Boundary dispute

[BargeeSpud]

Well, I've always been under the impression that all land a canal runs through belongs to the waterway authority for a distance up to 4m from the waters edge unless the land was part of a wharf.

 

How wrong am I?

[ditchcrawler]

Well, I've always been under the impression that all land a canal runs through belongs to the waterway authority for a distance up to 4m from the waters edge unless the land was part of a wharf.

 

How wrong am I?

Here is a boundary marker on the Coventry Canal, you can see how close it is to the edge.

[David Schweizer]

Well, I've always been under the impression that all land a canal runs through belongs to the waterway authority for a distance up to 4m from the waters edge unless the land was part of a wharf.

 

How wrong am I?

 

I know of several locations where the canal edge is owned by private landowners, and they have mooring rights as well. All enshrined in legal contracts agreed many years ago.

[furnessvale]

Well, I've always been under the impression that all land a canal runs through belongs to the waterway authority for a distance up to 4m from the waters edge unless the land was part of a wharf.

 

How wrong am I?

End of Garden moorings are based on the premise that the land immediately adjacent to the water belongs to someone other than CRT, and there are a good number of such moorings on the system.

 

If that were not the case you can be certain that CRT would not be settling for 50% of the cost of an equivalent mooring elsewhere when they could have 100%.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[NigelMoore]

How wrong am I?

Very.

[NigelMoore]

The various posts on gaining possessory title to this registered land are relying on outdated info. The rules governing adverse possession of registered land changed in 2002.

 

CaRT would definitely sue for possession if they believed they owned the land, money doesn't enter into it. They are prepared to spend money fighting for land they know they don't own, so the registered title of the true landowner must be unimpeachable.

 

As to suggestions that canal companies in general needed both banks for maintenance access, that is contradicted by the argued need for the relevant access provisions of the 1995 Act.

[David Schweizer]

End of Garden moorings are based on the premise that the land immediately adjacent to the water belongs to someone other than CRT, and there are a good number of such moorings on the system.

 

If that were not the case you can be certain that CRT would not be settling for 50% of the cost of an equivalent mooring elsewhere when they could have 100%.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

The locations I know of do nor have to pay C&ART anything, as the right to moor free of any charge is written into the leases. Two of them have been challenged in the past by BW, and in both instances BW withdrew their challenge after the threat of legal defence by the land owners.

[Dave_P]

The various posts on gaining possessory title to this registered land are relying on outdated info. The rules governing adverse possession of registered land changed in 2002.

 

CaRT would definitely sue for possession if they believed they owned the land, money doesn't enter into it. They are prepared to spend money fighting for land they know they don't own, so the registered title of the true landowner must be unimpeachable.

 

As to suggestions that canal companies in general needed both banks for maintenance access, that is contradicted by the argued need for the relevant access provisions of the 1995 Act.

The rules changed in 2002 and came into force in 2003 but if you can show evidence that you were in adverse possession of the land for 12 years or before then (I.e. Before 1991) you may have a claim over the land.

 

So how long has this mooring site existed with its current boundaries?

Edited July 14, 2016 by Dave_P

[Tanglewood]

The rules changed in 2002 and came into force in 2003 but if you can show evidence that you were in adverse possession of the land for 12 years or before then (I.e. Before 1991) you may have a claim over the land.

 

So how long has this mooring site existed with its current boundaries?

At least 30 years! It would appear that the land has had no boundary marker -it was arable land, but there was a ditch which ran along the bottom of the embankment which formed the canal. We moored there but moved our boat to the midlands, so are not now affected by this. If Nigel is right, and I rather suspect he knows what he is talking about, based on other posts I have read, then CRT believe that they have occupied land over which they had no rights, and that explains their willingness to give way, so the best outcome for my friend is that he gets some kind of reduction based on the reduction in amenity in future.

[Dave_P]

Nigel is often right but CRT are often illogical, inconsistent and cowardly. I suspect CRT have a valid claim, but they're more scared of the neighbouring landowner than they are of their moorers.

[dor]

At least 30 years! It would appear that the land has had no boundary marker -it was arable land, but there was a ditch which ran along the bottom of the embankment which formed the canal. We moored there but moved our boat to the midlands, so are not now affected by this. If Nigel is right, and I rather suspect he knows what he is talking about, based on other posts I have read, then CRT believe that they have occupied land over which they had no rights, and that explains their willingness to give way, so the best outcome for my friend is that he gets some kind of reduction based on the reduction in amenity in future.

If the canal is on an embankment I would be surprised if BW/C&RT did not own the land for the width of the embankment. I moor on an offside C&RT mooring and there are a few metres of flat ground then the slope of the embankment with a hedge at the bottom. If the adjacent landowner owned the embankment right up to the canal edge I would think they would be responsible for its maintenance and cost of any breach. I have been told that the reason C&RT own this offside piece of land, some ten or more metres wide, is to ensure they have control over the embankment and are responsible for its maintenance.

[bag 'o' bones]

I would be interested in the location of this dispute.

[Tanglewood]

I would be interested in the location of this dispute.

Have pm'd you. As my friend is still hoping that there will be further discussions, would like to keep the location out of the public space.

 

Interesting point about the embankment. The field is probably 6 ft lower as the moorings are above the lock.

 

As the edge was piled at least 20 years ago I wonder if the edge of the canal has migrated towards the middle!

[NigelMoore]

Whether CaRT do or do not own any offside bank will depend upon the terms of the relevant enabling Act. It was not usual, certainly, because apart from anything else the original companies were concerned with economy and did not want to have to buy anything more than they needed.

Further, almost all such Acts granted rights to the offside owners, which would not have been possible for those not owners of the offside banks.

The fact that the offside banks of most canals were in private ownership did indeed create difficulties in maintenance at times [though why remedial work could not mostly be done from the water I do not know].

It was for this reason that the relevant sections of the 1995 Act were passed, to allow BW to enter land in other ownership for maintenance purposes if necessary, and even to do so [in emergencies only] without prior notice to the landowner [with appropriate compensation provided for]. Had the banks been largely in their own ownership, the powers would have been superfluous.

Part II, sections 3 – 15 deal with the issue.

[NigelMoore]

The rules changed in 2002 and came into force in 2003 but if you can show evidence that you were in adverse possession of the land for 12 years or before then (I.e. Before 1991) you may have a claim over the land.

 

That is interesting. According to HM Land Registry at the time, any claims under the old rules against registered land post passage of the 2002 Act, had to be lodged by midnight of [i think, from memory,] 13 October 2006. Even though you might have had a legitimate claim of 12 years occupation by the time of the new Act, you were time-limited in acting upon that. I cannot now locate the bulletin that published that deadline.

 

However, looking again at the Act itself I see no justification for this, though there are other whole chunks of accompanying Rules and Schedules that I have not gone through recently – and recent comment on the subject from law firms seem to indicate that no such limit for applications exists after all.

 

Essentially, though, the rules have not changed respecting the limitation period of 12 years. The difference now, is that claims have to be registered after 10 years, upon which the LR must notify the registered owner of the claim – giving them two years to get rid of you, which would easily be done.

 

Only if the claimant managed to remain for the two further years post the 10 year notification, would the 12 years be claimable and the AP accomplished. With unregistered land the old rules apply that application can be made after 12 years without prior notification to the true owner; they are presented with a fait accompli and no chance to remedy the situation.

If the canal is on an embankment I would be surprised if BW/C&RT did not own the land for the width of the embankment.

 

If embankments were necessary, then it would make sense that the canal company had to have purchased the land needed for it. It would be an exception to the usual situation.

[Horace42]

If embankments were necessary, then it would make sense that the canal company had to have purchased the land needed for it. It would be an exception to the usual situation.

My garden is at the top of an embankment with the Coventry canal. Plans held by the LR clearly show that CRT own the strip of land to the top edge of the bank. I lease this piece of land from CRT for mooring my boat. This strip of land is only accessible from the canal or across my land.

This means I qualify for an EOG.

 

I have been involved in discussions with CRT about the erection of a fence along the canal at the top edge of the strip. They have nit-picked in trivial detail about the precise line of the fence. - inches at that!.

 

It is not an issue for me. I mention it to show CRT are paying detailed attention to ownership of land. - particularly where my planned fence goes.

 

The fence came about as part of a small site development plan for housing and the big issue was the access from the highway, in particular rights-of-way to my house over a piece of land not owned by me or anybody else that we could trace.

 

To cut a long story short, I made a successful possessory title claim for exclusive use of a piece essential for my access, but ran into problems for the rest of the drive because it fed two other houses who also had established rghts-of-way.

 

It is the complex legal aspect of the latter. interwoven with adverse possession claims that makes me feel the OP can build a strong case to defend his position - which is the status quo.

[Tanglewood]

It has now been confirmed that CRT do own the land, and have sent my friend a map indicating the strip of land, however they have decided to agree a 1.5m strip to 'prevent any long drawn out and expensive legal enquires in determining actual measurements etc.' What right do CRT have to give away land. It is absolutely obvious that they believed they owned a strip varying from 4m to 2.67m as this is where they erected their sign. How do we start a petition before they give away land all over the country?

[Horace42]

There has to be something physical on the ground to show the boundary, or a map or scaled drawing somewhere showing the boundary, or a document giving dimensions to the boundary, to substantiate proof of ownership. You need evidence.

You can approach the Land Registry to ask for anything they have in their records. Search fees for printed documents are payable.

[ditchcrawler]

It has now been confirmed that CRT do own the land, and have sent my friend a map indicating the strip of land, however they have decided to agree a 1.5m strip to 'prevent any long drawn out and expensive legal enquires in determining actual measurements etc.' What right do CRT have to give away land. It is absolutely obvious that they believed they owned a strip varying from 4m to 2.67m as this is where they erected their sign. How do we start a petition before they give away land all over the country?

Don't forget a meter may have been washed away over the past 200 years

[Tanglewood]

Don't forget a meter may have been washed away over the past 200 years

On the other hand the trust have piled the bank, so probably gave away a metre and backfilled.

[ditchcrawler]

On the other hand the trust have piled the bank, so probably gave away a metre and backfilled.

true

[Tanglewood]

Anyone know how to contact the board of trustees? - have just discovered that a charity may not dispose of land for less than market value without the approval of the Charity Commission

[Chewbacka]

Anyone know how to contact the board of trustees? - have just discovered that a charity may not dispose of land for less than market value without the approval of the Charity Commission

Good luck, but before you can prove they are giving away land you will need to prove where the boundary is.

I guess there is a big difference between 'giving away' and negotiating a boundary from an old map. That said, I would have thought that CRT have an established boundary and it should be up to the new owner to prove CRT have encroached onto his land.

[Tim Lewis]

Anyone know how to contact the board of trustees? - have just discovered that a charity may not dispose of land for less than market value without the approval of the Charity Commission

 

CRT advertise their land disposals etc on the following page:

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/business-and-trade/public-notices

 

The page also gives relavent contact details

 

Tim

[Paul C]

It has now been confirmed that CRT do own the land,

 

 

 

 

 

Recently the (in the scheme of things, relatively new) landowner has claimed, and produced land registry plans to show the land right up to the edge belongs to him, and has done so since the land was first registered about 75 years ago.

 

 

 

I'm no expert but land registry plans surely must carry some weight in proving ownership of land, especially if the evidence supplied at the time of first registration is robust. What is CRT's evidence that they own it, and isn't it all a bit academic because it should have been presented at the appropriate time & place (75 years ago with the Land Registry Office)?