Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Can a mere intention to occupy amount to actual occupation under Schd 3 para 2 LRA? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can a mere intention to occupy amount to actual occupation? In other words, does an express intent to actually occupy land amount to an overriding interest under Schedule 3 paragraph 2 of the Land Registration Act 2002?If a beneficiary expressly states several times that they intend to occupy a piece of land in the future, can this be said to be an overriding interest? If so, why so? If not, why not?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I haven't done land law but logically it seems like the answer ought to be no. Surely the reason that actual occupation is an overriding interest is that a purchaser can easily verify that someone is in actual occupation by viewing the property, so to some extend it's their fault if they get caught out by it. Whereas if someone merely intends to occupy but doesn't actually occupy then how could a third party purchaser discover that fact if the vendor decided not to tell them?

    edit: having now read the Schedule, I don't see what caused you to think an intention to occupy would be enough?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forum User)
    I haven't done land law but logically it seems like the answer ought to be no. Surely the reason that actual occupation is an overriding interest is that a purchaser can easily verify that someone is in actual occupation by viewing the property, so to some extend it's their fault if they get caught out by it. Whereas if someone merely intends to occupy but doesn't actually occupy then how could a third party purchaser discover that fact if the vendor decided not to tell them?

    edit: having now read the Schedule, I don't see what caused you to think an intention to occupy would be enough?
    Yes it can I have just read through Gareths notes and it is possible for intention to occupy to amount to actual occupation!
    • Offline

      14
      (Original post by middleman999)
      Yes it can I have just read through Gareths notes and it is possible for intention to occupy to amount to actual occupation!
      (Original post by Forum User)
      I haven't done land law but logically it seems like the answer ought to be no. Surely the reason that actual occupation is an overriding interest is that a purchaser can easily verify that someone is in actual occupation by viewing the property, so to some extend it's their fault if they get caught out by it. Whereas if someone merely intends to occupy but doesn't actually occupy then how could a third party purchaser discover that fact if the vendor decided not to tell them?

      edit: having now read the Schedule, I don't see what caused you to think an intention to occupy would be enough?
      Who on earth is Gareth? I'm inclined to agree with Forum User, although I'll check my notes from last year to make sure that there's no case law to the contrary.
      • Offline

        14
        (Original post by Forum User)
        edit: having now read the Schedule, I don't see what caused you to think an intention to occupy would be enough?
        All I can think is that middleman999 is (mistakenly) referring to cases where what I can only call "intention to return" was deemed by the courts to be sufficient for actual occupation. These people had previously been physically on the property, but left it for some reason. Among such cases are:
        • Thomas v Clydesdale Bank [2010] - woman overseeing building works but not living in her house at that time due to the presence of builders
        • Kingsnorth Finance Co v Tizard [1986] - wife had left her husband (and moved out), but returned to visit her children and also left clothing etc. at the house; sufficient for actual occupation
        • Kling v Keston Properties Ltd (1985) - parking a car can constitute actual occupation; no need for it to be there all the time


        There's also a case, whose name escapes me, about a woman who had to move into hospital and leave her home; she was held to be in actual occupation of the house despite not living there at the time.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        I go to the same uni as this person. Your a douche. in our specific problem question which this particular individual is asking with regard to the person is intending to return... And Gareth is our seminar leader! so pipe down!
        • Offline

          14
          (Original post by middleman999)
          I go to the same uni as this person. Your a douche. in our specific problem question which this particular individual is asking with regard to the person is intending to return... And Gareth is our seminar leader! so pipe down!
          Apologies if I've offended you but there's no need to be rude - you didn't make it overly clear who you were talking about, nor did you offer any explanation as to when/why intention can be sufficient when the statute seems to say the opposite. I'd argue that intention to occupy in the future isn't the same as intention to return since the beneficiary was never in actual occupation. All that the case law suggests is that you needn't be continuously present on the land for there to be actual occupation - but the common element to all of these cases is that there was physical presence before the "intention to return" arose.
          Offline

          0
          ReputationRep:
          There was a physical presence before the intention to return.
          Offline

          19
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by middleman999)
          There was a physical presence before the intention to return.
          Were we supposed to use our psychic powers to guess this? The OP doesn't say anything about 'returning' or that the person had previously lived there
         
         
         
        Reply
        Submit reply
        TSR Support Team

        We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

        Updated: January 6, 2013
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • Poll
        What newspaper do you read/prefer?
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

        Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

        Quick reply
        Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.