How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Max Lowry Your Own Question
Max Lowry
Max Lowry, Advocate
Category: UK Law
Satisfied Customers: 1457
Experience:  LLB, 10 years post qualification experience
Type Your UK Law Question Here...
Max Lowry is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Property Claim: please would you review my draft

This answer was rated:

Property Claim: please would you review my draft

Max Lowry :

Hi, welcome to Just Answer. I will help you with your question.

Max Lowry :

What would you like to know please?

Max Lowry :

Can you post it here?

Max Lowry :

Hello - are you there?

Max Lowry :

I will switch to Q&A mode as you might have problems with chat feature.

Customer: replied 4 years ago. kind of you to offer me a chat session so sorry I wasn't expecting such a prompt reply and missed it !

Subject to a letter of intended action I propose to issue a summons for the removal of obstructions to land retained by the head freeholder where I am currently renting from a friend. I do not want his property to be blighted for the future and I want to bring the action as he is prone to depression and has been greatly affected by this dispute.

The circumstances are that in a row of five 2 bed houses, three of the proprietors have purchased the freehold reversions, but the drive to the garages and a triangular area behind the garages, has been retained by the head freeholder (Do you call them the root freeholder?).

The area behind the garages has been used by my neighbours as an extension to their garden but it is subject to easements per the former leases. I'm sorry for my neighbour but I really do not want my friend to suffer loss and detriment to the passage of time. It is now nearly 10 years and I feel an application must be made to stop time running towards a possible claim for adverse possession by the neighbour over this contentious area. They pretended to have bought the land in 2003 when upgrading the title of their undisputed land (of which they also do not have exclusive possession either, due to another easement - total three) since an admin error by the Land Registry showed a red line enclosing the area behind the garages as part of their freehold title.

I now have a Surveyors report stating that the neighbour is encroaching and that there is no evidence of any purchase of 'the triangle' - the area behind the garages since a separate triangle is not marked out to represent a purchase. Also that all obstructions to my access should be removed.

Furthermore the neighbour through both negligence and spite over the years has caused damage to this property and to my person so I would like to make a full and detailed claim to the County Court for relief.

I would be very grateful for some pointers and also if you would read through the draft before I send it. Would that be reasonable and possible please for you to assist me with?


The first thing I would say is that this is probably best done (legally) by your friend, as he is the leasehold owner (having the main lease from the freeholder), as I understand it from your question. You have a tenancy, and limited rights to the property. It might be possible for you to still bring the claim, but it's more risky, as you're the tenant, not the leaseholder.

I don't mind having a quick glimpse over a letter of claim for you, but in all honesty, my comments would be limited because of the lack of detail that I have, and we cannot give legal advice on this site, only general information.

Customer: replied 4 years ago.

I will revert to you when prepared...just trying to understand your system!

I know in an agricultural tenure the tenant HAS to take action. Since I'm the party as tenant suffering the inconvenience, given the absence of the landlord - my friend - I am motivated to address the issues of nuisance, obstruction and petty encroachment. My friend has upgraded to freehold from the leasehold as did the neighbour in 2003.

Do you refer to the head freeholder as the root freeholder please?

There is only ever one freeholder of the property and so they're just referred to as the freeholder.

The freeholder can grant leases, and then the leasee can grant leases from their interest too. There you have a head leasee and sub leasee.

Customer: replied 4 years ago.

sorry my friend is a freeholder of his house...sited on land from which the reversionary interest had been bought by other former lease holders who also have upgraded to freehold. The original freeholder retains some of the communal land, paths, drive and maintainence areas.

Just enquiring about the original freeholders reference...original, head or root freeholder(?)...not to worry maybe ask a colleague? Are you a USA lawyer?

I'm an English lawyer.

You can't have a reversion art interest as a freeholder - the freeholder is the closest in law you get to absolute ownership of the soil the property stands on.

The freeholder will own, by definition, the leasehold reversion of land, as once the lease lapses, the interest reverts to the freeholder. Hence, they own the reversionary interest. You cannot have two freeholders owning the same land.

Does that make sense?

Customer: replied 4 years ago.

I agree ...misunderstanding!

My friend bought the reversionary interest from the original freeholder and now replaces him with respect to his house and garden in this terrace. The communal areas are still within the title of the former freeholder of my friends place and the small remainder continues to be controlled by the head/original/root freeholder... I just look for an appropriate reference to someone in that postion...maybe the "residual freeholder"? owner of the little bits left once all leasehold titles are upgraded to freehold.

I suppose residual freeholder would do - I think it conveys what you mean, yes. This works, particularly if you set out the background before using the term, as I think you intend to.


Customer: replied 4 years ago.

thanks for that Max, at least we're now agreed over terminology before I pursue my enquiry with you. I'm sorry I don't have it ready to present but I will revert to you asap when I do.


okay - please let me know when ready
Customer: replied 4 years ago.

The purpose of this application is to stop time running against me with respect to my entitlement, equal to that of the defendant, to access over land retained by the "residual" freeholder of this terrace.


I seek an order for the removal of obstructions to my access namely:

1/ A trellis

2/ A handrail



What is your question on this please?
Customer: replied 4 years ago.

I asked earlier if you would peruse my application to the county court. This concerns a plot in the ownership of the "residual" freeholder...from which my neighbour is attempting to exclude me. They have not yet (but its close) had occupation for 10 years.


Is this wording appropriate for the claim form?

I dont think you need to say you're intending to stop time ... I think you just say what you're asking for and why. The fact that time stops for limitation purposes happens automatically.

So, a better approach would be to set out the background, what land you're referring to, state that you own that land, and explain what is now on your land and why you want it removed.

Customer: replied 4 years ago.

thank you.

so i just give details of the order sought and then under Further and Better particulars, details of the property (and the history of the dispute?).

I don't own this plot. As I was trying to explain (and perhaps you could help me to summarise the position?) this is a small parcel retained by the residual freeholder after she sold the freehold reversions to 3 of the 5 former leaseholders. i consider it to be the maintenance area serving the garage roof for inspection and repairs, together with two paths and the drive.

The defendant has also been encroaching on my land, but I'm dealing via the help of a 3rd party user, with that. Tho I wondered about making reference to that as well. Or is it the case that it is best to keep matters simple?

For example might I have costs against me if I don't win every issue in a claim?

Customer: replied 4 years ago.


I'd keep matters simple and limited to the claim between the same two parties here.

If you don't own the land, then you have to say why in the claim you're brining the claim, and state your interest, as without that it's not clear that you would have the right to bring the claim. So make that clear.

Apart form that, then yes, you're right about whats to be included in the claim form.

Max Lowry and other UK Law Specialists are ready to help you