unclaimed tree

[onetruth]

I disagree with all of the above replies, but I am not a lawyer!

 

There are plenty of bits of land that appear to have no owner.  If it is likely to be council land (or, less likely, common land), I think if you were to enquire with the LPA (for TPO/CA purposes), and have an email from the client saying she owns it, you would be pretty safe from any comeback.  You were acting as her agent, under her instruction. 

 

I base this on the asumption that no one seems to take an interest in the land, and that there is no obvious reason to asume that someone else owns it.  I often see similar situations on the edge of housing developments or in areas between back garden fences and playing fields, for instance.  In such circumstances, nobody wants to take responsibility, and nobody cares.

 

The Trafalgar square point above is valid.  But then again, who here actually insists on proof of ownership and identification from a potential customer each time they're called out to do a bit of garden work? Nobody who's still in business, that's for sure!  Answering the door doesn't prove they own the property.  If you get the email, if there's no good reason to suspect otherwise, you've done your due diligence. 

Edited February 17, 2018 by onetruth
last 2 paras

[Rough Hewn]

A few years back got called in by a gardening firm to quote on felling and clearing, then fencing off a bit of land out the back of a house.
About a half acre in central hove.
As we were walking round surveying it, several neighbours came out to ask what we were doing.
We explained, then they informed us it was a communal garden, offering to show us plans etc.
Turns out the client was a big property firm who was trying to do a land grab.
Walked away.

[openspaceman]

8 hours ago, onetruth said:

There are plenty of bits of land that appear to have no owner. 

"appear" being the operative word

8 hours ago, onetruth said:

 

 

If it is likely to be council land (or, less likely, common land),

If it's council land it's publicly owned but that says nothing about what rights the public may have over it. If it's common then the owner will be whoever succeeded to the title of the manor,  that would mean those rights shared in common with the landowner by individual households  will now be covered by various acts of parliament from the 1906 openspaces act, the 1925 law of property act and the various commons acts from 1899 through to 2006. Some private commons possibly still exist with no pubic rights over them,

 

The fact is land is always owned by some entity  and if it can pass to no one on death then it reverts to the crown.

8 hours ago, onetruth said:

I think if you were to enquire with the LPA (for TPO/CA purposes), and have an email from the client saying she owns it, you would be pretty safe from any comeback.  You were acting as her agent, under her instruction. 

I suspect anyone suing for criminal damage would pursue the person most likely to have assets. Having said that I know of a case where about 10 mature pines were felled by a neighbour, for the view. The FC would not pursue the felling licence angle and the costs of action exceeded the value of the trees so the owner could do nothing.

[Stubby]

23 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

"appear" being the operative word

 

Assume is dodgy too .

[onetruth]

11 hours ago, openspaceman said:

The fact is land is always owned by some entity  and if it can pass to no one on death then it reverts to the crown.

I suspect anyone suing for criminal damage would pursue the person most likely to have assets. Having said that I know of a case where about 10 mature pines were felled by a neighbour, for the view. The FC would not pursue the felling licence angle and the costs of action exceeded the value of the trees so the owner could do nothing.

I'm not saying there isn't a legal owner, but it does sound like nobody knows who owns it, or cares.  My point was that if your client confirms ownership in writing, you'd be on pretty safe ground unless you could reasonably be expected to believe differently.  

 

The pine felling incident sounds strange: "costs of action exceeded the value of the trees" - that seems unlikely, and is no bar to litigation.  

 

"Appear" and "assume" aren't dodgy.   When I work in someone's garden for them, I don't ask for ID then check with the land registry that they are the legal owner first.  

 

If there are genuinely unclaimed, nuisance trees that need working doing to them, what is the alternative?  Based on what the op described, I'd say he was 99.99% safe to do the work without anyone batting an eyelid.  That remaining 0.01% is his client's worry.

[WirralBoy]

On 2/13/2018 at 21:40, bitchardson said:

I have been asked to fell a tree that is on a little bit of land but no body seems to own it. My client has said that she will email me with her saying that she owns the tree and grants me permission to fell. 

How do i stand on this?

 

The above was the opening post.

"nobody seems to own it".

All (every bit) of the land in the UK is owned by somebody.

If there is doubt about ownership then enquiries need to be made to establish fact.

OP, you can't start recklessly felling trees just because "my client" told you to.

In this case you have already suggested that your client does not know who owns the tree or the land so you know that her instructions concerning the tree will be suspect.

 

Do the sensible thing and walk away.

 

[daltontrees]

Good to see a sensible well informed debate. I'm guessing this tree is in England, and I don't know enough about englis land law to comment. I  could, though, add that by admitting to qualms on a public website the would-be feller of the feral trees steps from 'innocent through ignorance' to 'calculated risk' if he takes the job on and gets busted. Could? I just did.

[tree77]

2 hours ago, onetruth said:

 

"Appear" and "assume" aren't dodgy.   When I work in someone's garden for them, I don't ask for ID then check with the land registry that they are the legal owner first.  

 

 

very true but the Op did state that nobody appears to own it, so surly can we can assume it does appear dodgy, and as already stated it could belong to the crown as a result of a person dyeing without a will, assets from a dissolved company or unable to pay death duty, or  it could just be unclaimed land which if the correct documents are submitted to land registry think you can claim it, or so am told anyway.

 

 

[daltontrees]

I've always been curious about this 12 year 'law', so I looked into it a bit more.

 

Firstly the Land Registry (England) says -

"Over 85% of land and property in England and Wales is now registered with us. Much of the land owned by the Crown, the aristocracy, and the Church has not been registered, because it has never been sold, which is one of the main triggers for compulsory registration.

"Some people think that unregistered land isn’t owned by anyone or refer to it as ‘no man’s land’. But this isn't right. In England and Wales, all land is owned by somebody, even if the legal owner can’t be identified. For example, if a person dies without a Will or blood relatives, their land or property can pass to the crown by law..."

 

Secondly, the 12 year system appears to be one whereby someone who occupies land, exclusively, can claim title to dospossess the holder of the paper title. That person is technically a 'squatter'. The rules are -

You must show that:

• the squatter has factual possession of the land
• the squatter has the necessary intention to possess the land
• the squatter’s possession is without the owner’s consent
• all of the above have been true of the squatter and any predecessors through whom the squatter claims for at least 12 years prior to the date of the application

 

"Factual possession" signifies an appropriate degree of physical control.

"Necessary intention to possess" is “not an intention to own or even an intention to acquire ownership but an intention to possess” ...  “the intention, in one’s own name and on one’s own behalf, to exclude the world at large, including the owner with the paper title if he be not himself the possessor, so far as reasonably practicable and so far as the processes of the law will allow”.

 

It looks like compulsory registration of land will be in place by 2030. I suppose then in theory claiming land before then under the 12 year rule would require occupation now and for the subsequent 12 years.

 

That's cleared it up for me, one can't eye up a bit of spare ground across the back fence and stake a claim and just wait for 12 years. You'd have to fence it off, enclosing it in your own garden, and make some use of it for 12 years. Only then can a claim be made. Chopping a tree down on it meantime would be unlawful. Using this procedure of registration as a means of getting the right to remove a tree would be overkill. The preconveyancing and conveyancing processes look complex and onerous, and probably expensive as a result.

Edited February 19, 2018 by daltontrees

[Gary Prentice]

I’ve a very recent example of altered fence lines, and the consequences, which I’ll post later.