You are not logged in to Prodigits. Please register or login.

Subject: Adverse Possession
Replies: 11 Views: 826

azrael17 24.03.20 - 10:17am
UK and other common law countries seem to show strong favoritism towards adverse possessors and squatters over the rights of land owners with title to their properties. Do you agree with these laws? The justification stems from an aged old principle that all land must be put to good use, and a land should not be wasted and forgotten. If another citizen puts it to good use, does that justify transfering ownership of your land to him? In UK and other common wealth countries, the understanding is that individuals do not necessarily own land. They instead own rights and interests on the land which ultimately belongs to the Queen, hence someone with a better right is capable of overriding your own interests if it's proven by law. * +

sisfreak2017 24.03.20 - 10:19am
No fu*ks given. * +

azrael17 24.03.20 - 10:22am
The principle of adverse possession was subject to scurtiny in the case of Pye V Graham, which concerned a farmer who was given right to graze his cattle on land owned by a company worth millions. He was given mere license to operate which could be revoked anytime. He renewed it every year, but after a couple of years due to an error or whatnot, they failed to issue him license. He continued using the land, and after a period of 12 years, he claimed ownership to the land as an adverse possessor. The court ruled in his favour, and this case was taken to the ECHR where the courts decide it was rather an infringement of ones human rights, and rightfully revoked the decision. Yet this was old law under the Land registeration Act 1925, they reformed the law now found in s.96 and schedule 6 of the Land registeration act 2002 which to be fair balances out the rights of squatters with land owners, and makes it more difficult to claim title over anothers land. Adverse possession continues existing under the eyes of ECHR, but do you still think it should be allowed? 12 years under the old law, minimum of 10 years under the new law and you can now apply for adverse possession of the land! * +

sparky04 24.03.20 - 10:24am
This more important things going on at the moment! !!! * +

bozzalad 24.03.20 - 10:25am
It is all dodgy as fk
Good topic btw * +

azrael17 24.03.20 - 10:27am
If your land is subject to occupation by a squatter and adverse possessor which can sometime happen completely accidently, it's worth notifying the possessor of the occupation or initiating proceedings as the land can go to him for good even if you are the registered owner! All they need to fulfil are facts of possession and intention to possess! Slade J puts it quite well in the case of Powell v Mcfarlane, if you use the land the as an original owner would, and no else does so, you can be an adverse possessor! In cases such as Pubrick v hackney, installing a lock in an abandoned house allowed adverse possession! In the case of Redhouse farms v catchpole, the fact that a man visiited a swamp land once in a blue moon sufficied to form facts of possession. * +

azrael17 24.03.20 - 10:35am
Even installing fence on land ultimately belonging to another is best evidence for facts of possession pursuant to the case of Sedden v Smith! It's really worth watching out for your land if you live abroad or if you share area with neighbor that you are not sure belongs to whom, but it's being used anyway, as genuine mistake as to boundaries can also allow for adverse possession subject to the case of Zarb v Perry! Intention to possess is even inferred from your actions alone, and the test is even considered aritifical by courts as such stated by Slade j again in powell v Mcfarlaine! Courts are very much inclined to decide in favour of squatters. * +

azrael17 24.03.20 - 10:37am
The interesting part however is from s.144 of Legal Aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders act, which literally states that not leaving premise once asked to constitutes as an offence of tresspassing, in spite of the fact that the court legally allows you to to adversely possess land of another, and after facts of possession and intention to possess is firmly established, you can refuse to leave if the land owner asks you to. * +

+ go to page 1-2
+ my page
+ functions
3 search
4 submit a reply
7 last page
+ bookmark
8 General Chat Forum
9 Forum Index

Custom Search