so ago so the legal status may have changed. As I understand it there are several classes of title to land. The two I was interested in were Possessory and Absolute. the first was the "provisonal" I mentioned and after 12 years (elapsed from the time of the initial Possessory title registration) we were able to convert that to Absolute which is the top level of land title. Looking up the title definition on gov.uk it says...

 

Absolute

This is the best class of title and the one that will be granted in the vast majority of cases. Exceptionally, however, this may not be possible, such as where some evidence is lacking or a defect in the title is apparent, so making it unsafe for Land Registry to guarantee the owner absolutely against the risk of some other person claiming a right in the land.

 

Possessory

Typically, possessory titles may be granted where the owner claims to have acquired the land by adverse possession. Alternatively it may be where the owner cannot produce documentary evidence of title to an estate for some reason. These titles are rare.

 

It goes on to say this about conversion of Possessory to Absolute title.

 

Possessory titles after lapse of time

Where title to an estate in land is a possessory one, whether freehold or leasehold, you can apply to upgrade the title to either an absolute freehold or a good leasehold title once the possessory title has been registered for 12 years (section 62(4) and (5) of the Land Registration Act 2002).

[NigelMoore]

Of course CRT is within the law but of the original act for the canal in question granted them (inherited from the canal company) that land then is theirs on the other hand if title to the land is unknown or ambiguous it may be up for grabs.

 

Everything you say there is correct – but is tangential to the question of Adverse Possession, which I believe was the burden of the initial query re: Oxford ‘land grab’.

 

To try making clear what seems to be an area of possible confusion – it is technically possible to adversely possess against ANY title, registered or not. Claims are not limited to areas where the 'true owner' is unknown.

 

The fact that CaRT [or anyone else] has a guaranteed, registered absolute title, does not mean that adverse possession cannot be made out against them. Only the new Rules since the 2002 Act have made that unlikely, because as registered owners they will be alerted after 10 years of any adverse possession claim.

[Sir Nibble]

Thinking aloud here. Presuming for a moment that the land grab were legit, has not the grabber just taken on responsibility for all issues of waterside safety/public liability, nature conservation, maintenance for this stretch? Should they perhaps be liable for a NAA charge? Or could the stop planks go in?

[Maffi]

It says that the boat was hired, so who will be responsible for the insurance and ultimate removal of the wreckage, the tenant or the owner?

 

The Wreckage belongs to the owner not the tenant. I doubt either of them was insured anyway.

[MtB]

Thinking aloud here. Presuming for a moment that the land grab were legit, has not the grabber just taken on responsibility for all issues of waterside safety/public liability, nature conservation, maintenance for this stretch? Should they perhaps be liable for a NAA charge? Or could the stop planks go in?

 

I don't think stop planks would work very well on a river...

[churchward]

 

Everything you say there is correct – but is tangential to the question of Adverse Possession, which I believe was the burden of the initial query re: Oxford ‘land grab’.

 

To try making clear what seems to be an area of possible confusion – it is technically possible to adversely possess against ANY title, registered or not. Claims are not limited to areas where the 'true owner' is unknown.

 

The fact that CaRT [or anyone else] has a guaranteed, registered absolute title, does not mean that adverse possession cannot be made out against them. Only the new Rules since the 2002 Act have made that unlikely, because as registered owners they will be alerted after 10 years of any adverse possession claim.

I wonder why the alert to the Absolute title holder only raised after 10 years? I woudl have thought it better to do so more or less immediately and so any misunderstandings etc clarified all the sooner.

[NigelMoore]

As an adverse claimant, while the possession has to be public, you would not see any reason to actively alert the owner yourself, presuming you knew who that was. It is simply the way the new rules work, respecting registered land. If you have an adverse possession claim, instead of waiting 12 years as before, you HAVE to file your claim with the Land Registry after the lapse of 10 years.

 

Having been alerted to a claim in process, the Registry must then inform the registered owner, giving him a clear two years to evict you. If he fails to do that for whatever reason, then at the lapse of 12 years his title is extinguished and the land becomes vested in you.

[Jon Ody]

Thank you Nigel and Churchward for the legal information.

 

I don't believe these land-grabbers will even hold out for another year, or even another few months. Oxford City Council are introducing new powers due before the start of the summer (rumour, no evidence of that yet) to prevent anti-social behavior (such as mooring boats) on the riverbanks.

 

I've just popped back on here to share this quote from a local source: "The owner had just finished with her no good boyfriend who was just out of prison so he took his revenge. He is back inside now and I hope they throw away the key. The community though is rallying - she has already been given a new boat and we are all providing clothes, bedding etc."

 

That fits with the news story of a man being taken away in an ambulance. So it's rumored/known locally to be arson. But probably unconnected to other fires in recent years.