Plaintiff occupying defendant’s property – Plaintiff failing to complete and return community charge forms sent to property – Plaintiff claiming adverse possession – Judge upholding plaintiff’s claim – Representation by silence that property unoccupied – Whether plaintiff estopped from asserting continuous occupation – Appeal dismissed.
Since 1983 the claimant occupied, as a squatter, 52 Strathleven Road, London SW2 (the property), which was owned by the defendant council. In September 1989 the council sent to the property two community charge registration forms addressed to “the occupier”. The claimant did not return the forms. In 1993 the council sought to sell the property. The claimant applied to the council to be rehoused, having been served a revocation notice requiring him to vacate the property. The sale of the property did not take place and no proceedings were taken to recover possession. In September 1997 the claimant issued proceedings, claiming a declaratioin that he had become the owner of the property by reason of his adverse possession of the property since 1983. The council contended that the claimant was estopped from proving 12 years’ continuous occupation prior to September 1997, by reason of his failure to return the community charge registration form and the council’s consequent inability to collect community charge from him.
The judge concluded that while the claimaint had represented by silence that the property was unoccupied, it was of unsufficient weight to undermine the claimant’s evidence as to his possession of the property between 1983 to 1997. The council appealed contending that: (i) the claimant had impliedly represented to them that the property was unoccupied until the date on which he applied for rehousing in September 1993; (ii) the claimant intended the council to rely on that representation; and (iii) the council relied upon the implied representation to their detriment.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
Once it was found that there had been a representation that the property was unoccupied, the onus was on the council to establish that they believed the representation: see The Law Relating to Estoppel by Representation Spencer Bower & Turner (1977). There was no evidence to suggest that the council held such a belief. The council also had to establish that they had suffered detriment as a result of the claimant’s representation. Recovery of the community charge, however, did not depend on the return of the forms. The council’s failure to levy a charge on the claimant resulted from their failure to make elementary inquiries into the property, which they owned. In any event, the detriment suffered by the council had to be “material”. Loss of an opportunity to levy a community charge on the occupier for two years failed to meet that test. Immateriality therefore negated the operation of an estoppel.
Stephen Knafler (instructed by Jockelson & Kibbler) appeared for the plaintiff; Desmond Kilcoyne (instructed by Steele & Co) appeared for the defendant.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
