Boundary dispute

[Tanglewood]

Having read this forum for over a year, i know that it is a great network of boaters who know a heck of a lot about a great many things, and so have joined to ask for help/advice opinions regarding a situation experienced by a friend of mine. My friend has a long-term mooring on the offside administered by CRT. He's been there 10 years. It is one of a handful of moorings at this site. He has always believed that the width of the land against which he moors was about 3-4 metres wide, as the Long Term Mooring sign erected by CRT is about 3m from the water's edge. 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. He intends to erect a fence 1.5m from the waters edge, and although CRT are trying to negotiate with him they can find no record of an agreement with the previous landowner to show they have enjoyed the use of the land for over 30 years ( which is about how long BW have used the site as a mooring site. In fact the contractors are there today.

 

My friend has been told that CRT cannot fight the landlord as there is no money to do so, but it seems that if this is happening in one place it could happen up and down the country. The moorings will be less attractive than they were, and presumably will not be worth so much. Is there anything that can be done to prevent CRT just relinquishing what they had believed to be assets?

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

Well thats the opposite side of the coin to BW registering any bit of waterside lane they could find a few years back.

 

If the case with your friend is 100% accurate and the chap does own to the edge I think your friend is very fortunate to still have a mooring and 1.5 mt of land and I am surprised the landlord doesnt want payment for its use. Not a good situation but if CRT wont do anything I am not sure what your friend could do.

[Alan Taylor]

Having read this forum for over a year, i know that it is a great network of boaters who know a heck of a lot about a great many things, and so have joined to ask for help/advice opinions regarding a situation experienced by a friend of mine. My friend has a long-term mooring on the offside administered by CRT. He's been there 10 years. It is one of a handful of moorings at this site. He has always believed that the width of the land against which he moors was about 3-4 metres wide, as the Long Term Mooring sign erected by CRT is about 3m from the water's edge. 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. He intends to erect a fence 1.5m from the waters edge, and although CRT are trying to negotiate with him they can find no record of an agreement with the previous landowner to show they have enjoyed the use of the land for over 30 years ( which is about how long BW have used the site as a mooring site. In fact the contractors are there today.

 

My friend has been told that CRT cannot fight the landlord as there is no money to do so, but it seems that if this is happening in one place it could happen up and down the country. The moorings will be less attractive than they were, and presumably will not be worth so much. Is there anything that can be done to prevent CRT just relinquishing what they had believed to be assets?

 

 

 

Perhaps if BW hadn't stolen the land in the first place you wouldn't be in this mess.

 

You should negotiate, only, with the owner of the land for your mooring. The rules are that you pay the landowner a fee plus CRT 50% of the price of a towpath mooring in the area so I would guess your true landowner would be glad of the extra income.

 

Alternatively be grateful you're still there and enjoy the 1.5 m he is allowing you.

 

 

PS it is not your landowner in the wrong as your OP seems to imply, it is CRT (with the proviso that if your facts are correct etc....)

Edited July 13, 2016 by Alan Taylor

[bag 'o' bones]

Assuming I'm interpreting the ops friends situation correctly it seems that CRT could be charged with misrepresentation in the sense that they marketed a mooring with an alleged 4 meter width belonging to someone else.

 

Can't blame the owner for exercising their boundary rights to be honest. Seems to me the next course of action is to negotiate with the landowner to try and remedy the situation.

 

If the landowner is unwilling to play ball I think your friend is owed an explanation from CRT and possibly a refund of some of the lease value (assuming that is the agreement)

 

Your friend would benefit from some proper legal advice particularly if the new fence hinders access..........

Edited July 13, 2016 by bag 'o' bones

[David Schweizer]

This is an interesting issue. It is my understanding that if someone has occupied and controlled (fenced off for example) land not owned by themselves but uncontested, and without the owners consent since before 1990, they can claim the land as their own. This is quite irrespective of who the land is registered to.

 

I assume C&ART know this, so if your dates are correct, and the conditions as shown have have been met, they would appear to be in the position where they can claim the land as their own.

[Tanglewood]

Obviously not made myself clear. This mooring site is one owned by CRT. My friend was given a map by them last year showing the land boundary. What they cannot find is the evidence that this arrangement post-dated the first registration of the land. It is quite possible, that following the purchase of the land, BW didn't quite get round to registering the land, but that oversight is now coming back to bite them. Somewhere though, there ought be a record to show exactly what they do own. However it came about this is an asset for the Trust - I think that essentially means us the boaters - my concern is that CRT are willing to relinquish ​what they believe to be their assets because they cannot afford to contest the case. Its not selling the family silver, its giving it away.

Assuming I'm interpreting the ops friends situation correctly it seems that CRT could be charged with misrepresentation in the sense that they marketed a mooring with an alleged 4 meter width belonging to someone else.

 

Can't blame the owner for exercising their boundary rights to be honest. Seems to me the next course of action is to negotiate with the landowner to try and remedy the situation.

 

If the landowner is unwilling to play ball I think your friend is owed an explanation from CRT and possibly a refund of some of the lease value (assuming that is the agreement)

 

Your friend would benefit from some proper legal advice particularly if the new fence hinders access..........

Yes he has approached them, they are refusing to consider this. One mooring is about to change hands, and the new 'tenant' is also challenging the price - falling on deaf ears.

 

This is an interesting issue. It is my understanding that if someone has occupied and controlled (fenced off for example) land not owned by themselves but uncontested, and without the owners consent since before 1990, they can claim the land as their own. This is quite irrespective of who the land is registered to.

 

I assume C&ART know this, so if your dates are correct, and the conditions as shown have have been met, they would appear to be in the position where they can claim the land as their own.

Yes I am sure they could - but they do not want to upset large landowners. It appears would rather upset a few boaters.

[David Mack]

If your friend has occupied the 3-4m wide strip for 10+ years without any objection from the landowner he may have an entitlement to rights to the land. And if it was never CRT's land, then the fact he has been paying rent to BW/CRT for the land (as well as for the right to moor against it) is irrelevant in his dealings with the landowner.

 

Your friend can register a claim over the land with the Land Registry. This won't just give him the land, but it will show up on searches if the landowner tries to sell or mortgage the land, so would give some leverage. Your friend needs to produce whatever documentation he can of his use and unencumbered enjoyment of the land over the 10+ years. E.g photos of the mooring showing the full width in use by him. Or signed witness statements from 3rd parties. As suggested above, legal advice would be advisable. Joint action by all the affected moorers would add weight, as well as allowing the costs to be shared.

[Guest]

If your friend has occupied the 3-4m wide strip for 10+ years without any objection from the landowner he may have an entitlement to rights to the land. And if it was never CRT's land, then the fact he has been paying rent to BW/CRT for the land (as well as for the right to moor against it) is irrelevant in his dealings with the landowner.

Your friend can register a claim over the land with the Land Registry. This won't just give him the land, but it will show up on searches if the landowner tries to sell or mortgage the land, so would give some leverage. Your friend needs to produce whatever documentation he can of his use and unencumbered enjoyment of the land over the 10+ years. E.g photos of the mooring showing the full width in use by him. Or signed witness statements from 3rd parties. As suggested above, legal advice would be advisable. Joint action by all the affected moorers would add weight, as well as allowing the costs to be shared.

Does mooring against a piece of land constitute 'occupying' it though?, in a proper legal sense. Most of the land on CRT LTM's seem to me to be effectively shared between all occupiers of the mooring site.

 

Ed. one further possible complicating factor is that your agreement for LTM with CRT doesn't normally guarantee or stipulate access to a particular mooring but rather the site itself. In effect people do use the same space but there is normally no stipulation that they can or must do.

Edited July 13, 2016 by MJG

[David Schweizer]

Any legally occupancy of the land will be by C&ART (BW) not their sub tennants, so it them who will have to fight any challenge. As far registration is concerned, if BW were ocupying the land before 1990 it may not have been registered by them, but if it has been registered there will be a record at the National Land registry, In fact if you have the address it may be possible to check it up on line. I suspect tha C&ART know they haven't got any legal claim, which is why they are unwilling to contest the adjoining landowner's claims.

[Phil Ambrose]

Having in the past been the owner of a property with squatters rights to a couple of parcels of land my understanding is that the land must have been fenced for the statutory period of time. This was the case with my property and all I had to do was register it with Land Registry who came along to measure it,and record it, producing a deed in my favour. This cost me at the time circa £75-00.

The fencing in of the land was pivotal.

Phil

[Hawkmoth]

CRT may well be in the wrong here, as in many cases that have played out on this forum, but it hasn't stopped them taking costly litigation. It seems to me that they don't think twice about spending money to attack some boaters (whether deserved or not, I don't know) but are unwilling to stand up for their own tenents.

Bob

[Tanglewood]

Does anyone know if there is, or ever has been a published lists and description of CRT assets?

[Sea Dog]

This is all getting a bit complicated and it seems it's too late for fencing off and claiming it. How's about he digs a moat and declares independence from CRT and the landowner? The time taken for the legal shenanigans should see him out!

[bag 'o' bones]

I think the long and the short is the OPs friend purchased the mooring lease based on the understanding that it included a 4 meter strip of bank (as documented in a 'official' CRT drawing). Surely that is some sort of breach of contract?

 

If so then the OPS friend should be entitled to some sort of recompense from CRT to reflect the loss of enjoyment?

 

Very muddled legal situation - as boundary disputes generally are.

[David Mack]

Any legally occupancy of the land will be by C&ART (BW) not their sub tennants, so it them who will have to fight any challenge. As far registration is concerned, if BW were ocupying the land before 1990 it may not have been registered by them, but if it has been registered there will be a record at the National Land registry, In fact if you have the address it may be possible to check it up on line. I suspect tha C&ART know they haven't got any legal claim, which is why they are unwilling to contest the adjoining landowner's claims.

 

IF CRT believe they own the land then they can of course pursue the 'landowner', but it seems they have chosen not to do so. That being the case, the boater concerned has occupied the land himself, outside his mooring agreement, in addition to renting the adjacent mooring from BW/CRT. So the boater may have a case for title against the 'landowner' on the basis of his 10+ years of occupation, which is nothing to do with CRT.

[bag 'o' bones]

 

IF CRT believe they own the land then they can of course pursue the 'landowner', but it seems they have chosen not to do so. That being the case, the boater concerned has occupied the land himself, outside his mooring agreement, in addition to renting the adjacent mooring from BW/CRT. So the boater may have a case for title against the 'landowner' on the basis of his 10+ years of occupation, which is nothing to do with CRT.

To quote the OP: "My friend was given a map by them last year showing the land boundary". assuming that this drawing includes the 4 meter of bank or so and was used as a basis to calculate the value of the lease then I think the onus is on CRT to sort out the problem on behalf of the tenant. If CRT is unable to find an agreeable solution then obviously some sort of compensation should be on the cards.

Edited July 13, 2016 by bag 'o' bones

[Horace42]

It is POSSESSORY TITLE you are seeking.

Read up on that to get some idea of the legal bits.

You can also look up RIGHTS-of-WAY because that gives you some idea of the EASEMENTS granted, or inherited, or acquired by long terms regular use. 12 years unhindered use.

The 'rules' do not necessarily give you 'possession' (assuming you apply) but they give you rights to object, or even prevent possessory title being made by others..

But I am not sure what the outcome will be with your current situation if you do nothing.

Will you lose your mooring completely - or only half the strip of land. That is, will CRT revoke your license if the land owner refuses to allow you to moor there.

As far as I know, you have established possession of the land and a right-of-way by using it. CRT have never owned the land - but it is tricky - and a field day for solicitors.

I would be inclined to exercise my right of way to start with. That will prevent loss of land you have used.

Having said that, your right of way is only to the minimum you need for unrestricted access.

For instance, if you can drive your car to the boat and park there, then you can claim for a drive and room to park and turn. If you have only walked to your boat, then you can only claim for a footpath.

So will the new fence obstruct your established right of way - if so you can put a stop to the fence.

But is this a move to fence the land to restrain livestock - and quite reasonable - or a move to prevent your use of it.

Your established use puts you in a strong negotiating position to get a good deal from the land owner.

You will need permission to moor there in order for CRT to renew your license.

[Horace42]

PS: to my last post. CRT have a 'policy' to do away with in-line moorings in favour of off-line moorings.

If there is a local marina, you will have little hope of help from CRT.

And if CRT indicate you will not be able to renew you license because the land owner does not want you there anyway, there is not much point in fighting it.

[ditchcrawler]

I can't work out why the chap has put the fence 1.5 mt from the canal edge if he owns it all. Why didn't he fence the lot off and charge £1000 a year for each boat to moor there.

[bag 'o' bones]

I can't work out why the chap has put the fence 1.5 mt from the canal edge if he owns it all. Why didn't he fence the lot off and charge £1000 a year for each boat to moor there.

Existing ransom strip perhaps? I'm pretty sure CRT owns or at least a way leave in place a certain distance from the waters edge to allow access for maintenance.

Edited July 13, 2016 by bag 'o' bones

[ditchcrawler]

Existing ransom strip perhaps? I'm pretty sure CRT owns or at least a way leave in place a certain distance from the waters edge to allow access for maintenance.

The OP said this

"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. "

[bag 'o' bones]

The OP said this

"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. "

It would not surprise me, but then again land registry is not infallible proof - I think that half the problem. I bet if you looked it up in the original canal documentation from when the canal was built it likely to be there somewhere.

[Tanglewood]

It is POSSESSORY TITLE you are seeking.

Read up on that to get some idea of the legal bits.

You can also look up RIGHTS-of-WAY because that gives you some idea of the EASEMENTS granted, or inherited, or acquired by long terms regular use. 12 years unhindered use.

The 'rules' do not necessarily give you 'possession' (assuming you apply) but they give you rights to object, or even prevent possessory title being made by others..

But I am not sure what the outcome will be with your current situation if you do nothing.

Will you lose your mooring completely - or only half the strip of land. That is, will CRT revoke your license if the land owner refuses to allow you to moor there.

As far as I know, you have established possession of the land and a right-of-way by using it. CRT have never owned the land - but it is tricky - and a field day for solicitors.

I would be inclined to exercise my right of way to start with. That will prevent loss of land you have used.

Having said that, your right of way is only to the minimum you need for unrestricted access.

For instance, if you can drive your car to the boat and park there, then you can claim for a drive and room to park and turn. If you have only walked to your boat, then you can only claim for a footpath.

So will the new fence obstruct your established right of way - if so you can put a stop to the fence.

But is this a move to fence the land to restrain livestock - and quite reasonable - or a move to prevent your use of it.

Your established use puts you in a strong negotiating position to get a good deal from the land owner.

You will need permission to moor there in order for CRT to renew your license.

Thank you I shall pass this on. I understand that although the contractors have marked the line, no fence has yet gone up. It is unlikely that the mooring site will be lost completely, but just the amenity he has enjoyed for so long. The big issue is whether CRT should so easily give up on assets which no doubt they claimed they owned when the numbers were being crunched in the lead-up to Trust status.

[bag 'o' bones]

Thank you I shall pass this on. I understand that although the contractors have marked the line, no fence has yet gone up. It is unlikely that the mooring site will be lost completely, but just the amenity he has enjoyed for so long. The big issue is whether CRT should so easily give up on assets which no doubt they claimed they owned when the numbers were being crunched in the lead-up to Trust status.

Seems that CRT's organisation of paper work has got a lot to be desired.

[Arthur Brown]

I also suspect that very few adjoining landowners want to own the liability for a breach in their bank, -for the damage from the water going somewhere to the damage and losses to the canal company for the water not being where it should be.

 

However it seems to me that the right that the boater rents from CaRT needs negotiations between CaRT and the other claimant and the boater actually has no part in the discussion.