|
|
Post by Saint on Jul 28, 2024 18:27:19 GMT
John builds a house on Mark's land. The land was not being used. It was overgrown with scrub and John believed that Mark had abandoned it. Mark stood by and watched while John built the house, not informing him that he intended to fully assert his rights to the land and anything John might build on it.
What should the legal outcome be?
Reasoned answers are helpful, but not necessary.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
|
Post by Steve on Jul 28, 2024 20:08:18 GMT
I've gone option 3 looking at it from the moral angle. Both knew there was no right to build the house there and both knowingly let it happen so Mark has some culpability for the mess that resulted.
Legally option 2 may apply if John had fenced the land and no objection was placed for 3 years
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Jul 28, 2024 20:24:15 GMT
I've gone option 3 looking at it from the moral angle. Both knew there was no right to build the house there and both knowingly let it happen so Mark has some culpability for the mess that resulted. Legally option 2 may apply if John had fenced the land and no objection was placed for 3 years Interesting answer. Cheers. I don't think your answer reflects the law, but I'm more interested in the moral view. |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Jul 28, 2024 21:13:08 GMT
Was planning permission granted?
If not, the house must be demolished at the owner's expense.
|
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Jul 28, 2024 21:16:33 GMT
Planning permission aside I voted the first option.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Jul 28, 2024 21:18:01 GMT
Was planning permission granted? If not, the house must be demolished at the owner's expense. LOL! That's a good point. I've encountered lots of law cases where something similar to the scenario in the OP happened, but, oddly, planning permission never seemed to feature in the court's decision. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Jul 28, 2024 21:19:25 GMT
Planning permission aside I voted the first option. You think the owner of the land who stands idly by while someone else builds on his land should be entitled to profit from that? |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Jul 28, 2024 21:28:39 GMT
Planning permission aside I voted the first option. You think the owner of the land who stands idly by while someone else builds on his land should be entitled to profit from that? Yes. It's his land, whether he is using it or not doesn't change that. Just watching rather than telling John to get off his land is a dick move but just taking someone's land for yourself is a bigger one. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Jul 28, 2024 21:59:33 GMT
You think the owner of the land who stands idly by while someone else builds on his land should be entitled to profit from that? Yes. It's his land, whether he is using it or not doesn't change that. Just watching rather than telling John to get off his land is a dick move but just taking someone's land for yourself is a bigger one. He was under the impression it had been abandoned, that the owner was indifferent. It happens. It's peculiar, but it happens quite frequently. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
|
Post by Steve on Jul 28, 2024 22:25:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Jul 28, 2024 22:55:26 GMT
Yes. But there are other laws too. Most frequently, these situations are dealt with by the law of equity. Equity's laws are currently made by the common law judiciary. In the given case, equity would not need to wait for 12 years in order to find that someone in John's position has acquired ownership of the land (or a degree of ownership). The principle of estoppel would be applied. Judge-made law is developing this area (the law of unjust enrichment). There is a lot of academic discussion about the direction it should take. I was interested to see what people thought the 'fair' solution would be in this kind of scenario. |
|
|
|
Post by Hutchyns on Jul 29, 2024 9:58:22 GMT
John should no more enter Mark's property uninvited to knock down an existing house that John might have there, than he should grant himself permission to build a house there. Whether it was scrub, or a swimming pool, whether he knocked down a house, or built a house, John has trespassed.
John 'believed' that Mark had abandoned the land, but couldn't spare the important two minutes to find out whether that was actually so, despite Mark being in the vicinity. Yet he conveniently has enough time on his hands to build a house. So Mark keeps his mouth tightly shut, and goes about doing what he wants, consulting no one.
John is a menace to Society, with zero respect for property rights, and who appointed himself as judge and jury over someone else's land, and even topped that off by granting himself building permission. All while having the brass neck to maintain a studious silence while driving over the property owners toes with his bulldozer. John's 'what's yours is mine' approach to life beggars belief.
Mark was either lost for words when he saw his beloved patch of scrub being desecrated, or more likely concluded that John was some sort of mentally unstable Psycho, and therefore kept clear of him for his own safety.
At best John needs some sort of care in the community supervision order, and at worst needs carting off to a padded cell. As for Mark, I'm afraid his scrub has probably been irreparably damaged, but pursuing John legally would probably be fruitless as John can surely claim diminished responsibility. As for the house, like it or lump it I'm afraid ...... legal measures to prevent its construction were open to you and you chose not to take them ........ you're saddled with it now. Knock it down, but I fear scrub may not grow there as well as before ...... the foundations, concrete etc would have wrecked the land. The best hope is that Mark will find some consolation in having the house (if it's been built to a decent standard).
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Jul 29, 2024 10:02:17 GMT
John should no more enter Mark's property uninvited to knock down an existing house that John might have there, than he should grant himself permission to build a house there. Whether it was scrub, or a swimming pool, whether he knocked down a house, or built a house, John has trespassed. John 'believed' that Mark had abandoned the land, but couldn't spare the important two minutes to find out whether that was actually so, despite Mark being in the vicinity. Yet he conveniently has enough time on his hands to build a house. So Mark keeps his mouth tightly shut, and goes about doing what he wants, consulting no one. John is a menace to Society, with zero respect for property rights, and who appointed himself as judge and jury over someone else's land, and even topped that off by granting himself building permission. All while having the brass neck to maintain a studious silence while driving over the property owners toes with his bulldozer. John's 'what's yours is mine' approach to life beggars belief. Mark was either lost for words when he saw his beloved patch of scrub being desecrated, or more likely concluded that John was some sort of mentally unstable Psycho, and therefore kept clear of him for his own safety. At best John needs some sort of care in the community supervision order, and at worst needs carting off to a padded cell. As for Mark, I'm afraid his scrub has probably been irreparably damaged, but pursuing John legally would probably be fruitless as John can surely claim diminished responsibility. As for the house, like it or lump it I'm afraid ...... legal measures to prevent its construction were open to you and you chose not to take them ........ you're saddled with it now. Knock it down, but I fear scrub may not grow there as well before ...... the foundations, concrete etc would have wrecked the land. The best hope is that Mark will find some consolation in having the house (if it's been built to a decent standard). Brilliant! Cheers! |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
|
Post by Steve on Jul 29, 2024 20:47:09 GMT
Seconded Serious point: if you have a property in the UK make sure you are registered for Property Alerts www.gov.uk/guidance/property-alert It has been woefully way too easy for someone to get the Land Registry to reassign title to another and effect a property theft and once it's happened it is very lengthy and expensive to get it reversed. Because the Land Registry has been a complete joke. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 30, 2024 9:05:08 GMT
John builds a house on Mark's land. The land was not being used. It was overgrown with scrub and John believed that Mark had abandoned it. Mark stood by and watched while John built the house, not informing him that he intended to fully assert his rights to the land and anything John might build on it. What should the legal outcome be? Reasoned answers are helpful, but not necessary. That's a very good one. I am tempted to say that Mark's behavior was implicit permission - ie he gave the land away. For this to be the case he must have been aware of John's lack of knowledge, known john was investing effort on the assumption of continued use and did nothing at all to inform john despite opportunity Though it depends on the state of play re tenure information. If john could have easily found out, then this argument fails. |
|
