Law of Property Assignment: Adverse Possession and Property Rights Analysis

Assignment Brief

As part of the formal assessment for the programme you are required to submit a Law of Property assignment. Please refer to your Student Handbook for full details of the programme assessment scheme and general information on preparing and submitting assignments. 

 

Learning Outcomes:

After completing the module, you should be able to:
1. Identify and define the various property rights that exist in relation to land.
2. Compare and classify estates and interests existing in the registered land system together with their priorities and dealings with third parties
3. Evaluate the present principles of English Land Law showing an awareness of areas where reform is needed and Law Commission recommendations.
4. Demonstrate the ability to identify key elements of legal problems, identify their relative significance and select appropriate methods for investigating and evaluating them. 

 

Your assignment should include: a title page containing your student number, the module name, the submission deadline and a word count; the appendices if relevant; and a reference list in OSCOLA format. You should address all the elements of the assignment task listed below. Please note that tutors will use the assessment criteria set out below in assessing your work. 

 

Maximum word count: 4000 words

 

Assignment Task

This assignment consists of two parts, Part A and Part B. You must answer Both Part A and Part B. 

 

Part A

 

Critically analyse the distinction between claims to adverse possession in relation to registered and unregistered land. Use case law, examples and legislation in your answer. (2000 words) (50 marks)

 

Part B

 

Read the following scenario carefully. The questions that follow addresses learning outcomes 1-4. You must answer All four questions. (2000 words)
Two documents form part of this document analysis paper - please ensure that you download all the relevant documents. 

 

Scenario

Bob Bradley bought Grange House, a registered land from Collin Clarke last year. The family of CC had lived in the property for several generations. Grange House was bought by BB with the intention of using the property for residential as well as for his start up printing business. BB had spent money on equipment, vehicle, website, advertisement and company incorporation. BB has now been told by CC that the conveyance contained a covenant that the property should be strictly used for residential purposes only. CC said the covenant had existed since when his great great grandfather first obtained the property in 1910. CC did not say anything further, but BB has now regretted buying the property. BB was angry because the firm of solicitors who acted on his behalf never told him
of the existence of such covenant. BB said that the property was particularly attractive to him because of the large storage located within the boundary of the property where he intends keeping his printing equipment. BB initially intended to use a couple of garages which are close to Grange House. Garage A is being occupied by a local known as Dave Daniel who uses it as a workshop. Though there is no paperwork, DD pays £600 per quarter for the use of Garage A. BB is not happy with this arrangement and will like to terminate it. BB’s plan for the future is to develop a purpose-built unit on the grass land near the large storage. This will be used for his printing business as well as permit vehicular access to the printing unit without having to use the driveway of the house. The problem is that the grass land in which the large storage is situated is used by Emmanuel Edwards to graze his rabbit and another neighbour, Flora Faye who also uses the grass land for grazing her pig. BB would want grazing animals on the grassland to discontinue when he is ready to commence the development. CC earlier told BB that EE’s and FF’s grandfathers had an informal (no
documentation) arrangement around 67 years ago and both had since then been using the grassland for grazing. In relation to FF, she asked CC if she could graze and keep her guinea pig there and CC agreed. FF currently pays £50 monthly.

 

Another problem is that FF erected a barrier and padlocked the area connecting her house with the grassland. This is a serious concern for BB because this is the area along the path where he intends to run the access route, even though he is still waiting for approval of his planning application. FF never asked CC but erected the barrier soon after the agreement in respect of using the grassland. CC never objected. FF has now extended her use of the grassland to the area of the proposed access route.

 

With reference to relevant case law and statutory provisions, advise Mr BB on the following:

1. Whether he will be bound by any covenant and if so, whether the covenant can be removed. (20 marks)

2. By considering the status of DD, whether a vacant possession of Garage A can be obtained. (10 marks)
3. By considering the status of EE and FF, whether a vacant possession of the grassland can be obtained. (10 marks)
4. As regards the area of the land FF erected a barrier and padlocked, does she have a claim to the land? If so, can the land be recovered by BB? (10 marks)