Squatters Rights

Supercell

I was reading Pat Kenny claims squatters' rights as legal row escalates the other day and it set me to thinking.

There are several derelict houses near me which clearly haven't been lived in for donkeys years. What's to stop me going there, doing up the house and about 10 years later claiming squatters rights and therefore ownership?
I would make inquires in the local area as to who owns the place first though to see if it was squattable material.

Any thoughts or comments on my cunning plan?

Rhonda9000

The squatter will not be treated as in adverse possession if his use of the land is so casual as not to be considered to amount to possession. Simply doing up the house once and wandering off is insufficient to claim title to the land. You have to show possession (depends largely on the circumstances of the case) of the land which is inconsistent with the title of the true owner for 12 years, during which point the paper owner could arrive back and re-assert their title.

Rhonda9000

Pat Kenny is a bell-end. Just opining here but the facts given on the article suggest that he has the weaker case.

Electric

It would seem that on the face of it he has a weak case. The main argument seems to surround the fact that PK put up a new gate and didn't give the owner the code. Apparently PK needed to protect his privacy!

Personally I think he has some neck claiming squatter's rights. If he wanted the land to protect his privacy then why not just buy it? Isn't he like the highest paid radio/tv presenter?!

Slydice

I think he tried to buy it but yer man wouldn't sell it.

Mr Charlton claims Mr Kenny had asked him a number of times to sell the property to him and also sought consent for the erection of a new pedestrian gate to replace the existing gate allowing access to the Gorse Hill property from the road.

Supercell

Rhonda9000 wrote:

The squatter will not be treated as in adverse possession if his use of the land is so casual as not to be considered to amount to possession. Simply doing up the house once and wandering off is insufficient to claim title to the land. You have to show possession (depends largely on the circumstances of the case) of the land which is inconsistent with the title of the true owner for 12 years, during which point the paper owner could arrive back and re-assert their title.

Well I was thinking of it as a primary residence. Put mobile home on the land, do up run down shell, move into refurbished dilapidated property.

If I do this is 12 years the magic number?, would have thought it would be shorter.

Rhonda9000

Longfield wrote:

Well I was thinking of it as a primary residence. Put mobile home on the land, do up run down shell, move into refurbished dilapidated property.

If I do this is 12 years the magic number?, would have thought it would be shorter.

That would sound to be generally sufficient to claim adverse possession. However, the paper owner can return at any time in 12 years and enjoy his freely refurbished "dilapidated" property after ejecting the big bad trespasser

(It's not shorter than 12 years)

Rhonda9000

Electric wrote:

It would seem that on the face of it he has a weak case. The main argument seems to surround the fact that PK put up a new gate and didn't give the owner the code. Apparently PK needed to protect his privacy!

Personally I think he has some neck claiming squatter's rights. If he wanted the land to protect his privacy then why not just buy it? Isn't he like the highest paid radio/tv presenter?!

The weakest part of the case to me is that he was on the land all along with the paper owners permission, i.e. the land was never abandoned by the title owner to allow adverse possession to take place. Similarly there is case law to the effect that removing access on is not necessarily sufficient to demonstrate possession of the abandoned land (not just e.g. use of the land to extend his privacy)..

Personally, PK makes my skin crawl

Also - the original gate was put up with the landowners permission, so this -to me at least- would not act to dispossess the landowner until PK came along and put his electric keypad there preventing him from accessing the land.

Supercell

Rhonda9000 wrote:

That would sound to be generally sufficient to claim adverse possession. However, the paper owner can return at any time in 12 years and enjoy his freely refurbished "dilapidated" property you big bad trespasser

(It's not shorter than 12 years)

I'm seriously considering this - what is solid proof of start date, is a film photo of me holding today's newspaper considered adequate?

Rhonda9000

Longfield wrote:

If I do this is 12 years the magic number?, would have thought it would be shorter.

Incidentally... while 12 years is the general rule, you need to adversely possess land belonging to a State authority for 30 years before you can extinguish the paper title and become the legal owner. 60 years adverse possession where the land involved relates to the foreshore, or 40 years from the date the land ceased to be the foreshore but remained in the ownership of the State!

Rhonda9000

Longfield, there are all sorts of rules about not posting legal advice on boards.ie so I better not say any more.. [I'm just here reading the questions trying testing my recall on various things for upcoming exams!!]

Supercell

Rhonda9000 wrote:

Incidentally... while 12 years is the general rule, you need to adversely possess land belonging to a State authority for 30 years before you can extinguish the paper title and become the legal owner. 60 years adverse possession where the land involved relates to the foreshore, or 40 years from the date the land ceased to be the foreshore but remained in the ownership of the State!

So if it looks like the state owns it, don't bother is what you are saying?

Thanks, good pointer.

seahorse

Longfield wrote:

I'm seriously considering this

I think you'd be wasting your time, and twelve years is a considerable portion of anybodys time to waste. How do you know the laws related to squatting wont have been changed by then?

Anyway, do you seriously think with the value of property in this country today that anyone is going to leave you sitting in thier property for twelve years? Come off it! I think you should cop on and get a mortgage like everybody else.

the1andonly1

Was it my imagination, or did Michael McDowell not repeal/change the law regarding squatters rights before he left office?

Rhonda9000

the1andonly1 wrote:

Was it my imagination, or did Michael McDowell not repeal/change the law regarding squatters rights before he left office?

The Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Bill 2006 was before the Oireachtas before the election. I do not know if it was passed and I'm too lazy to find out. I can't remember the exact specifics re. adverse possession, but I do know there were provisions to clarify what title in the land a squatter acquires. Other than this I am not too certain.

wildwords

Im wondering how you (longfield) got on with your little project?

courage is a rare thing and usualy doent last for more than 12 minutes let alone 12 years

arctictree

There is a parcel of land across the road from me that nobody is sure who owns!!!

My neighbour thought he owned it but then his solicitor found out that in fact he doesn't but the council does. Now he is selling his house (and this land is not included).

My brother in law works in the council and they are not aware that they own it.

I wonder how much land there is around the country like this? As opposed to land thats just not used...

A

Some people do succeed in claiming squatters rights.
Should be a lot easier here, considering the (rapidly dwindling) number of abandoned houses left behind by emmigrants.

stovelid

Rhonda9000 wrote:

That would sound to be generally sufficient to claim adverse possession. However, the paper owner can return at any time in 12 years and enjoy his freely refurbished "dilapidated" property after ejecting the big bad trespasser

(It's not shorter than 12 years)

Also, it would be a fairly rare situation, like not being resident here, that the owner won't become aware that somebody is doing up his property.