Mediation
Stockport

Being updated. 

Being updated. 

Being updated. 

The Claimants owned number 10 X Road in Oldham which was bought in the name of the Claimant. The proposed Defendant bought 12 X Road in Oldham in 2017. The Defendant’s daughter and her family occupied the property.

There had been a dispute between the parties in relation to the piece of land identified in the plan of the expert report of Mr M. This dispute has caused personal arguments between the parties which had been the subject of party correspondence.

There had been no recent issues and the Claimants are of the view that this matter does not need further investigation and is best left on the current basis which is that each party (and in the case of the Defendant, her occupiers) will ensure that they do not abuse or argue with the other party. No admissions were made in respect of this aspect of the dispute.

The Claimants relied on the report of Mr M. Their position is that the Land Registry plans are clear and that the piece of land at issue belongs to number 10. The issue was that the Defendant asserted an adverse possession claim to this piece of land.

The Claimants did not dispute that the land in question had been as currently fenced since probably 2009. From the documents in the report, it seems that the property was as originally set out and recorded in the Land Registry plans from 1983 for about 25 years and then enclosed.

It seems that although the previous elderly owner of number 10 allowed parking in this space there was no intention to give any legal rights and indeed it is probably likely that she was unaware that the fence had been moved.

The Defendant had no evidence on this point. Who had produced two letters from neighbour’s saying that the land was always as currently configured. These were unreliable accounts as the Claimants knew that this was not the case.

The Claimants’ position was that the fact that this fence had been moved over 10 years ago is not enough to establish a claim for adverse possession of registered land. They refer to the Land Registry Practice Guide 4 on this point.

If the Defendant was intending to make an application for adverse possession she would have to show one of the three additional requirements. One that it would be unconscionable for her not to have the land registered to her. This covers issues such as proprietary estoppel which did not apply here.

Two, there is another reason she is entitled to have the land registered to her, for example an uncompleted sale. Three, that the land claimed was adjacent to number 12 and the applicant was under the mistaken but reasonable belief that she was the owner of it. This cannot be the case here given the correct land registry plans and the lack of evidence of what any owner thought prior to 2018.

There must also have been an intention to dispossess the true owner without their consent. The Defendant is unable to make out any of these additional points and so an application to the Land Registry for ownership by adverse possession opposed by the Claimants would fail.

The Claimants owned the leasehold of number 10 under a lease dated 13 October 1983. The lease is for the whole of the land at number 10 as set out in the land registry plans. The current leaseholder is Anonymous Limited.

By that lease the Claimant could not agree to the Defendant’s position. Clause 2 (21) provides that the Claimants must yield up the demised premises at the end of the lease. To agree to this land coming out of the title would be a breach of the lease which could result in its forfeiture.

The Claimants had a charge on the property as registered at the land registry. Due to this they were also unable to agree to part with any part of the land without the consent of their lender.

These properties were all built with 2 parking places. The Claimants’ property had been valued on this basis. If the lender were to consider an application to remove a piece of land from the property it would involve a revaluation of the property.

The lender would be likely to refuse this application, but if it were to agree there would have to be a new valuation, a new charge, perhaps a charge apportioned with the Defendant or perhaps payment of the amount by which the property value was reduced to reflect the fact that land had been transferred out of the charge.

Due to all these considerations, if the Defendant does not withdraw her claim to this piece of land the Claimants will have no alternative other than to commence proceedings to establish the extent of their property and to prevent the Defendant from further assertions on this point.

It is estimated that costs for such an action would not be less than £10,000 and could be significantly higher. There would be applications for costs made in any such claim which the Claimant’s would expect to follow the event if decided by the court.

The dispute had been going on for five years. This was an online mediation, it took ten hours and settled.

Being updated.