100 k

Total Downloads

1.82 m

Views

Downlaod PDF

Land Law - 1

Part A

Issues

Fred, Nima, and Penelope purchased 20 Main Street in London after graduation, where Fred has 60 percent contribution, while Nina and Penelope have both contributed 20%. Furthermore, before moving to other nations, Fred, Nima, and Penelope permitted Zaheer to occupy a property. Therefore, there were following issues that were arrived,

Whether Penelope is solely entitled to the property following the Nima and Fred death.

Whether Zaheer would be entitled to remain in the property following the property sale would be easier to seek a buyer if it is vacant.

Whether the neighbours have the right to continue crossing the garden, as this might deter buyers.

Rules

Law of Property Act 1925 [1]– LPA act is all about buying, selling, and transferring the land and property from one individual to another.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 [2]– In U.K., several tenants do not own the right in legislation to have the written tenancy agreement, therefore as per this law, it is required for the landlord to have the written tenant agreement.

Access to Neighbour Land Act 1992 [3]– As per this law, the neighbour must go on to another neighbour's land only to carry property repairs. Otherwise, it is prohibited.


Cta 1 How “Dissertation Proposal” Can Help You!

Our top dissertation writing experts are waiting 24/7 to assist you with your university project, from critical literature reviews to a complete masters dissertation.

Find Out More

Application

In England and Wales, the property can be owned as the 'tenants in common' or as joint tenants'. Moreover, where it is taken as joint tenants, the property is supposed to be owned by other joint owners because of one owner's death.

Particularly, as Fred, Nima, and Penelope owned the property as the joint tenantsin the given case. However, as Fred and Nima both died, therefore Penelope can take the whole property, regardless of the amount of share he involved in property. As per the case of [Burton vs Camden][1], it can be mentioned that joint tenants are considered to wholly and equally entitled to the overall property to the estate.

On the other hand, when the property is owned as the tenants in common, every individual has their separate property share. Upon one or more owner dies, the property does not automatically pass towards the other tenant[2]. However, it will pass through the will of deceased as per the intestacy laws, if there is no will is found. Particularly, in this given case, as both Nima and Fred died, Will shall pass their share to their son, whereas there was nothing mentioned about their son and will. Therefore, the property can be solely passed to Penelope. It can be stated that sole ownership means that the one individual owns the property, and without the transfer on death designation. Therefore, it can be stated that as the other owners of the house have died, then Penelope can be considered as the sole owner of the house[3].

A joint tenant presents when every individual owns the overall property. On the other hand, it can be stated that every individual has a 100 per cent stake in the value of the property. In terms of the law, joint tenants should act as a single owner. Moreover, upon the death of other owners, the deceased's part automatically shifts towards the survivors and the deceased cannot leave their property part to someone in their will as a joint owner[4]. In addition, the surviving is considered to take all the co-owned property regardless of their contribution towards the initial property purchase. Therefore, it is not allowed for the legal estate to sever the joint tenancy into a tenancy in common (Law of Property Act 1925). The individual with permit understanding possesses the option to stay in the property for the whole fixed period. Be that as it may, the landowner, who possesses the property, is compelled to acknowledge the sitting inhabitant in any event until the fixed term is finished.

Besides, the landowner, who possesses the property, can use the ousting cycle against the living individual while observing some settled principles[5]. Likewise, to end the fixed term tenure, it is needed to use one of the basic systems, if any of them applies,[6],

Section 21 expulsion notice with date producing results on last fixed-term date alongside least multi-month between the date it is served and date it produces results.

Section 8 ousting notice if the occupant has penetrated the permit arrangement.

Obtain court possession to enforce it upon evicted tenants.

Utilise the unique break statement in the permit arrangement that licenses to end the agreement early.

End the tenure with tenant arrangement.

Therefore, for Zaheer to remain in the property until the license agreement's expiry, it must take care of the above mechanism. Moreover, as a tenant with a licensing agreement, Zaheer has the right to peacefully live within the property. Therefore, Zaheer is allowed to close the entryway to everybody they do not need in the house. The proprietor is not obliged to allow in the purchasers or others for survey reason. In any case, the proprietor can send the 24 hours' notification to investigate the individual premises. In any case, Zaheer can deny the section. Without the request for court, the door can be closed for police as well. Therefore, it can be stated that as the agreement states that the additional occupier can be introduced, but Zaheer cannot be taken out of the property. As per the landlord and tenant Act 1985, the owner can be held accountable before the court if they allow the property to become unsafe to tenants[7].

On the other hand, the eviction process does not change through the property sale. Moreover, the new or old owner required to utilise the already determined eviction procedures in legislation. The law ensures the owner always to have the way to enter the property possession. However, it is not considered instant procedures, whereas the owner can evict their tenants if they follow a suitable legal way. Moreover, it also follows for the tenant to seek alternative before that occurs[8]. Under the LPA 1925, the lease is considered the license agreement between the landlord and tenant. The tenant enjoys all the property right that the landlord has provided unless there are any limitations in agreement. As in the particular case, Zaheer had the license agreement which will expire in 2023. The basic lease characteristics were provided in the case of [Street vs Mountford][9]. There were three features found, including there must be exclusive possession, there must be a consideration in the form of premium payments, and there must be the grant of land for a fixed term. Therefore, following these three features, lease or license is granted.

On the other hand, boundaries are considered to determine the building or land extent. In a simple perspective, they are considered the line that separates the property from neighbours' property. Moreover, the might take the form of fence, wall, hedge, barbed wire pierce, or other noticeable feature, including the driveway edges. On the other hand, in the case of [Dickinson vs Cassilas][10], there were two neighbours with 15 years of battles about the access rights along with the boundary significance, with legal costs running at over £200,000. It was viewed that the dispute about one neighbour occasionally walking alongside another's driveway to check the meter condition or take the readings of meter required to cross the neighbourhood boundaries. However, when the court was asked to define the dispute in the particular case, it looked at several rights given to the neighbours when the properties were transferred originally. Therefore, the court looked at the original transfers, and how the properties were constructed ultimately, where the court concluded that the Cassilas owns the right to cross the line of boundary and enter the land of a neighbour only when Cassilas need to check the property condition, repairs, to carry essential maintenance, along with the inspecting the gas as well as electricity meters.

On the other hand, it was mentioned in the Access to Neighbour Land Act 1992, and it is considered important for the neighbour to move to another neighbour's land to repair their property. In addition, only mentioned rights are allowed in the act. As in the particular case, Zaheer mentioned that the neighbours were utilising the property to take the station's shortcut. Therefore, neighbours are only allowed to pass the land to carry basic preservation works[11].

Generally, if the neighbours cross your property path without permission, then the neighbours are trespassing. However, it is allowed only when neighbour wishes to repair their house, and then the land can be utilised without permission. Therefore, before going on to the land of neighbour, it is still required to ask for permission. This can be done by requesting access to the land of neighbour. If the neighbour does not wish to get in and stops to enter, the individual can also seek an order from the court, forcing them to access. Therefore, the Access to Neighbour Act only enables access to adjacent land to carry out the basic preservation works to the individual property. Moreover, suppose the neighbour does not agree with the access request to land for the maintenance. In that case, the court can still consider the neighbour rejection considering if this would cause hardship to the neighbour or interfere with the land enjoyment[12].



[1] Burton v. Camden London Borough Council, 2000 A.C.2 399 (2000).

[2] Ibid 04

[3] Graziadei, Michele. "The structure of property ownership and the common law/civil law divide." In Comparative Property Law. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017.

[4] Bornheim, Jan Jakob. "Security rights in intellectual property in England and Wales." In Security Rights in Intellectual Property, pp. 281-317. Springer, Cham, 2020.

[5] Walsh, Rachael, and Lorna Fox O’Mahony. "Land law, property ideologies and the British–Irish relationship." Common Law World Review 47, no. 1 (2018): 7-34.

[6] Blandy, Sarah, Susan Bright, and Sarah Nield. "The dynamics of enduring property relationships in land." The Modern Law Review 81, no. 1 (2018): 85-113.

[7] Cooke, Elizabeth, ed. Modern Studies in Property Law-Volume 4. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2007.

[8] Orth, John V. "The Perils of Joint Tenancies." Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal (2009): 427-440.

[9] Street v. Mountford, 1985 A.C. 809 (1985).

[10] Dickinson & Anor v Cassillas | [2017] HLR 43

[11] Hines, N. William. "Real property joint tenancies: law, fact, and fancy." Iowa L. Rev. 51 (1965): 582.

[12] Smith, Henry E. "Standardization in property law." Research Handbook on the Economics of Property Law, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar (2011): 148-73.

Cta 2 How “Dissertation Proposal” Can Help You!

Our top dissertation writing experts are waiting 24/7 to assist you with your university project, from critical literature reviews to a complete masters dissertation.

Find Out More

Conclusion

Fred, Nima and Penelope owned the property as the joint tenants. It was found from the application that as Fred and Nima both died. Therefore Penelope can take the whole property, regardless of the amount of share he involved in property. Moreover, in this given case, as both Nima and Fred died, Will shall pass their share to their son, whereas there was nothing mentioned about their son and will. Therefore, the property can be solely passed to Penelope. As it tends to be expressed that sole proprietorship implies that the one individual claims the property, and without the exchange on death.

Accordingly, it tends to be expressed that as different proprietors of the house are deceased, Penelope can be considered the sole proprietor of the house. Moreover, it was analysed that a joint tenant presents when each claims the general property. Regarding the law, joint tenants should go about as a single proprietor. Besides, upon the passing of another proprietor. Moreover, as a tenant with the licensing agreement, Zaheer has the right to peacefully live within the property. Therefore, Zaheer is free to close the door to everyone they do not want in the house. The owner is not obliged to let in the buyers or other individuals for viewing purpose.

On the other hand, limits are considered to decide the structure or land degree. In a basic point of view, they are considered the line that fundamentally isolates the property from neighbours' property. Moreover, the neighbour might take the form of fence, wall, hedge, barbed wire pierce, or other noticeable feature, including the driveway edges. Also, only stated rights are permitted in the regulation. As in the particular case, Zaheer mentioned that the neighbours were utilising the property to take a shortcut to the station. Therefore, neighbours are only allowed to pass the land to carry basic preservation works.

Part B

Statement Discussion

The scope of the adverse possession has been curtailed severely by the Land Registration Act 2002, which has resulted in the capability reduction to acquire the land by stealth that means that the legislation in this domain can be justified morally. The Land Registration Act 2002 or LRA Act 2002 has influentially curtailed the legislation allowing the title acquisition through adverse possession related to several adverse possessors, involving urban squatter[1]. Besides, the temporary standards concerning the title securing through unfavourable belonging fundamentally empowered the vagrant looking for land ownership protection. This should infer to the Land vault, who may serve the enrolled proprietor's notification to caution the individual presence[2]. In addition, this cycle gives the land proprietor the power to recover the property owner before the control of vagrant, which has offered ascend to the case on the land title. Accordingly, it may be expressed that these changes have been resolved and tolerated as being, totally supported in the point of view of present day title system through enrolment[3].

On the other hand, property lawyers have emphasised the adverse possession justification traditionally based on the moral precept and the economic efficiency premises[4]. However, recently, both the doctrine of adverse possession in the states of U.K., along with the attitude of several property lawyers towards the squatting justification and adverse possession that have been transformed radically.

Moreover, the crucial turning point in the adverse possession erosion was considered the joint report, coursed by the Land Registry just as Law Commission in the year 1998, which sets the broad proposition for the enlisted land changes, extensively planned readiness of the e-conveyancing usage[5]. Besides, the Law Commission sets the contention for the close to cancellation of unfriendly belonging in the viewpoint of enlisted land, which especially acknowledged through the LRA Act 2002 institution. Nonetheless, the customary standards for the title procurement through antagonistic belonging permitted metropolitan vagrant to get the land rights consequently following 12 years under the LRA 2002, a metropolitan vagrant trying to shield the land ownership through the title obtaining should apply to the land that serves as the notice on registered owner notifying them to individual presence[6]. Therefore, the registered owner can object the claim of squatter at this stage and avoid the squatter registration as the landowner. Particularly, this process provides the proprietor of land with authority to regain property possession before the squatter occupation that has given rise to the title land claims[7].

The law commission's ultimate goal was to avoid the adverse possession from securing title effectively where the owner had been unsuccessful in engaging in suitable properties' supervision. Moreover, the old law harms for the owner were determined by several high profile reports of media. The squatter obtained the title to significant properties after the proprietor had been ineffective to expel them before the restriction period's lapse[8]. Consequently, conscious unfavourable belonging is not considered to safeguard urban vagrant. Be that as it may, the law commission seemed, by all accounts, to be enormously affected by the analysis of media of cases including the local government, explicitly some London borough, where valuable title housing had been failed to preserve urban squatter[9].

Lift the dubious title curse, which presently sterilises the land held by the squatter, where the squatter is provided with the merchantable and viable title at the end of the limitation period. Moreover, this is where the adverse possession becomes the invaluable technique as its major function is to assist the quieten titles after the period of the recommended stator is up, it gives rise quicker as well as inexpensive title examination, as an individual does not require to go back any further than the limitation period agreed by statute[10]. Moreover, without the adverse possession, the examination would require to go centuries to root the title in question, which demonstrates that the adverse possession assists in decreasing the cost linked with having to employ the historical as well as a legal professional to examine the titles, along with assistance to encourage confidence in the potential purchaser[11]. Subsequently, this is in keeping with the U.K. law Commission ideology. It is considered crucial to develop land ownership to ensure it retains the valuable status commodity. It mentioned that id the ownership and possession becomes completely out of kilter. It reduces the land unmark able[12].

On the other hand, the law commission in the U.K. also mentioned that adverse possession assists to settle several doubtful claims, where it justify several reasons of social justice where the paper owner can be stripped legally of his or her land interest, which might seem to imply the Art 1 of the ECHR[13], which mentioned that no one would be deprived of his or her possession in the public interest. Therefore, it can be stated that adverse possession was not formed as the mechanism to rewards the trespassers' act or formed to punish the paper owner inaction for sleeping on rights. In contrast, the primary function of this was to rectify mistakes and quieten the titles in conveyancing[14]. However, it was also believed that making uniform and shortening the limitation period would limit the examination and abstract of title by warranting the claims were timed barred. Moreover, adverse possession also protects the landowner whose interest vest in the possession, as it avoids any claims that precede the limit of 12 years.



[1] R Auchmuty, „Not just a Good Children‟s Story: A Tribute to Adverse Possession‟ [2004] 68 Conveyancer and Property Lawyer 293

[2] Wash U LQ 723; RA Epstein, „Past and future: the temporal dimension in the law of property‟ (1986) 64 Wash U LQ 667-722

[3] JM Netter, PL Hirsch & WD Manson, „An Economic Analysis of Adverse Possession Statutes‟ (1986) 6 International Review of Law and Economics 217

[4] TJ Miceli & CF Sirmans, „An Economic Theory of Adverse Possession‟ (1995)15 International Review of Law and Economics 161

[5] Law Commission & HM Land Registry, Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century: A Consultative Document (Law Com No 254), (London: HMSO, 1998). A pilot for the e-conveyancing project will be launched in October 2007; see generally, http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/econveyancing/.

[6] M Dixon, „Adverse Possession and Human Rights‟ [2005] Conveyancer and Property Lawyer 345 at 351. See also M Dixon, „Adverse possession in three jurisdictions‟ [2006] Conveyancer and Property Lawyer 179 for further criticism of the reforms set out in the LRA 2002.

[7] B Dickson, „Britain‟s Law Lords and Human Rights‟ [2006]26 Legal Studies 329 at 340

[8] J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2003] 1 AC 419

[9] K Reeve and S Coward, Hidden Homelessness, Life on the Margins: The Experiences of Homeless People living in Squats (Crisis/Countryside Agency: London, 2004), p4.

[10] ; C Johnstone, „Housing and class struggles in post-war Glasgow‟ in M Lavalette and G Mooney (eds) Class struggle and social welfare (London: Routledge, 2000)

[11] Ibid 22

[12] Woodcock v South West Electricity Board [1975] 1 WLR 983

[13] Art 1 of the ECHR

[14] Prudential Assurance Co ltd v Waterloo Real Estate Inc ([1999]2 EGLR 85 at 87

Ace Your Grades
Without Overspending

Why pay more for the same quality? Choose our cheap assignment writing services today and witness the difference yourself. Click now to get started!

  • 24/7 Customer Support
  • Team of Academic Experts
  • Guaranteed Results