Who owns the non tow path canal bank?

[dinglem]

Hi all - first post.

My grandfather owns a large property which he has owned for around 40 years. He always used to tell us that when he moved in the canal 'was in his garden' and that he eventually had to plant a row of bushes and shrubs to stop people walking along the tow path on the other side of the canal and looking into his garden. I went and checked the boundary a while back and there is indeed no fencing or obvious boundary anywhere. Behind his shrubs is a patch of overgrown bramble. Bit of a mess.

I got curious about this recently so today i wrote to the Canal and River Trust for our local area (Midlands) to see if they could indeed confirm where their boundaries lay and furthermore see what might be required to apply for a garden mooring. I kind of did the latter to see what reply they might give (positive or negative) based around my land ownership question. Promptly i received a map dated today and entitled with the house address showing their boundaries, and very clearly showing that their ownership line runs directly along the edge of the water when crossing past my grandfathers property. Immediately to the south there is a bridge which also shows the boundary running along the edge of the water, but for the subsequent property moving further south of the bridge the border immediately jumps out to include the river bank also.

The map was accompanied by a nice positive note directing me to the form to apply for a garden mooring.

Looking at the deeds to my grandfathers house (albeit crudely drawn in red, seemingly by hand) the boundary for his property has a slight gap away from the edge of the water. Can it be assumed that he does indeed own this strip of land - possibly via adverse possession? - and if not who else could own it? He did sell a strip of land at 90degrees to the canal further north to a neighbour around 20 years ago, but the land he sold is shown on additional title deeds and again this does not extend to the canal side. I am wondering whether the deeds were re-drawn up at that time of sale and were adjusted albeit very slightly to follow the line of the shrubs he planted? It is probably a 2-3m wide strip, which from the map i have been sent today the Waterways do not own or claim to own. I made it quite clear in our email exchange that i wasn't certain and wanted clarification from them if they owned the bank.

I am wondering whether it is possible he does indeed own the land right up to the canal and also potentially the additional strip between the canal and the land at 90deg to the canal he sold off, as this small area was clearly not included in the sale title deeds. I would imagine in total it is around 30m of canal length, and there is no way to access this land apart from through his garden.

Sorry if such a question has been asked a thousand times before. I am just curious if there might be a mysterious 3rd party who owns the non tow-path side of the canal in certain areas, local authorities and the like? If not - how do we go about claiming the land back, and from whom? Is it just a case of approaching the Land Registry and showing them the Waterways plans and getting the title deeds adjusted accordingly?

Hope you can help.

Regards Martin.

 

Edited May 4, 2017 by dinglem

[Mr Norman]

I have heard this question a few times and the answers that followed generally suggested that your Grandfather would own the land but the Navigation Authority would be responsible for maintaining the non towpath bank.

Nothing is more certain than the fact that I will be swiftly corrected if I am wrong!

[cuthound]

When we bought our canalside house in 2014, I specifically asked my solicitor to look into all aspects of bank ownership.

She informed me that CRT owned a 1 metre strip containing the canal bank, but I had access rights over it,  and CRT had access rights to undertake bank maintenance at any time. 

When I wanted to develop the mooring,  by paving to the edge of the bank and installing bollards I had to submit the proposalary to CRT for approval.

[mykaskin]

Depends a lot on the original canal as built as some were built with a strip between water and adjacent land. Rivers are different again, and depends on many factors. Some canals had boundary posts, but I'm assuming none have been found.

In general it seems CRT will charge you to moor a boat on your property however.

Mike
 

[David Mack]

9 minutes ago, mykaskin said:

Depends a lot on the original canal as built as some were built with a strip between water and adjacent land. Rivers are different again, and depends on many factors. Some canals had boundary posts, but I'm assuming none have been found.

In general it seems CRT will charge you to moor a boat on your property however.

Mike
 

CRT charge you to moor your boat on their property (the canal) and against your property (the bank).  

Different on rivers where riparian owners usually own the up to the mid point of the river.

[dinglem]

I was assuming that because the Waterways people have come back to me with their map showing their boundary along the edge of the water that the land between is therefore not registered to them. Furthermore, the land my grandfather owns actually originally extended a long way further north around the canal, but when he purchased his plot the original land owner sold off two other plots to the north to other parties. They have both subsequently been redeveloped, leaving a 3m or so gap along the canal edge and looking at their title deeds they do not include the strip up to the water either. There is a possibility therefore that the plots of land were sold not including the canal side strip and it could potentially still belong to the house my grandfather owns. I am wondering then, whether should my grandfather manage to extend his claim to include his canalside area, whether he could also extend this to include the strip around to the north as it does not look like this was actually sold on all of those years ago.

There are no boundary posts, no fence, which is why i contacted the Waterways people in the first place to get their take on it. I think i need to approach the Land Registry next to check whether that strip is indeed unregistered, and then look at putting in a claim.

[Graham Davis]

You may also need to refer to the original enabling Act for the Canal to see whether that designated a "ransom" strip, then probably 1 yard, on the off-side.

[dinglem]

How would i go about that please? I was hoping such an issue would have been raised in the reply to my initial mail to the Waterways people yesterday when they sent their map of the land they owned. 

[plainsman]

Depends which canal and as previously said what was in the Enabling Act. For example, CRT own a strip on the offside  of the Leeds and Liverpool canal.

[Graham Davis]

1 hour ago, dinglem said:

How would i go about that please? I was hoping such an issue would have been raised in the reply to my initial mail to the Waterways people yesterday when they sent their map of the land they owned. 

Which canal is in question?

A copy of the Enabling Act should be held at Kew Public Records Office and you would have to go there to view it, probably by appointment, although some records have been digitised. Probably best to find someone who knows how to read the Acts, as it can be laborious and sometimes not easy to understand

[Tacet]

4 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

You may also need to refer to the original enabling Act for the Canal to see whether that designated a "ransom" strip, then probably 1 yard, on the off-side.

I am puzzled by this.  Most, if not all enabling Acts will have conferred compulsory powers to acquire land, on the promoter.  But whether such land was acquired (or more or less) is another matter - as is whether the canal was dug on the intended line or has wandered since. Or whether land has been bought or sold in the intervening years or adversely possessed.

In the absence of anything else, the Act might give some sort of clue as to what we expected to happen prior to acquisition and construction - but isn't it more usually a matter of deeds, conveyances, transfers and possession?

[Graham Davis]

And that is where the "confusion" reigns.

The Enabling Act can state all those things and more. It can even go so far as differing between different land owners along the route. Generally the Act will have specified the centre line of the navigation and the overall width, and may have specified the width of the navigable bit.

As said, you need to read it and be prepared to be confused. 

[Tacet]

I still can't see that the enabling Act helps determine ownership to any material degree.  The Acts did not vest the required land in the canal company - it only gave (at best) compulsory powers.  The company may not have exercised all its compulsory powers - or may have acquired more land by agreement.  The centre line of navigation, overall width and width of the navigable bit may have been specified - but that does not mean the land was automatically conveyed.

The Act might give an idea of historic intention - but what happened at the time and since is a different matter.

[Graham Davis]

But you can't know that until you have looked at them. As you say yourself "to any material degree" and lots of "may's"

[Tam & Di]

On 05/05/2017 at 01:14, dinglem said:

..... Promptly i received a map dated today and entitled with the house address showing their boundaries, and very clearly showing that their ownership line runs directly along the edge of the water when crossing past my grandfathers property. Immediately to the south there is a bridge which also shows the boundary running along the edge of the water, but for the subsequent property moving further south of the bridge the border immediately jumps out to include the river bank also.

 A very old thread but I was given to wondering, if dinglem's grandfather does indeed own the land to the very edge of the canal, whose reponsibility would it be to maintain the piling or whatever else there is to keep water in the canal? Unfortunately dinglem never returned after his original query, but does anyone else have thoughts on this? It could be very important if the lie of the land made it possible for there to be a breach.

 

Tam

[plainsman]

Property law can be a minefield and many boundary issues end in expensive disputes, in some cases serious assault and murder!  Boundaries can and may be shown on deeds but with older property boundaries may have changed over the years. If a person/body has been using land (doesn't have to be neighboring land) for 10 or more years, then they can claim 'adverse possession' and ownership of that part of the land they have been using (squatting). If the property is registered at the Land Registry questions of boundary can be resolved, however, Land Registry base their records on deeds and other documents of ownership so any mistakes or boundary changes can be replicated on the Register. When property changes hands law requires it to be registered so eventually all land will be registered. There's no legal requirement for unregistered land not changing ownership to be registered but it would be wise to do so as this makes sales and ownership transfers much easier. If the Land Register has mistakes any appeal has to be lodged at the Lands Tribunal within twelve years to get any corrections considered, note they consider the correction.  Only in exceptional circumstances will the Land Tribunal accept an appeal beyond twelve years.  The Register will identify ownership but also any rights, right of way,  privileges, mortgages and responsibilities on that land.  This could be access, the type of access (pedestrian, vehicular, animals etc) running a drain under the land or who maintains the fence for example. These are called 'Charges' and will appear on the Register of that particular property, Charges will not be shown on the Register of any land/owner who enjoys that right etc.  Anyone can get copies of registration from the Land Registry for about £3.50.

Hope this helps?

 

 

[Ronaldo47]

It's certainly worth checking to ensure the  data is correct. My cousin bought his first house shortly after the Land Registry was set up, and when he came to sell it a few years later, he found his solicitors had mistakenly registered him owning  the house next door (his was mid-terrace). To expedite matters he had to make a personsl visit to the Land Registry armed with the deeds and other documents relating to his purchase, and they readily rectified the register.

Edited October 23, 2022 by Ronaldo47

[ditchcrawler]

Some one near me registered quite a bit of the farmers field when they registered the property with the land registry, 

[plainsman]

3 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

Some one near me registered quite a bit of the farmers field when they registered the property with the land registry, 

This does happen more than is made public. Some are genuine mistakes due to confusing deeds, but regrettably some people are crooks and steal land. 

[ditchcrawler]

16 minutes ago, plainsman said:

This does happen more than is made public. Some are genuine mistakes due to confusing deeds, but regrettably some people are crooks and steal land. 

Didn't CRT register all the bank that weren't registered to anyone else to themselves ?