Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Rights To Use Basement Storage Room/Attic
273 views
Skip to first unread message
Citoyen Recorder
Nov 10, 2016, 5:52:26 PM11/10/16
to
We live in a block of flats. We have lived there for 30 years. We have a long lease, 110 years to run. Our lease describes very accurately with a plan the size an extent of our apartment. It makes no mention of a basement storage room, but there is one with the number of our apartment painted on its door. We stored property and goods in this storage room for all the time we have lived in the block. No one has ever questioned our right to use it. We even wrote to our landlord two years ago to say that we were using this space, as our storage room. He/she did not question this. The people we purchased the lease of the apartment from used this space.
It has now been suggested to us by the landlord that he/she might want to reclaim this space for his own usage. Do we have any rights at all? Ancients rights of occupation/usage?
The same applies to attic space in the area under the roof above our apartment to which a door in our apartment leads directly into. We have also occupied that space for 30 years without question.
It has now been suggested to us by the landlord that he/she might want to reclaim this space for his own usage. Do we have any rights at all? Ancients rights of occupation/usage?
The same applies to attic space in the area under the roof above our apartment to which a door in our apartment leads directly into. We have also occupied that space for 30 years without question.
tim...
Nov 11, 2016, 4:25:56 AM11/11/16
to
"Citoyen Recorder" <cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8388b7e-4e3f-419d...@googlegroups.com...
This is a normal misunderstanding for roof spaces. Many people move into a
top-floor flat thinking that the roof space is theirs - (usually) it isn't.
That you may have used it doesn't make it so. Of course no-one gives a damn
when all you do is use if for storage, but it makes a big difference if
people want to convert it to living space.
The basement is a bit different as it would not be uncommon for it to be
split into units - one per flat with them officially recognised on the lease
as part of the demise. But it seems here that this has been done
unofficially by previous owners, not by the freeholder, so again the space
is the property of the freeholder and if he wants to reclaim it for his own
use he is perfectly entitled to so do.
tim
GB
Nov 11, 2016, 6:02:10 AM11/11/16
to
Ian Jackson
Nov 11, 2016, 7:18:13 AM11/11/16
to
In article <b8388b7e-4e3f-419d...@googlegroups.com>,
abolished now, but AIUI that won't extinguish rights like yours.
Establishing your rights by adverse possession would be legally
nontrivial I think - you should get a real laywer.
To the rest of the group: If the OP establishes adverse possession,
might they acquire the freehold rather than just a leasehold ? If so
that would provide an incentive for the paper freeholder to cut a
deal...
--
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Citoyen Recorder <cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>We live in a block of flats. We have lived there for 30 years. We have a
>long lease, 110 years to run. Our lease describes very accurately with a
>plan the size an extent of our apartment. It makes no mention of a
>basement storage room, but there is one with the number of our apartment
>painted on its door. We stored property and goods in this storage room
>for all the time we have lived in the block. No one has ever questioned
>our right to use it. We even wrote to our landlord two years ago to say
>that we were using this space, as our storage room. He/she did not
>question this. The people we purchased the lease of the apartment from
>used this space.
>
>It has now been suggested to us by the landlord that he/she might want
>to reclaim this space for his own usage. Do we have any rights at all?
>Ancients rights of occupation/usage?
You might well have right by "adverse possession". That has been
>We live in a block of flats. We have lived there for 30 years. We have a
>long lease, 110 years to run. Our lease describes very accurately with a
>plan the size an extent of our apartment. It makes no mention of a
>basement storage room, but there is one with the number of our apartment
>painted on its door. We stored property and goods in this storage room
>for all the time we have lived in the block. No one has ever questioned
>our right to use it. We even wrote to our landlord two years ago to say
>that we were using this space, as our storage room. He/she did not
>question this. The people we purchased the lease of the apartment from
>used this space.
>
>It has now been suggested to us by the landlord that he/she might want
>to reclaim this space for his own usage. Do we have any rights at all?
>Ancients rights of occupation/usage?
abolished now, but AIUI that won't extinguish rights like yours.
Establishing your rights by adverse possession would be legally
nontrivial I think - you should get a real laywer.
To the rest of the group: If the OP establishes adverse possession,
might they acquire the freehold rather than just a leasehold ? If so
that would provide an incentive for the paper freeholder to cut a
deal...
--
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Roland Perry
Nov 11, 2016, 8:33:21 AM11/11/16
to
In message <o042ps$j3a$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:23:36 on Fri, 11 Nov
2016, tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>Many people move into a top-floor flat thinking that the roof space is
>theirs - (usually) it isn't. That you may have used it doesn't make it
>so. Of course no-one gives a damn when all you do is use if for
>storage, but it makes a big difference if people want to convert it to
>living space.
I've seen leases (purchases, not rental) which forbid sticking anything
in such an attic.
--
Roland Perry
2016, tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>Many people move into a top-floor flat thinking that the roof space is
>theirs - (usually) it isn't. That you may have used it doesn't make it
>so. Of course no-one gives a damn when all you do is use if for
>storage, but it makes a big difference if people want to convert it to
>living space.
in such an attic.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
Nov 11, 2016, 9:13:07 AM11/11/16
to
"GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:o048e9$5g4$1...@dont-email.me...
There must be some clever exception for leaseholds here as it is normal for
the freeholder-owned-roof of a property not to be accessible from anywhere
other than via the flat below, so that will satisfy the "excluding the real
owner" condition.
But never once has there been a claim for adverse possession of a roof space
and there are hundreds (or even thousands) of examples per year of top floor
tenants buying out the ownership by handing over an, often large, sum of
money to the freeholder.
When I say large, the usual amount demanded (and got) is half of the
resultant increase in value of the new property, in London that can be
several 100,000 pounds.
tim
tim...
Nov 11, 2016, 9:14:06 AM11/11/16
to
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sKGIQ1VL...@perry.co.uk...
but they don't check, it's just a legal nicety
tim
Chris R
Nov 11, 2016, 9:18:37 AM11/11/16
to
"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
news:bul*+2...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
--
Chris R
========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======
news:bul*+2...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>
> In article <b8388b7e-4e3f-419d...@googlegroups.com>,
> Citoyen Recorder <cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >We live in a block of flats. We have lived there for 30 years. We have a
> >long lease, 110 years to run. Our lease describes very accurately with a
> >plan the size an extent of our apartment. It makes no mention of a
> >basement storage room, but there is one with the number of our apartment
> >painted on its door. We stored property and goods in this storage room
> >for all the time we have lived in the block. No one has ever questioned
> >our right to use it. We even wrote to our landlord two years ago to say
> >that we were using this space, as our storage room. He/she did not
> >question this. The people we purchased the lease of the apartment from
> >used this space.
> >
> >It has now been suggested to us by the landlord that he/she might want
> >to reclaim this space for his own usage. Do we have any rights at all?
> >Ancients rights of occupation/usage?
>
> You might well have right by "adverse possession". That has been
> abolished now, but AIUI that won't extinguish rights like yours.
> Establishing your rights by adverse possession would be legally
> nontrivial I think - you should get a real laywer.
>
> To the rest of the group: If the OP establishes adverse possession,
> might they acquire the freehold rather than just a leasehold ? If so
> that would provide an incentive for the paper freeholder to cut a
> deal...
>
Can a tenant get rights by adverse possession against his landlord?
> In article <b8388b7e-4e3f-419d...@googlegroups.com>,
> Citoyen Recorder <cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >We live in a block of flats. We have lived there for 30 years. We have a
> >long lease, 110 years to run. Our lease describes very accurately with a
> >plan the size an extent of our apartment. It makes no mention of a
> >basement storage room, but there is one with the number of our apartment
> >painted on its door. We stored property and goods in this storage room
> >for all the time we have lived in the block. No one has ever questioned
> >our right to use it. We even wrote to our landlord two years ago to say
> >that we were using this space, as our storage room. He/she did not
> >question this. The people we purchased the lease of the apartment from
> >used this space.
> >
> >It has now been suggested to us by the landlord that he/she might want
> >to reclaim this space for his own usage. Do we have any rights at all?
> >Ancients rights of occupation/usage?
>
> You might well have right by "adverse possession". That has been
> abolished now, but AIUI that won't extinguish rights like yours.
> Establishing your rights by adverse possession would be legally
> nontrivial I think - you should get a real laywer.
>
> To the rest of the group: If the OP establishes adverse possession,
> might they acquire the freehold rather than just a leasehold ? If so
> that would provide an incentive for the paper freeholder to cut a
> deal...
>
--
Chris R
========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======
Ian Jackson
Nov 11, 2016, 11:46:44 AM11/11/16
to
In article <o04joe$eh4$1...@dont-email.me>,
no idea about rights to "neighbouring" things.
Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
>"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
>news:bul*+2...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
>news:bul*+2...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>> To the rest of the group: If the OP establishes adverse possession,
>> might they acquire the freehold rather than just a leasehold ? If so
>> that would provide an incentive for the paper freeholder to cut a
>> deal...
>
>Can a tenant get rights by adverse possession against his landlord?
Not rights which were the subject of the tenancy, obviously. I have
>> might they acquire the freehold rather than just a leasehold ? If so
>> that would provide an incentive for the paper freeholder to cut a
>> deal...
>
>Can a tenant get rights by adverse possession against his landlord?
no idea about rights to "neighbouring" things.
DerekF
Nov 11, 2016, 4:57:25 PM11/11/16
to
On 11/11/2016 09:23, tim... wrote:
>
>
rooms that can be rented. The building was a hotel before being
converted into flats and each landing has four cupboards of differing
sizes that are rented out to flat owners.
Derek
Robin
Nov 12, 2016, 6:00:23 AM11/12/16
to
On 11/11/2016 14:15, Chris R wrote:
>>
>> You might well have right by "adverse possession". That has been
>> abolished now, but AIUI that won't extinguish rights like yours.
>> Establishing your rights by adverse possession would be legally
>> nontrivial I think - you should get a real laywer.
>>
>> To the rest of the group: If the OP establishes adverse possession,
>> might they acquire the freehold rather than just a leasehold ? If so
>> that would provide an incentive for the paper freeholder to cut a
>> deal...
>>
> Can a tenant get rights by adverse possession against his landlord?
I think not (in E&W) 'cos the tenant can't establish exclusive
>>
>> You might well have right by "adverse possession". That has been
>> abolished now, but AIUI that won't extinguish rights like yours.
>> Establishing your rights by adverse possession would be legally
>> nontrivial I think - you should get a real laywer.
>>
>> To the rest of the group: If the OP establishes adverse possession,
>> might they acquire the freehold rather than just a leasehold ? If so
>> that would provide an incentive for the paper freeholder to cut a
>> deal...
>>
> Can a tenant get rights by adverse possession against his landlord?
possession. The lease gives the tenant exclusive possession of only the
premises specified in the lease. The freeholder remains in possession
of parts not in that (or another) lease.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
Ian Jackson
Nov 12, 2016, 10:33:41 AM11/12/16
to
In article <44920ccd-f39f-c081...@hotmail.com>,
seems that the OP has exclusively possessed the now-disputed areas.
Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I think not (in E&W) 'cos the tenant can't establish exclusive
>possession. The lease gives the tenant exclusive possession of only the
>premises specified in the lease. The freeholder remains in possession
>of parts not in that (or another) lease.
Maybe "exclusive possession" means something technical here. To me it
>I think not (in E&W) 'cos the tenant can't establish exclusive
>possession. The lease gives the tenant exclusive possession of only the
>premises specified in the lease. The freeholder remains in possession
>of parts not in that (or another) lease.
seems that the OP has exclusively possessed the now-disputed areas.
Robin
Nov 12, 2016, 12:34:05 PM11/12/16
to
On 12/11/2016 15:23, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <44920ccd-f39f-c081...@hotmail.com>,
> Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I think not (in E&W) 'cos the tenant can't establish exclusive
>> possession. The lease gives the tenant exclusive possession of only the
>> premises specified in the lease. The freeholder remains in possession
>> of parts not in that (or another) lease.
>
> Maybe "exclusive possession" means something technical here. To me it
> seems that the OP has exclusively possessed the now-disputed areas.
>
I did indeed make a complete Horlicks of that. I'll try again with added
> In article <44920ccd-f39f-c081...@hotmail.com>,
> Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I think not (in E&W) 'cos the tenant can't establish exclusive
>> possession. The lease gives the tenant exclusive possession of only the
>> premises specified in the lease. The freeholder remains in possession
>> of parts not in that (or another) lease.
>
> Maybe "exclusive possession" means something technical here. To me it
> seems that the OP has exclusively possessed the now-disputed areas.
>
sobriety.
As you stated, a tenant cannot get rights over land occupied under the
tenancy. (They need possession before or after the lease starts/ends.)
A tenant who takes exclusive possession of adjoining land is (I think
usually) taken as making an addition to their lease, so the land has to
be given up when the lease ends. But (I think ^ 2) not always. So that
(may) make the position of the attic different from the basement room.
And the details depends on whether or not it's registered land.
And of course it has to be adverse and exclusive so the landlord may be
able to argue it wasn't if eg the landlord was still looking after those
rooms or had done something to give the tenant implied permission
(licence) to use the space.
I think it evident the OP needs better advice than this.
And I think I need another drink.
Citoyen Recorder
Nov 12, 2016, 12:37:28 PM11/12/16
to
My lease does not explicit forbid use of the attic.
Dr. Sandringham
Nov 12, 2016, 12:39:08 PM11/12/16
to
On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 11:00:12 +0000, Robin wrote:
> On 11/11/2016 14:15, Chris R wrote:
>
>
>>> You might well have right by "adverse possession". That has been
>>> abolished now, but AIUI that won't extinguish rights like yours.
>>> Establishing your rights by adverse possession would be legally
>>> nontrivial I think - you should get a real laywer.
>>>
>>> To the rest of the group: If the OP establishes adverse possession,
>>> might they acquire the freehold rather than just a leasehold ? If so
>>> that would provide an incentive for the paper freeholder to cut a
>>> deal...
>>>
>> Can a tenant get rights by adverse possession against his landlord?
>
> I think not (in E&W) 'cos the tenant can't establish exclusive
> possession.
Why not? He is not a tenant of the disputed part.
> On 11/11/2016 14:15, Chris R wrote:
>
>
>>> You might well have right by "adverse possession". That has been
>>> abolished now, but AIUI that won't extinguish rights like yours.
>>> Establishing your rights by adverse possession would be legally
>>> nontrivial I think - you should get a real laywer.
>>>
>>> To the rest of the group: If the OP establishes adverse possession,
>>> might they acquire the freehold rather than just a leasehold ? If so
>>> that would provide an incentive for the paper freeholder to cut a
>>> deal...
>>>
>> Can a tenant get rights by adverse possession against his landlord?
>
> I think not (in E&W) 'cos the tenant can't establish exclusive
> possession.
> The lease gives the tenant exclusive possession of only the
> premises specified in the lease. The freeholder remains in possession
> of parts not in that (or another) lease.
in the country would be prevented from establishing adverse possession of
any other property held by the same owner.
Which I doubt very much is the case - and whether or not one property
shares a boundary with another should not matter.
Brian Reay
Nov 12, 2016, 12:40:20 PM11/12/16
to
On 12/11/2016 15:23, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <44920ccd-f39f-c081...@hotmail.com>,
> Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I think not (in E&W) 'cos the tenant can't establish exclusive
>> possession. The lease gives the tenant exclusive possession of only the
>> premises specified in the lease. The freeholder remains in possession
>> of parts not in that (or another) lease.
>
> Maybe "exclusive possession" means something technical here. To me it
> seems that the OP has exclusively possessed the now-disputed areas.
>
The fact that the 'storage cuboard(s)' are numbered would suggest they
> Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I think not (in E&W) 'cos the tenant can't establish exclusive
>> possession. The lease gives the tenant exclusive possession of only the
>> premises specified in the lease. The freeholder remains in possession
>> of parts not in that (or another) lease.
>
> Maybe "exclusive possession" means something technical here. To me it
> seems that the OP has exclusively possessed the now-disputed areas.
>
are definitely 'linked' / 'attached' to the corresponding flats. That,
plus the very long period of use, during which it appears the question
of 'ownership' has never arisen, would surely carry some weight.
On the face of it, someone seems to have spotted that the cuboards are
not detailed in the leases (possibly following a query during a recent
sale of another flat) and an 'opportunity' has been spotted. Perhaps the
plan is to try and extract a fee for the use (or sale) of the cuboards.
Another possiblity, if the area is large enough, is to convert the area
to a saleable flat.
Pelican
Nov 13, 2016, 3:51:24 AM11/13/16
to
possession, isn't that adverse possession against B by A? Where that
property isn't subject to a lease between A and B, isn't is irrelevant
that there is other property which is subject to a lease between them?
Robin
Nov 13, 2016, 4:05:54 AM11/13/16
to
deals with your questions.
tim...
Nov 13, 2016, 5:07:09 AM11/13/16
to
"Dr. Sandringham" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:o07dgc$1gcp$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
(part of the) property in question, not the owner.
tim
steve robinson
Nov 14, 2016, 4:51:10 AM11/14/16
to
On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 09:35:47 -0800 (PST), Citoyen Recorder
<cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>My lease does not explicit forbid use of the attic.
Makes no difference
<cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>My lease does not explicit forbid use of the attic.
0 new messages