Tolerated squats in council properties – Whether adverse title sufficiently asserted by dispossession of council owner – Whether paper title acknowleged – Whether claimant or predecessor occupying as licensee
“The Limitation Act should not punish ratepayers for council inertia.”
The scenario hinted at by the homemade quote is not all that uncommon. A local authority have, for many years, tolerated the presence of unauthorised persons in a substandard block of flats while they were trying ,or failing, to decide whether to refurbish, redevelop or sell. The current occupiers, relying, inter alia, up on the action taken by their predecessors, claim that they have acquired a good title to the entire block under the Limitation Act 1980. Their strongest point is that access to the block was, at all material times, denied to the council because the occupiers alone could unlock the entrance door(s).
The first cheering message (for councils at any rate) to come from Bigden v Lambeth London Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 912; [2000] EGCS 147 is that, where the claim depends upon the steps taken by a number of people in relation to a large building, the occupiers will get only part of the way by showing that the owner was dispossessed. Although the council were locked out at all material times, the claimants were unable to show that they, or their predecessors, were collectively, or jointly, in possession of the entire block, including the roof and common parts. It seems then that the claim will fail, as it did in Bigden, unless the occupying community was particularly well organised over all the critical years.
The second message is that past correspondence with a claimant or his predecessors may allow the council to show that time stopped running because the correspondence impliedly contained: (a) a written acknowledgement of the paper title (see Bigden and Archangel v Lambeth London Borough Council [2000] EGCS 148); and/or (b) the grant of a permission to occupy the property: see Bath and North East Somerset District Council v Nicholson [2002] EWHC 674 (Ch); [2002] 10 EG 156 (CS).
From the squatter claimant’s standpoint, the above difficulties are less likely to arise where his claim is to a single flat: see, for example, Lambeth London Borough Council v Blackburn [2001] EWCA Civ 912; [2001] 25 EG 157 (CS). Contrast Lambeth London Borough Council v Rumbelow [2001] PLSCS 72, where the complicated history of the squat enabled the council to demonstrate that possession of a block of flats had not been continuously adverse.
Tolerated squats in council properties – Whether adverse title sufficiently asserted by dispossession of council owner – Whether paper title acknowleged – Whether claimant or predecessor occupying as licensee
“The Limitation Act should not punish ratepayers for council inertia.”
The scenario hinted at by the homemade quote is not all that uncommon. A local authority have, for many years, tolerated the presence of unauthorised persons in a substandard block of flats while they were trying ,or failing, to decide whether to refurbish, redevelop or sell. The current occupiers, relying, inter alia, up on the action taken by their predecessors, claim that they have acquired a good title to the entire block under the Limitation Act 1980. Their strongest point is that access to the block was, at all material times, denied to the council because the occupiers alone could unlock the entrance door(s).
The first cheering message (for councils at any rate) to come from Bigden v Lambeth London Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 912; [2000] EGCS 147 is that, where the claim depends upon the steps taken by a number of people in relation to a large building, the occupiers will get only part of the way by showing that the owner was dispossessed. Although the council were locked out at all material times, the claimants were unable to show that they, or their predecessors, were collectively, or jointly, in possession of the entire block, including the roof and common parts. It seems then that the claim will fail, as it did in Bigden, unless the occupying community was particularly well organised over all the critical years.
The second message is that past correspondence with a claimant or his predecessors may allow the council to show that time stopped running because the correspondence impliedly contained: (a) a written acknowledgement of the paper title (see Bigden and Archangel v Lambeth London Borough Council [2000] EGCS 148); and/or (b) the grant of a permission to occupy the property: see Bath and North East Somerset District Council v Nicholson [2002] EWHC 674 (Ch); [2002] 10 EG 156 (CS).
From the squatter claimant’s standpoint, the above difficulties are less likely to arise where his claim is to a single flat: see, for example, Lambeth London Borough Council v Blackburn [2001] EWCA Civ 912; [2001] 25 EG 157 (CS). Contrast Lambeth London Borough Council v Rumbelow [2001] PLSCS 72, where the complicated history of the squat enabled the council to demonstrate that possession of a block of flats had not been continuously adverse.
