View previous topic | View next topic

Land ownership

Page 2 of 2
Goto page Previous  1, 2

dr.bob
147883.  Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:39 am Reply with quote

One thing that I've always wondered about land ownership. Does British Rail (or, I guess, Network Rail these days) own a large amount of very narrow strips of land?

Or do they just rent bits of other people's land?

 
eggshaped
147892.  Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:46 am Reply with quote

In 1962 British Rail owned 250,000 acres according to this book, nothing more up to date I'm afraid.

I presume, like you say, that this acreage must be in the form of long thin strips and railway stations.

 
Flash
147911.  Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:17 am Reply with quote

In Champion the Wonder Horse the railways were always buying up people's ranches for knock-down prices and putting railways across them. They must have lots of land in America.

 
dr.bob
147947.  Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:21 am Reply with quote

eggshaped wrote:
In 1962 British Rail owned 250,000 acres according to this book, nothing more up to date I'm afraid.

I presume, like you say, that this acreage must be in the form of long thin strips and railway stations.


I think it must be. By my reckoning, if you gathered the whole 250,000 acres into a square piece of land, it would measure slightly less than 20 miles on each side.

I'm sure, even as far back as 1962, British Rail offered services that went further than 20 miles :)

 
primrose hill
966526.  Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:45 pm Reply with quote

In 1967 the house I liwed in, the lease owners were British Rail. It was a quadrangle of 21 houses. 7 houses ran north / south on the west side of the road, there were 7 Houses each around the top and bottom corners running westwards. Under the far end of our back garden and beneath the middle house of both the lower and upper road ran the train lines from Euston to Scotland. I was a small child then, but I still ignore the vague "rattling" sensation that new visitors panic about. A recent visitor said it felt like a slight earth tremor. I have lived away from there for 30 years and my mother was the last to buy the freehold during the '80s....
Can anyone tell me if it is compulsory to register your land/property with the Land Registry....I can only find the phrase ..."it is advisable..."

 
Jenny
966696.  Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:12 pm Reply with quote

Hi primrose hill and welcome to the forums :-)

I only know that every property transaction that I've taken part in has automatically involved registration with the Land Registry, and if you didn't I can't imagine how you would prove ownership in the event of a dispute, so definitely advisable.

And in fact the Land Registry website now says it is compulsory if land or property changes hands or is mortgaged, so I imagine only land that has been in the same family for a long time with no mortgage on it would not now be registered, although I was quite surprised to see that this comprised about a quarter of land and property in England and Wales:

Quote:
It is now compulsory to register all land/property which changes ownership or has a mortgage for the first time. Compulsory land registration has been extended gradually across the country over 90 years. It was not until 1990 that the whole of England and Wales came under compulsory registration. This means that approximately a quarter of land/property in England and Wales remains unregistered because no dealings affecting it have led to compulsory registration.

http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/public/faqs/is-all-land-registered

 
primrose hill
966713.  Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:49 pm Reply with quote

Thanks for researching that for me. The site is excellent.
My grandparents bought the property in 1948 and it passed to my mum after their deaths in 1980 and 1996. It is now shared with her and my brother and I. We have the original deeds and transfer documents.

In the UK Deeds would always be held by the new owner unless the purchase was on a mortgage, when the Lender would hold the deeds until all the repayments were made. The deeds would then be given to the property owner who usually paid the bank a small sum to store the deeds safely. Thanks again & Happy New Year

 
PDR
966737.  Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:31 pm Reply with quote

As we're exhuming the old thread I thought I'd pick up on this bit:

dr.bob wrote:
That's true. However, if it didn't make it into the Act, then it's not binding law.

It's not true that, once something is enshrined in law, it continues to hold true forever more. As I understand it, the whole basis of our constitution is that old laws are repealed and replaced by new laws, at which time the old laws have no relevance.

Indeed, in section 122 (part 1) of the LRA 2002, it clearly says:

Quote:
The Land Registry Act 1862 (c. 53) shall cease to have effect.


I'm not sure where that leaves other acts,[...]


As I understand it, as a general rule English Law operates the principle of "Implied Revocation". This means that where two statutes contradict the later one is taken to revoke the earlier one unless there is a very good reason not to. This avoids the need for comprehensive searching and listing of prior statutes and judgements for each new or revised piece of legislation.

The reason why some Acts explicitly state that they revoke previous ones is to make it clear that areas of the old Act which are not addressed in the new Act are not still in force - indeed that those areas are no longer subject to legislation.

I could be wrong on this - my understanding is based on a commercial law course I was required to do as part of the general management training requirement organisations like mine impose on people reaching certain levels of seniority.

PDR

 
dr.bob
967175.  Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:54 am Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:
I imagine only land that has been in the same family for a long time with no mortgage on it would not now be registered, although I was quite surprised to see that this comprised about a quarter of land and property in England and Wales


I would imagine a lot of that "quarter" belongs to wealthy landowners whose family have owned a large estate for many generations. That kind of ownership will probably account for a surprisingly large amount of the countryside.

Certainly, about half of Scotland seems to belong to the Duke of Buccleuch, and I don't think he's been in a position to require a mortgage for anything for a very long time :)

 

Page 2 of 2
Goto page Previous  1, 2

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group