Jump to content

Boundary dispute


Tanglewood

Featured Posts

It has now been confirmed that CRT do own the land, and have sent my friend a map indicating the strip of land . . .

 

Maps from CaRT indicating land they allegedly own are meaningless. Adverse Possession aside, land passes in this country only through deed, without which no title can be established. In circumstances where CaRT can only produce a plan of their own creation, that does NOTHING to confirm that they DO own the land – if anything, it is confirmation that they do NOT. The original canal companies were required to maintain meticulous land acquisition records, and all of those, with the appropriate deeds, were inherited by BW - there is no ambiguity over what they did or did not own.

 

BW produced such plans as you describe in a criminal prosecution for which I was a CPS witness, and the magistrates accepted that without Land Registry confirmation the maps could not be relied on. Subsequent High Court battles over the ownership established that they had a deed only to a portion of that claimed, and they were denied title to most of what they had claimed as theirs; The plans that had been drawn up were mere wishful thinking, to describe it in the pleasantest terms.

 

Years later they tried again, in the third tier tribunal, attempting to re-interpret the High Court findings, but failed yet again. That time around actually confirmed that all the land previously granted title to BW where no deeds supported them, had been based on a misunderstanding of the initial case – and that was by the same judge who had ordered the prior registration of nearby land!

 

Notoriously, BW had even managed to slip in registration of the tidal Lea in East London, and had they not made the mistake of evicting moored boats there [who were paying fees to a Crown Estates lessee], they would doubtless have got away with that too.

 

PaulC has said that Land Registry title is the proof one needs – and that was always the intent of the central national registry, but even that is impeachable; the relevant law itself acknowledging the need betimes for rectification of the Register [which is what had to happen with the river Lea registration].

 

The fact is, that for at least a decade prior to the Transfer into the charitable sector, BW were most assiduously working on gaining registration to every bit of land around the canals that was not nailed down by the registration of third parties, regardless of the fact that they [bW] had no legitimate claim.

 

ALL the BW applications for registration that I have seen made bald assumptions of ownership in the absence of deeds, and the Land Registry went along with them. BW had sent a couple of their employees on training courses with HM Land Registry; cemented friendships and contacts in relevant sectors; set up – with the co-operation of HMLR - a central office to deal with all applications, instead of making these to the regional offices of HMLR, and pored over the HMLR records of ownership to see what unregistered land lay alongside their waterways. Those they laid claim to, and with the true owners having no warning about this, registration proceeded piecemeal as a fait accompli.

 

If, despite those years of co-operation with an amenable HMLR, there were bits they failed to grab, you may be very confident that it was not for lack of trying – and the landowner in the case you cite had doubtless been registered as owner well before that program began.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'PaulC has said that Land Registry title is the proof one needs – and that was always the intent of the central national registry, but even that is impeachable; the relevant law itself acknowledging the need betimes for rectification of the Register [which is what had to happen with the river Lea registration].' Quoted from OP (NM above)

 

 

This being the case how does either party show they are the rightful owner? (the landowner has actually conceded that he isn't so is it is a case of where the boundary lies?) He is now saying that he owns the land a certain distance back from the edge, but interestingly is applying a metric scale - which does not translate into any figure that would have been likely when rods perches and poles were being used to survey land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is the canal in question a registered/scheduled monument? if so that may define the width of the 'monument' and the 'monument' may be able to be claimed by CART or your heritage body as being under their control. I'm only working off experience in Scotland, things may be very different down there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'PaulC has said that Land Registry title is the proof one needs – and that was always the intent of the central national registry, but even that is impeachable; the relevant law itself acknowledging the need betimes for rectification of the Register [which is what had to happen with the river Lea registration].' Quoted from OP (NM above)

 

 

This being the case how does either party show they are the rightful owner? (the landowner has actually conceded that he isn't so is it is a case of where the boundary lies?) He is now saying that he owns the land a certain distance back from the edge, but interestingly is applying a metric scale - which does not translate into any figure that would have been likely when rods perches and poles were being used to survey land.

There is a process for registering land that has not changed hands for a very long time. It involves a Statutory Declaration (or Truth) by someone whose history shows that they are reasonably connected over a long time to state that ownership has been undisputed over that time. see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statements-of-truth/practice-guide-73-statements-of-truth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

This being the case how does either party show they are the rightful owner? (the landowner has actually conceded that he isn't so is it is a case of where the boundary lies?) He is now saying that he owns the land a certain distance back from the edge, but interestingly is applying a metric scale - which does not translate into any figure that would have been likely when rods perches and poles were being used to survey land.

Titles are established by way of deeds of conveyance or declarations of possession.

 

The LR plans do not purport to show definitive boundaries.

 

In cases of dispute as to the exact location of boundaries, the 'boundaries rule' will need to be applied and adjudicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Titles are established by way of deeds of conveyance or declarations of possession.

 

The LR plans do not purport to show definitive boundaries.

 

In cases of dispute as to the exact location of boundaries, the 'boundaries rule' will need to be applied and adjudicated.

 

The thickness of the 'pencil line' on an A4 sized plan can account for several metres in 'real life'.

I have found that the best boundary definitions are features such as dykes, hedges and roads - it can still lead to questions over 'responsibility' ie do I own both banks of the dyke, to the centre of the dyke or neither bank, and if neither bank how far back from the bank do I own.

 

I sold some land a couple of years ago and stipulated that the purchaser was buying both banks and that the boundary ran along the crest of the bank on the side of my remaining land (I didn't want the hassle / cost of cleaning out the dyke every year)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a process for registering land that has not changed hands for a very long time. It involves a Statutory Declaration (or Truth) by someone whose history shows that they are reasonably connected over a long time to state that ownership has been undisputed over that time. see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statements-of-truth/practice-guide-73-statements-of-truth

Yes my ex next door neighbour managed to get almost quarter of an acre extra like that when he regestered the land a few years back, he even had a swimming pool on a footpath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Titles are established by way of deeds of conveyance or declarations of possession.

 

The LR plans do not purport to show definitive boundaries.

 

In cases of dispute as to the exact location of boundaries, the 'boundaries rule' will need to be applied and adjudicated.

 

 

 

....and the 'boundaries rule' states....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google "general boundaries rule".

That is pretty helpful really. The canal is on an embankment with a man made ditch at the bottom. So when the dispute is resolved it is likely to be that the far side of the ditch from the canal is the physical feature that would determine the boundary; unless the landowner can show papers to show that its some point in the past the land was sold, either by the Grand Junction Canal C, or the BWB to him or one of the two previous landowners. The land was registered for the first time 10 years ago.

 

We have a copy of the original conveyance dated 1803, as we own property on the other side of the canal, but it predates the enclosure act, measurements are in perches taken form a certain ridge in a named field and refers to land or land covered in water etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is pretty helpful really. The canal is on an embankment with a man made ditch at the bottom. So when the dispute is resolved it is likely to be that the far side of the ditch from the canal is the physical feature that would determine the boundary; unless the landowner can show papers to show that its some point in the past the land was sold, either by the Grand Junction Canal C, or the BWB to him or one of the two previous landowners. The land was registered for the first time 10 years ago.

 

We have a copy of the original conveyance dated 1803, as we own property on the other side of the canal, but it predates the enclosure act, measurements are in perches taken form a certain ridge in a named field and refers to land or land covered in water etc.

It is cases like that which help explain why lawyers are so well off!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I see Narrowboatworld have got hold of this story. Most of what they have printed is as accurate as one might expect when they get half the story from the Landowner. He has never had an agreement with CRT, he attempted one a week ago but it was never agreed. Certainly he registered the land as his 9 years ago, and the land had never previously been registered, but it was not owned by the previous landowner, and was not sold by CRT. Land owners, who wish to build marinas in an adjacent filed, as this one did, must be trying this up and down the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see Narrowboatworld have got hold of this story. Most of what they have printed is as accurate as one might expect when they get half the story from the Landowner. He has never had an agreement with CRT, he attempted one a week ago but it was never agreed. Certainly he registered the land as his 9 years ago, and the land had never previously been registered, but it was not owned by the previous landowner, and was not sold by CRT. Land owners, who wish to build marinas in an adjacent filed, as this one did, must be trying this up and down the country.

 

If the land was 'never previously registered' how did C&RT plan on proving ownership ?

If the current owner registered it 9 years ago then it is legally his - no discussion.

 

Irrespective of motives, if the landowners "Land Registry Plan" shows him as owning all the way to the water, and he has offered C&RT 1.5 metres so they can continue to receive the mooring fees that they currently get from all the boats moored along 'his land' I think that is pretty generous of him.

 

If it was my land I'd be tempted to charge C&RT a rent equivalent to 50% of their mooring income (EOG 'fee') or tell them I was keeping the mooring income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If the land was 'never previously registered' how did C&RT plan on proving ownership ?

If the current owner registered it 9 years ago then it is legally his - no discussion.

 

Irrespective of motives, if the landowners "Land Registry Plan" shows him as owning all the way to the water, and he has offered C&RT 1.5 metres so they can continue to receive the mooring fees that they currently get from all the boats moored along 'his land' I think that is pretty generous of him.

 

If it was my land I'd be tempted to charge C&RT a rent equivalent to 50% of their mooring income (EOG 'fee') or tell them I was keeping the mooring income.

Because 'boundaries' on land register plans are indications only not legal boundaries. Most boundary disputes are over a few feet. CRT have the deeds which relate to the sale of land AFTER the canal was cut, showing how much they owned -this was transferred onto other maps. For instance the side ponds were built after the canal and were therefore on newly acquired land. Even this landowner does not claim to own those. This is just a case where the landowner, when he bough the land 9 years ago, never even got into a discussion with CRT about how much land they owned or even used. Even when applying for a marina, he did not discuss it, although he was not then planning to develop land up to the water's edge. its land he can't use, so at best he is trying to exact mooring fees for the past 9 years. If it were my land i expect I would do the same too, but it is not mine, not yours and not this land-owner's - he simply registered it. CRT have owned, and in legal terms, 'possessed' it for over 200 years. I hope they decide to prove it through the courts if that is what it takes, because if they don't suddenly we may well find that the far bank of many of our canals are not maintained because CRT no longer have the duty to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . we may well find that the far bank of many of our canals are not maintained because CRT no longer have the duty to.

There has not been, since 1968, any statutory duty to maintain more than the main navigable channels of the cruising and commercial waterways.

 

Under the terms of the 2012 Transfer Order handing control over to CaRT, even this duty was effectively emasculated.

 

Ownership is in any event, irrelevant to the question of CaRT's duties and powers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

What has become clear is that the landowner (a parish councillor recently censured by the district council for no-disclosure of pecuniary interests) bought the land AFTER it had been registered by the previous owner as his. The Land Registry failed to notify BW either as a neighbour or as a statutory consultee. BW compounded the error by registering land some 8 years later in preparation for the transfer of roles responsibilities and functions to CRT, and failed to notice the error. However, this is the reason why he is so keen to grab the land - a 120 berth marina. He failed,at appeal, in April of this year to gain permission for 180 berth marina, and believes that visual impact was a significant factor. This marina, for 120 berths will still effectively develop the same parcel of land.

https://publicaccess.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OC5A5TCLGEF00

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be understandable to feel indignant because the owner concerned is considered amoral/unpleasant and out for a buck, but that has nothing to do with the question of legality, or with the validity of his title. He cannot be said to be out to "grab" land, if he has purchased a legitimate existing registered title.

Yes, the Land Registry did usually notify BW, but not invariably – anymore than they always notify adjacent land owners of any application for registration. It makes no difference though – IF BW had been able to show documentary title demonstrating that a “mistake” had been made, then all they needed to do was file an application for “Rectification of the Register” [other parties have had to do this in the past, when it became known that BW had fraudulently acquired title to their land].

From the facts as you have presented, it would seem that BW had no title, and no claim other than an unjustifiable protestation of presumed ownership. That does not wash; the title could not be considered to have passed without evidence of deed, except where a case could be argued for those deeds having been lost [the existence of such a deed would be a matter of record even if the deed had been lost or destroyed], or by virtue of Adverse Possession.

If CaRT have a copy of their inherited deed of conveyance, there is no problem with getting the Register rectified [apparently they cannot because they have no deeds]; if they can demonstrate a record of any conveyance having been in their possession, they could argue their superior title based on a presumption of lost deeds [apparently they cannot establish a record of having possessed such deeds], otherwise, they could argue for Adverse Possession if they were able to establish that the necessary factors obtained - but aside from the obvious fact that they have been unable to, their ability to adversely possess is limited; if what could ordinarily be considered acts of possession were undertaken under statutory powers, then those acts cannot count as dispossession of an occupier. They would have to have acted outwith their statutory powers in dispossessing others, in order to establish the requisite intent.

Is the outcome so terrible, if the new owner intends to create a new mooring facility for far greater numbers of boats? CaRT are supposedly committed to supporting the creation of such offline facilities to reduce congestion.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having just looked at the application plan, it appears that the title [as presumably agreed currently anyway] leaves an access strip to the side ponds of Slapton Lock, but from the Lock westward, the offside bank is in his private ownership.

This being on the Grand Union Canal, and part of the main line of the original Grand Junction Canal, land purchases were governed by the GJCC Act 1793. The canal proprietors could purchase offside land for development of wharves etc if they wished, but otherwise the CP powers were limited to a 60 foot strip to include canal plus towpath [no 'ransom strip' of offside bank].

The offside banks under the terms of the Act remained in the ownership of private landowners, with statutory rights for them to create places for boats to lie alongside their land, whether utilising existing banks or by digging out their own land. The canal proprietors were to have no say in the charges for use of the private facilities by boats.

In their dispute with the Yardley Gobion marina owner on the same canal, BW admitted that much [although they succeeded in arguing that this right did not extend so far as to create a marina – ridiculous, and contrary to their representations to Parliament when seeking to have these rights abolished].

So – no presumption of purchase could be made under the terms of the original enabling Act, and any extraordinary purchase of offside land back in the day, would have been meticulously recorded in the GJCC’s 'Books of Reference' of all purchases and sales under the Act.

That being the case, CaRT could only legitimately claim any bank ownership here, on the basis of some modern purchase outwith the statutory powers and functions – and such purchase would be a matter of record also.

One can only conclude that the only attempted land grab going on in this instance is CaRT’s, insofar as they are asserting any title. It seems from the initial postings that they are not? or perhaps asserting ownership only of the access strip to the side ponds? That latter would have some small merit as an argument. Otherwise, their [unusual] "failure" to assert title against the registered owner is to their credit, rather than something to criticise.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be understandable to feel indignant because the owner concerned is considered amoral/unpleasant and out for a buck, but that has nothing to do with the question of legality, or with the validity of his title. He cannot be said to be out to "grab" land, if he has purchased a legitimate existing registered title.

 

Yes, the Land Registry did usually notify BW, but not invariably – anymore than they always notify adjacent land owners of any application for registration. It makes no difference though – IF BW had been able to show documentary title demonstrating that a “mistake” had been made, then all they needed to do was file an application for “Rectification of the Register” [other parties have had to do this in the past, when it became known that BW had fraudulently acquired title to their land].

 

From the facts as you have presented, it would seem that BW had no title, and no claim other than an unjustifiable protestation of presumed ownership. That does not wash; the title could not be considered to have passed without evidence of deed, except where a case could be argued for those deeds having been lost [the existence of such a deed would be a matter of record even if the deed had been lost or destroyed], or by virtue of Adverse Possession.

 

If CaRT have a copy of their inherited deed of conveyance, there is no problem with getting the Register rectified [apparently they cannot because they have no deeds]; if they can demonstrate a record of any conveyance having been in their possession, they could argue their superior title based on a presumption of lost deeds [apparently they cannot establish a record of having possessed such deeds], otherwise, they could argue for Adverse Possession if they were able to establish that the necessary factors obtained - but aside from the obvious fact that they have been unable to, their ability to adversely possess is limited; if what could ordinarily be considered acts of possession were undertaken under statutory powers, then those acts cannot count as dispossession of an occupier. They would have to have acted outwith their statutory powers in dispossessing others, in order to establish the requisite intent.

 

Is the outcome so terrible, if the new owner intends to create a new mooring facility for far greater numbers of boats? CaRT are supposedly committed to supporting the creation of such offline facilities to reduce congestion.

 

The land was registered prior to the sale to the current owner, so he understandably believes it to be his. However CRT do have the original conveyance, dated 1803, when the land on which the canal had already been built was purchased. I have a copy of it as my house stands on the same parcel of land, being the lock cottage. The measurements were transferred to a Land Terrier map using the 1899 edition of the ordnance survey. I also have a photocopy of that. The canal is wide enough to turn a 57ft boat here and the towpath is 5ft wide, so what ever the number of 'rods, perches and poles from a particular ridge' amounts to it is more than 60 feet. The question is not whether CRT own the land, but how much. Yes, I understand the process of rectification has been started, but it is now about agreeing where the boundary lies. The land-owner is now conceding a 2m strip below the lock, although as his plan shows, he has recorded what he believed to be true, that he owns up to the waters edge. Above the lock, the strip that is not included in the red line is exactly the width of land that CRT believe they own. By not including it in the area under question, the landowner is not indicating that he does not own it, he is indicating that it is not to be considered under this planning application. In fact he intends to erect the fence and plant Leylandii halfway between the red line and the water.

 

An examination of the plans shows that in fact he has only reduced the mooring capacity by 22 boats, not 60 as the 'headline' on the application suggests. A leisure mooring facility of this size in this location does not fulfil any need. What could be argued would be one which provided for residential boats, but this is considered an unsustainable location, and even housing is difficult to get past the planners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So there is a proposal for a marina on the shallowest pound on the GU that should be interesting.

The pound is always off level by about 30cm we ran aground mid channel last week. There is already a marina at Grove so really no need for this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.