Finding land owners

Latest Articles

Finding land owners
Page Previous 1, 2

Downsizer Forum Index -> Finance and Property

Author

Message

tahir

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45669
Location: Essex

Posted: Thu Jan 05, 06 7:23 pm Post subject:
You can ask the Land Register to do a search on it

Bugs

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 10744

Posted: Thu Jan 05, 06 8:01 pm Post subject:
Did you see How to Rescue a House on BBC? The brief bits I caught didn't suggest anything beyond the truly obvious but it's exactly what you are asking and it might be worth an explore from their website: https://www.bbc.co.uk/homes/tv_and_radio/htrah_index.shtml

wellington womble

Joined: 08 Nov 2004
Posts: 15051
Location: East Midlands

Posted: Thu Jan 05, 06 8:22 pm Post subject:

It's not on land registry (sorry - I should have said that

) and although I didn't see the series, there is a book that goes with it that I'll have a look at it if I can get my mitts on a copy. I have also found the Empty Homes Agency (www.emptyhomes.com), who have lots of useful ideas. There is also a an empty homes register at the council (who has an empty homes officer, I might be able to pursuade to do some work for his money) although in general getting information out of the council might require bug's carving knife! I'll have a go anyway. Someone get the brandy ready.......

sally_in_wales
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 20809
Location: sunny wales

Posted: Thu Jan 05, 06 9:10 pm Post subject:
Hmm, have you looked at the old census records for that address? Might give some leads. Council should have records of who last paid the council tax- though whether they will give you any useful info is unlikely, and your local record office may possibly hold copies of deeds.

dougal

Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 7184
Location: South Kent

Posted: Thu Jan 05, 06 10:24 pm Post subject:

As previously suggested, I do seriously advocate "Adverse Possession" in this specific case.

Take possession of it, in a non damaging way, put your locks on the gates, and if you like, put up a small notice saying that you have taken possession *only* because you have been otherwise unable to trace the "paper" owner, but that you have taken possession and will only relinquish possesssion to the paper owner on presentation of documentary evidence of title. Get some witnesses that you have taken possession of the property as of a specific date.
Don't do any violence to the place.
But it might be worth boarding up broken windows, etc.
Do, at an absolute minimum, cultivate crops in the garden, and repair all the fences. Keep the gates locked.

The law on Adverse Possession changed recently making it much harder for squatters to gain title - BUT the change applies *only* to *registered* land, which this isn't. So go for it. Before someone else does.

If you have concerns about this advice, check it with a solicitor. He can't advise you to take possession, but he should confirm the absence of consequence if you have cared for the property and relinquish possession if called upon to do so.
He'd also be able to confirm that if you 'possess' the land (use it and exclude others) long enough, it will become legally yours.
Its bizarre and somewhat irrational, but it *is* the law.
He might be very helpful in suggesting the best evidence for you to gather of your possession.

BTW - who IS registered to pay the Council Tax on the property? Anyone? If it were you, then I'd guess that would be good evidence of possession... (You should be able to (in the legal sense) 'possess' the property without residing there - but you do have to (in the legal sense) 'occupy' it - hence the locks, fences and cultivation.)

wellington womble

Joined: 08 Nov 2004
Posts: 15051
Location: East Midlands

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 06 11:33 am Post subject:

Thanks Dougal - I don't doubt your legal facts at all, but morally, I feel I can't just waltz in and take a house (Not that it it can't be done, but I don't wish to do it, at least untill I've exhausted all the other options) I have a pet solicitor, so I'll et him involved as a witness if we do decide to go ahead with anything.

Sally, where might I find census' and a local records offices? I wondered about the library. I very much doubt the council would give out any useful information (or any other public body) but if I said I wanted to give them money, they might be more helpful, and as you say, Dougal, it would be very good evidence of possession.

dougal

Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 7184
Location: South Kent

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 06 12:35 pm Post subject:

wellington womble wrote:

... I feel I can't just waltz in and take a house (Not that it it can't be done, but I don't wish to do it, at least untill I've exhausted all the other options) I have a pet solicitor, so I'll et him involved as a witness ...

What I'm really proposing is that you "take possession" in the least damaging way possible that still satisfies the legal requirements of "adverse possession".

Your reason for doing that is to *force* the owner to get in touch.
If the "paper owner" has NOT got in touch, or even noticed your presence, then at the end of the "limitation period", it becomes yours.
You are saying "we have tried to contact you, and having failed, it becomes up to you to contact us".

However there is nothing whatsoever to prevent you continuing, in parallel, your efforts to actively trace the "paper owner".
If you take possession, you have started the clock running. And you also should have some rights against anyone else squatting against you!

If the paper owner cannot be found, and doesn't notice or object to your presence, then they have abandoned the property - and its up to *someone* to take on the abandoned property - that's the justification for the law of adverse possession.

Chat to your solicitor friend over a pint!

sally_in_wales
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 20809
Location: sunny wales

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 06 1:05 pm Post subject:

wellington womble wrote:

Sally, where might I find census' and a local records offices? I wondered about the library.

Start with the library, if they don't hold your local records they will certainly know who does. The much older census records are online here https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/census/, but only up to 1901, but if the house is older than that it might just be a starting point (eg if you get a mr rare-surname with 15 kids, then maybe they are still in the area).

Also, local church records, if there is a remote hance that a previous owner is buried locally. You'd need to be able to hazard a guess as to when it was abandoned, then look at burials in that broad date range. That may not get anywhere, but if its a small enough community it may well turn up info

wellington womble

Joined: 08 Nov 2004
Posts: 15051
Location: East Midlands

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 06 1:59 pm Post subject:
Thanks guys - I'll let you know if I get anywhere. I do see what you mean Dougal starting the clock asap is defintiely a consideration.

alison
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 12918
Location: North Devon

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 06 8:24 pm Post subject:
How long has the house been empty, Any idea. What about writing to the owner, at the address of the house. Maybe the post gets forwarded to a bank or the owner themselves.

Cardinal Fang

Joined: 02 Nov 2005
Posts: 224
Location: Shropshire

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 06 10:04 pm Post subject:

Don't want to cast a downer on the thread, but the European Court recently ruled that the British system of adverse possession without compensation (to the person who had lost their land through inertia) is non- Human Rights compliant.

Here is a neat summary for those who want one from a legal website.

https://www.tltsolicitors.com/legal-update/Property-Update/P6475.asp

At present, lawyers are still digesting the decision, but early indications are that it may be become more difficult to obtain adverse possession via the Land Registry.

The alternative would be for the State to come up with some scheme of compensation for those who lose their land to adverse possession.

Which will cost millions and zillions

To be paid by.....

Yep, us taxpayers

dougal

Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 7184
Location: South Kent

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 06 11:30 pm Post subject:

Hi Cardinal.
Yeah, but...

The property being discussed here is *UN*registered.

Property law is ridiculously complex.
Human Rights caselaw is still rather limited.
And there is still confusion in some folks minds as to the different ways European law impacts on Britain.

ECHR (Strasbourg) decisions (like Pye v UK) do not change UK law. However the finding of non-compliance effectively obligates the UK Government to make some legislative changes to bring the UK into compliance.
{Note BTW that *ECJ* (Luxembourg) decisions *do* directly change UK law...}

Property law - the law relating to adverse possession ("AP") is different, depending on whether or not the property is *registered*.

Pye concerned *registered* land. And the law relating to it before the Land Registration Act 2002.
So did Beaulane - a 2005 UK case where a UK judge made a declaration of incompatibility (and so was able to reinterpret the law, after Pye was decided in the UK, but before it went to Luxembourg) in respect of the UK AP law relating to *registered* land as it stood before the LRA 2002.
In Beaulane, the judgement stressed that it was only dealing with *registered* property.

The ECHR judgement in Pye, albeit in an obiter {non-precedent-setting} comment, described the reasoning justifying AP's existance in respect of *UN*registered land as "particularly cogent" - hardly a mark of disapproval.
Pye v UK (ECHR) See para 27
And note that their conclusion

The ECHR wrote:

75. In these circumstances, the Court concludes that the application of the provisions of the 1925 and 1980 Acts to deprive the applicant companies of their title to the registered land imposed on them an individual and excessive burden and upset the fair balance between the demands of the public interest on the one hand and the applicants' right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions on the other.

Which, (I hope) explains why

Gary Webber, barrister wrote:

Thus, as the cases currently stand the law on adverse possession in relation to UNregistered land remains untouched. It has certainly not yet been held to be incompatible with the Convention.

(my emphasis) see https://www.propertylawuk.net/monthlyupdateboundaries.html

So, since this property is *UN*registered, I do not believe that the law *has* changed, or is about to be.

Property law is a godawful tangled mess; AP is actually one of the more straightforward bits.

EDIT: tidied quotation emphasis

Last edited by dougal on Fri Jan 20, 06 10:51 am; edited 1 time in total

dougal

Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 7184
Location: South Kent

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 06 10:47 am Post subject:

dougal wrote:

ECHR (Strasbourg) decisions (like Pye v UK) do not change UK law. However the finding of non-compliance effectively obligates the UK Government to make some legislative changes to bring the UK into compliance.

I really should have mentioned that there is a strong argument that the Land Registration Act 2002 already does that.
As I have pointed out in other threads, the LRA 2002 makes it very much harder for a squatter on *registered* land to gain ownership. The Registry informs the registered owner of the squatter's claim, ensuring the opportunity to object.

The ECHR reached a 4/3 majority decision in Pye, suggesting that this was not a gross or obvious case of incompatibility.
Significantly, the Court made no award, but sent the parties away to negotiate an appropriate settlement.

Because of the enactment of the LRA 2002 and the decision in Beaulane, the number of future cases likely to be influenced by the ECHR's decision in Pye must be very limited indeed.

And it bears repetition that the subject of this thread is *UN*registered land, with a (thus far) untraceable owner.

Cardinal Fang

Joined: 02 Nov 2005
Posts: 224
Location: Shropshire

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 06 3:19 pm Post subject:

Thanks Dougal for the clarification.

Whilst Pye does relate to registered land, and LRA 2002, I would imagine that there is bound to be a challenge to the unregistered land position, just as soon as there is a valuable enough piece of land which has been registered as the result of unregistered adverse possession, to make it worthwhile for someone taking it through the courts.

I also suspect that the Land Registry are going to be very twitchy indeed until the recent developments bed in, and will be looking for almost any excuse (lack of exclusivity etc) to reject first registrations based upon adverse possession.

dougal

Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 7184
Location: South Kent

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 06 9:38 pm Post subject:

Cardinal Fang wrote:

Whilst Pye does relate to registered land, and LRA 2002, I would imagine...

Hold on!
Pye relates to the treatment of registered land *before* the LRA 2002 took effect. The law on AP for registered land is different now. Its pretty unlikely that ownership of registered land would now change hands by simple AP unless the registered owner is unreachable via the address on the register.
And that should satisfy the ECHR's concern as to procedural unfairness.

Cardinal Fang wrote:

I would imagine that there is bound to be a challenge to the unregistered land position, just as soon as there is a valuable enough piece of land which has been registered as the result of unregistered adverse possession, to make it worthwhile for someone taking it through the courts.
I also suspect that the Land Registry are going to be very twitchy indeed until the recent developments bed in, and will be looking for almost any excuse (lack of exclusivity etc) to reject first registrations based upon adverse possession.

Hmmm.
Its a reasonable supposition that someone might indeed *challenge* the unregistered land position.
However, I would not be nearly as confident that such a challenge would be successful.

And I think it it would not be correct to suggest that the Registry are currently particularly 'helpful' towards first registrations by AP claimants. They simply 'go by the book'. There's little discretion involved, as I understand the procedure.

As can be seen from reading the ECHR judgement (linked above), there was acceptance of the principle of a limitation period (para 63), (12 years being accepted as "relatively long" in Para 69), and acceptance of the "undoubted relevance and importance" to the public interests in the case of UNregistered land that "the reality of unopposed occupation of land and its legal ownership coincide" as well as the avoidance of 'stale claims' - which the Court held to be much less important to Pye's registered land (Para 65).
Given that it was only a 4/3 majority, and much was made of the procedural unfairness of the registered owner not being notified by the Land Registry in time to defend his title... I simply don't see any evidence that there is about to be a radical change in the law relating to AP and *un*registered land.

Indeed, I'd welcome being directed to any part of the relevant judgements that are construed as disapproving of AP in relation to *un*registered property.
If it is there, I haven't spotted it...

As the law stands *today*, AP against abandoned *un*registered land is perfectly viable.
My suggestion remains that "taking possession", in the least damaging way possible, is an excellent means of 'flushing out' an owner of *un*registered property who is otherwise untraceable. And should the paper owner not notice that you have taken possession for twelve years, then you should have a claim for ownership. That claim cannot succeed unless you have met the legal requirements for Adverse Possession - hence the need to ensure that if you do it, you are "doing it properly".

	Downsizer Forum Index -> Finance and Property	All times are GMT Page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

View Latest Posts