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 Stuart J Your Own Question
Stuart J
Stuart J, Solicitor
Category: UK Property Law
Satisfied Customers: 22624
Experience:  PGD Law. 20 years legal profession, 6 as partner in High Street practice
Type Your UK Property Law Question Here...
Stuart J is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

extreme bias by police - how to bring a civil suit (based in

This answer was rated:

extreme bias by police - how to bring a civil suit (based in negligence?)
Can we have the background please?
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
The police got involved with civil matters. They spent public money on 4 Surveys (there were already 3 private Surveys - 2 of which supported me - in my Defence a further 4 Surveys were executed at public expense of these 3 supported me one was indecisive, hence I obtained a further survey which supports me total 12 surveys ie front and back on both sides equals four surveys from three different parties) to try to support their claims of wrong doing on my part (sorry I just spent the whole morning writing a detailed explanation which seems to have been lost...would you ask cust services if anything came was incomplete...did you get a notification?)

I have just received the rebuttal of a complaint from the police suggesting my complaint to them was 'an abuse of the police complaints process'!!!!!!!!

To answer my own question I must Appeal to the IPCC got until 27th June!

What exactly were these surveys? In respect of the neighbours and the boundary?
What are you sueing them for?
Customer: replied 4 years ago.

can you put out your rating button

It pops up when I answer.
I need background please to this particular question.
I will say that courts do not like people suing police. That is they dont like it on a: grounds of "opening floodgates" (that is the legal term) and c: Public interest (lack of).
I assume that you have already gone the IPCC route.

Customer: replied 4 years ago.

can appeal within 28 days. "abuse of the complaints system was their view plus blame it on cps". I accept what you're saying having had the run down from Jomo...

I'm thinking more about CPS. The action could have been closed down at an early stage. My solic repeatedly asked for photos to which the Surveyor alluded which demonstrated my neighbour's encroachment and hence entitlement to remove the neighbours materials. I do still wish to obtain these photos. May I assume cps could still insist upon them being supplied?

Do yrself a favour and let it go. Sorry to be so blunt. My best mate has exactly this T shirt. It was blatant miscarriage of justice but after an initial enthusiasm from plod (I suspect giving it lip service) it went nowhere and it consumed him for months. You are up against the system and only small % of complaints get upheld.

CPS can get court order to get the info/pics but only if the matter is ongoing.\

You can apply to court for pre-action disclosure in relation to litigation but I doubt you would get the order to uphold a complaint against plod
Customer: replied 4 years ago.

ok i hear you re plod...but what about cps ?

do i have to make an application before i can get the pics? can i make the applic and immed get the photos?

Who has the photos now?
Customer: replied 4 years ago.

neighbours surveyor

We come back once again to the application to court for pre-action disclosure
Customer: replied 4 years ago.

yes ... and the survey in addition to my own shows criminal proceedings should never have been brought.

the officer who attended had a malicious agenda. this needs to be addressed and not ignored just because its so difficult to secure a successful complaint.

What amounts to a successful complaint? If attention is brought to one s concerns what happens then?

I agree with you completely.
As I said earlier, a friend of mine went through exactly this with a malicious
neighbour who for some reason the police always came down in favour of.

In actual fact, his complaint
was upheld what he got nothing out of it other than the satisfaction.

Have you yet exhausted the IP
CC process?

Customer: replied 4 years ago.

thanks for that.

i had 28 days from 29th i'm in arrive before 27th june.

do i copy to snotty police manager...or not bother?

he says under provisions of schedule 3 paragraph 3 of the police reform act complaint was not recorded as a complaint!

why don't i just pursue an action against them in the courts? or am i required to go thro this first?

You can pursue an action
against them in the court but you have to prove loss and I can tell you now
that judges really do not like people suing the police, as I said earlier, on
the grounds of opening the floodgates (that is the legal term) and on the
grounds of public interest.

There is case law on it.

The mother of the Yorkshire
Ripper's last victim sued the chief Constable of West Yorkshire in negligence
because the police had arrested Peter Sutcliffe but let him go. If they had
charged him, her daughter would not have been a victim.

Her claim failed, not because
the judge thought that the police had been negligent but because he was mindful
of opening the floodgates to litigation every time the police put a foot wrong.

I wouldn't copy anything to
plod. They will find out in due course

Stuart J and other UK Property Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 4 years ago.

thank you for the sobering utterly awful...i don't know how much the police knew at the time but asking any party to look into the future is much more difficult than the cut and dried issue here. police should not be determining boundaries. simples.

I could not agree more.

Here is one article,8004750

and here is plenty more to
read rkshire+1988&oq=west+yorkshire+hill+cheif+constable&gs_l=serp.1.1.0i8i13i30l4.3561.9379.0.11651.,or.r_qf.&fp=e7894cbeaa6c959c&biw=1451&bih=698

although it was to do with
breach of a duty of care rather than bias.

In your case, the
investigating police (as often happens I'm afraid to say) acted as judge and
jury and formed their own opinion quite early on. That is something that they
should not have done.

In danger of this turning
into a debate : Please remember that I am not a lover of the police but they do
a difficult job elsewhere, often with their hands tied behind their backs.
Notwithstanding, they do have their failings and they often seem to chase the
line of least resistance. It is easier to nick someone for being drunk and
disorderly or speeding or obstruction than it is to investigate a burglary.

Having said that, we still
have what is probably the fairest and the least corrupt justice system in the

One final point that is that
even when you said you would pay me £200 per hour to bring this application, I
would tell you to keep your money in your pocket.

I cannot be any straighter.

Customer: replied 4 years ago.

I ve just written back saying its not in the public interest for the police to be PAYING to determine private boundaries.


L.....? I just read a brilliant exchange by you and a cust about easements or some sort of land issue and I can't seem to find it again..can you help?


Also its been pointed out that a lot of my troubles spring from Land Registry errors.


Can you give me a link to the top dogs to whom I should address myself at LR ?London.


The outcome is that my neighbour is possessing unreg'd land and whilst I have an easement in the alt I might just as well stick up a fence round the bit I need : to protect my access and possess (maybe about half?) of what they're taking. Something of a brilliant solution! Just the doing of it will be delicate!


I would also like to check with you about the law please.


So if predecessors of theirs had had an earlier enclosure for more than 12 years but they were mere leaseholders ...they could not dispossess the freeholder ...right?

(But even if they could when we came along there was access. And my friend bought his lease with the area open and accessible).

Their enclosure is not actually complete but if it were and we are talking about unregistered land which requires 12 years it not the case that they would be able to evict me as a competing squatter? Having got there first?


I sometimes deal with
up to 100 questions a day so unless I knew a bit more about the subject matter
I wouldn't know which one it was, sorry

Write to the chief
registrar (whose name changes from time to time but any land registry customer
services will give you his name and the correct address) with your complaint.

I could not agree more
that the police should not have been involved with this and that is therefore
the basis of a complaint (but not litigation).

If somebody has a
lease, they occupied by consent and therefore they can never dispossess the
freeholder and claim adverse possession. If they had no lease and simply
occupied it and it is unregistered that after 12 years they can claim adverse
possession. The period is 10 years for registered land.

The possession must be
factual (they must be in physical possession) and they must have occupied it to
the exclusion of others which generally means that they have to fence it off.
They must not have shared it with anybody else apart from their own lawful

Stuart J and other UK Property Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 4 years ago.

can a complaint not be the basis of litigation? police should not be using public money to pay for surveys to try to uphold a groundless prosecution...the fencing i removed was on my land according to my surveyor...but my neighbours argue the midpoint should be the boundary... the midpoint was indentified by the neighbours surveyor...but neither opinion is a boundary determination.

the issue i have with the police is that my neighbour obtained the consent of the local inspector to remove my fence and to replace it with her own. what right do the police have to allow this and the destruction of my property? i want to bring an action against them. ihave written to the ipcc asking for my complaint to be put on hold (would that be a stay?) pending further investigation of my complaint of damage which was never acted upon by police...but may be now?

the unreg land issue ...the neighbour was a leaseholder of the freeholder of the entire broader expanse of land. ...even though her ownership of any part was never registered...she may have intended to lease out all areas...but there are communal parts eg the drive and a path beside the garages which are reg'd as communal. the area i see as the maintenance area is not reg'd nor coloured as communal nor indentified as retained by the freeholder but it is/was her land according to the original plans...but she wants no involvement in a neighbour dispute. tho i was told she couldn't get out of it, its prob in my best interest to try to address the matter myself as she s likely to take the path of least resistance...though let me ask this. Could the leaseholders have dispossessed the unreg element of her land? or was it not merely an accretion of their lease into her land and if so what would be the impact of that on me as a former competing user also with generalised rights of access per lease?

I am
looking at this purely from a practical view.

I could not
agree with you more. This is not something that by any stretch of even a very
vivid imagination, the police should be involved in.

From the
fact you have given me I think they are completely out of order for a whole
variety of reasons.

However for
the reasons I mentioned earlier regarding suing the police it is not a route
that I would suggest you went down unless you are hellbent.

leaseholder could not claim adverse possession (I think that is what you were
talking about) money land over which they have consent use it, over which
anyone has objected to them using it or over which anybody else has used it.
They have to have had exclusive possession and treated it as their own for over
12 years

Customer: replied 4 years ago.

what if they, or predecessors, had 12 years exclusive occupation prior to my arrival?

Or is the fact that they were only leaseholders relevant? Is it the case that until they became freeholders themselves they could not dispossess either my friend as another leaseholder, now freeholder, nor the "residual freeholder" (what would you call the owner of the remaining parts once the leasehold reversions have been bought?).

The neighbours next door in this terrace of 5 former leaseholds are trying to block off a small unregistered area ...but which is part of the residual freeholders land.

It is also needed for access.

But is this an instance where an easement could die...due to upgrading of title by the squatter? To the detriment of the would -be user of the lease implied access/easement?

Or was the wording of the lease sufficient to protect the whole area including the unregistered bit?

If they have 12 years exclusive occupation without
objection consent or in secret they are entitled to apply to have it registered
as theirs under the doctrine of adverse possession.

The fact that they are leaseholders is immaterial.

It is not a leasehold reversion, it is a freehold
reversion. The leasehold is extinguished and the whole title reverts to
freehold at the end of the lease. So that person you are speaking about is the

If there is an access enjoyed by others, they
cannot apply for adverse possession because they need to be able to have
exclusive use of it. Strangely enough the same question has cropped up again on
here within the last 30 minutes. Of course, when they apply (if they apply) for
adverse possession registration, they could lie on the application form!

If there is an easement, an easement cannot be
extinguished other than by agreement. It does not get extinguished through

The wording of the lease is sufficient to protect
anything (registered or unregistered) referred to in the lease

Customer: replied 4 years ago. do you square the first paragraph with the last?

does a lease allowing access override someone trying to exclude others? so if there had been a way to get to a garage back but it was blocked off by a neighbour who had the same freeholder (and so was subject to the same lease) but it had been blocked off for more than 12 years - who suceeds? The earlier squatter or the later applicant seeking to enforce the right of access?

The middle paragraph qualifies it

If there is an access enjoyed by others, they

cannot apply for adverse possession because they need to be able to have

exclusive use of it. Strangely enough the same question has cropped up again on

here within the last 30 minutes. Of course, when they apply (if they apply) for

adverse possession registration, they could lie on the application form!

If the lease allows access, then there is access and no one can ever
have adverse possession because they cannot occupy the land exclusively.

Yes, therefore the lease overrides someone trying to exclude others
and even if they do exclude others, by some fair means or foul, the right of
access continues to exist. It would not matter if it had been blocked off for
100 years, the easement exists.

Customer: replied 4 years ago.

thank you and for getting back to me so promptly.

are you answering the other question? how will i be able to view it?

your answer is what i'm hoping for... BUT..i had read a case where a judge determined a.p had been successful inspite of the inconvenience caused to others over lost access...would you know the name of the case?

the lease of the neighbour was lost they claim or was never served due to land reg error. its not a specific easement. the lease refers to rights of access at all reasonable times to sewers and for the running of cables and for repairs inspection and maintenance. its handy to be able to inspect the garage roof from the vantage point of the unreg raised area of land beyond the gulley (also unreg) behind the garages.

so a leaseholder can dispossess their freeholder if occupying for more than 12 years having excluded others who did not know they could claim the right to go beyond the obstructions?

Here you are.

I am not familiar with the case that you mention.

It would depend whether there was actually an easement (either by
deed or prescription).

The final paragraph is correct bearing in mind that the same thing
applies to any land which is being adversely possessed and fenced off

Customer: replied 4 years ago.

so just to re-cap:

a leaseholder can dispossess their freeholder?....Are you sure about that? I understood such occupation was considered to be an accretion of their lease?

that would then explain why a.p could not suceed until the parties each were freeholders...and would also be logical in terms of an easement being protected.

They cannot dispossess their own freeholder. The lease is consent.

They must occupy without consent.



Customer: replied 4 years ago.

yes but i think if its adjacent land not formally part of their land - having originally a more limited lease...their occupation becomes acknowledged as an accretion. so yes impliedly with permission...but capable of excluding me (my interest in this matter)...and then, once having obtained the freehold reversion (thanks for correcting my earlier slip!!), they then have the capacity to adversely possess their former freeholder as it is then one freeholder against another?

There is no accretion unless it is included by deed.



Customer: replied 4 years ago.

you mean if they registered their wider occupation?

If the adversely possess land it is a totally separate title
Customer: replied 4 years ago.

we're at cross purposes. Got to go. could i make an appointment with you via the chat method say maybe around 10pm?

That shud be ok

Yr late!Laughing


I have to disappear now. I will be on first thing in the morning but not all day.

Just reiterate the facts again please about who is what with regard to this adverse possession bit because we have talked about so many things over so long that I might be getting my wires crossed.

Customer: replied 4 years ago.

so sorry...I couldn't get my friend to leave!!

You would really benefit from sight of my thread with Josh. I have a further question for him when he returns...but you'ii prob have another angle. Its so helpful this multi input. Anyway this is what has taken 10 years for me to find out and to understand(!):

It seems the Land Registry have made two mistakes:

1/ When my Lease was registered with Land Registry it included generalised access rights benefiting this property, the unspecified burden of exactly the same Lease was not registered over my neighbour. She claimed her Lease had been 'lost'.

2/ After purchasing their Freehold my neighbour claimed to have 'bought' the area over which we had enjoyed access per Lease (which a LR official told me protected my interest for the purposes of access as a minimum) . A red line out of place included the unregistered area adjacent to them and behind the impression the land was part of their freehold purchase - which I believed - but I continued to object to their arrangements as I was being excluded from access.

My neighbour would see me walking over the area in question and notes that I believed I had the right to do this before they installed fencing.

So they're squatting the technically still unregistered area.

When I first came my neighbours wanted to put up fencing and approached me I tried to be as helpful as possible and asked if they would draw a plan of their proposal...which seemed to include dividing up the unreg area. ...but they would not draw a plan. it was very frustrating.

I'm trying to grasp whether their predecessors may have had an enclosure but I found the area to be accessible when I came and my friend bought his lease in reliance on the open plan arrangement and no problems. i think another leaseholder had asked the neighbour to cut back an overgrown bush which was an obstruction.

If someone had enclosed this previously would that have been significant? Might that not have been an unregistered accretion of the lease, or some legal status resulting in the right to exclude others?

I would like to put up a smaller enclosure to protect my access and the quickest way to do that is the 12 year method as a strip to one side of my neighbours claim but still inside it and competing with them...but how to avoid hostility?

Having someone follow their example might be irksome but they could apply to evict me?

Surely my right of access would not allow such an application to succeed?

i'm out tomo ...may catch you in the eve...otherwise see you monday? You off motor-biking?

Obviously, timekeeping is not a strong point! Your last post is an hour
late!! Tut-tut .

It's a good job I went in to the shed to play with motorbikes to pass
the time and didn't sit waiting!!! You could have booted him/her out on the
basis that you had 10 PM Internet date!!!!

Anyway, here we are now

if her lease has been lost (and the land
registry do not have it) then you have some proof and she has none. That helps

if she bought an area over which you had
documented legal access access (an easement in the deeds) then you keep the
access even if she blocks it for a long period of time. Easements are never
extinguished through lack of use.

If their predecessors had fenced the
area off in order to try and gain adverse possession, then the predecessors
period of occupation can be added to theirs to get the requisite 10 years for
registered land or 12 years for unregistered land. Whether they had patient or
not comes down to facts and evidence. Try to get rid of this concept of "accretion
to their lease". They have a lease of an area of land. that is what they have
under the lease. They may occupy another piece of land that is adjacent to the
land that they lease but it is a completely separate thing. When a title is
created by the lease, the only way that lease can be varied is by deed of

With regard to the hostility, there is
no magic solution. You cannot beat them with a stick regardless of how much you
would like to.

You can always be evicted until the land
is registered with you as proprietor.

I'm going for a little motorbike ride tomorrow while Mr blue sky is out
to play. I had a bike Rally (which I organise every year) last weekend and we
had 84 there. We had 85 the year before. We had 150 the year before that
(because Mr blue sky came too).

I will be on Monday.


Customer: replied 4 years ago.

Do I have a remedy via my lease...uploaded and on way to you?


Spent ages replying to you above but it all got lost!!

When replying or posting, Do it in Word and cut and paste. I learned that lesson 3 years ago.

If your lease grants you rights over this land, they cannot adversely possess it because they have to be able to exclude others to AP it and they cannot do that if you tramp all over it from time to time..

Off now till this eve.


Customer: replied 4 years ago.


Thank you so much

Customer: replied 4 years ago.

cool shades need a symbol with a crash helmet and ear muffs!

anyway that s the point do have to walk up and down the area from time to time.What if you didn't? What if someone had 12 years without anyone else exercising access?

the other thing is if someone who is a leaseholder spreads out beyond their boundary into their freeholders wider land...I don't think they can get their own title?

Customer: replied 4 years ago.

hello...can we stay here the other matter is for josh as it has a history.

No problem with the other matter. I will
opt out of it. It had just been waiting. I thought it was the same one.

Ignore the fact that the leaseholder may
have a piece of property.

There encroachment or adverse possession
is looked at in isolation.

It doesn't matter that they have an
adjacent lease or not if they decide to occupy Freehold land and do for the
necessary period, they can claim adverse possession.

However as I've said, they cannot
adversely possess it if other people use it because they are not able to
exclude all the people. The adverse possessor would have to prove that the
people with the right of access had not exercised that right for 10 years.

This is when it becomes complicated
because as you are aware, an easement does not cease to exist through non-use
and even if the court did grant adverse possession, it would be granted subject
to the easement.

Customer: replied 4 years ago.

Thank you.

WE ARE BEGINNING TO GET SOMEWHERE (Sorry shouting)..That would explain the proviso on the end of cautionary or possessory titles...which seemed to be a contradiction...since if someone has written rights of access a possessor does not have exclusive how could they get paper title? You say title is however qualified if someone comes forward with an interest or better title...(and hence insurance policies are advisable?).

But what about generalised rights of access as in my lease...say if the possessor claims access could be obtained by another route...but you would like to go via the route you had taken earlier? What if their forcible enclosure has not yet been in existence for even 10 years? But

they have made a start? I have an interest in the land in so far as that I would like to use it too. I believed it to be the maintenace area, part of our collective freeholder's land and communal. I accept the other properties in the terrace are not interested in using it as they have no relationship to it so there are just the two house-holds as would be users. I understood we were sharing it.

Would you look again at my lease as a potential spanner in their works please?

same thing applies with alternative routes.

because an easement is no longer needed (that's because there is an alternative
route), or is no longer used, the easement is not extinguished.

are only two ways of extinguishing an easement and they are by agreement in the
deed and by the dominant and servient land coming into the same ownership.

If you
own two pieces of land adjacent to each other you cannot have an easement
yourself over your own land.

there are forcible enclosure has not been in existence for 10 years and the
freeholder (in your case) objects then they lose the right and the ten-year
period starts all over again from day one.

on this basis, I think that you are sharing it also.

lease refers to an area edged pink, but I do not know which area is pink. Would
appear to be just the house area. There is then another area which is the land
down the side and what looks like the small passage, but that is not referred
to in the rights which are granted on the first page of the lease. The second
paragraph of the rights simply refers to all roads impacts on the estate for
the purposes of access to and the egress from the demised premises.

reference to the plan, exactly which bit is it that they are claiming?

Customer: replied 4 years ago.

(You have the plan?

Was that sent via Maureen? The uploading doesn't work had been fine and was brill. Might you be able to mention another customer raised the issue ...I think they want nagging.

I was grateful for your suggestion re cut and paste but I have'nt worked that one out yet...don't trust it or the way material disappears and you can't see it! I haven't yet succeeded in moving it ...unless there's a friend standing over me saying press this do that.....etc!)


If you can see the lease plan ...the area they are claiming is the long thin triangle behind the garages. The base of the triangle is behind the middle property - thats mine. The area in question, this triangle, is adjacent to theirs. Theirs being the higher numbered property with the long garden.

The lease plan differs from the land registry plan. It must be an alteration from build. I think the actual angle of the garages is not the same as the plan so if tracing paper is used and you put the garage arrangement over the map my garden is wider...I think that s it. I will ask the Surveyor again. I did send you the LR plans before. Think the question is locked now. How to send them again....frustration. PLEASE would the site address this. I am not wanting an explanation...but a cure!

The neighbour tried to alter things to make their garden wider. The result was that from an open plan arrangement a fence was installed over the tread of a set of steps. This made the steps hazardous. You have to reach across a void to reach the handle and the elderly resident kept falling down. This was quite difficult. It seems to me that any fence needs to be sited safely and preferably to one side of the drain. ...(but which side?) . Though I got welsh water to come out and they can manage access with the fence part way as there is a gap beneath.

If my are trying to claim a bit I cross but am not occupying can I not plant something to establish sharing or can the tresspassers (over the residual freeholders land) stop me as they are using it predominantly?

It is still open.

This is beginning
to make more sense, slowly. So the triangle of land is still owned by the

Are the steps at
the fat end of the triangle?

Have they indeed
occupied the land for 10 years or more?

Have you occupied
it. During that time?

Is the freeholder

Customer: replied 4 years ago.

both contending properties are now freeholders...but the residual freeholder (who previously owned the whole lot) RETAINS (probably relunctantly): 1) the garage fore-court, 2) the registered communal path, 3) the unregistered path to the back of each garage and 4) this triangle (which includes (3) above.

The freeholder of my property, a friend, has incorporated the lease, which you have seen(now locked but maybe they'd let you in?) into his upgraded freehold. The other neighbour claims their lease was lost and it is unmentioned in their freehold, by error of land reg their lease was not registered (it was prob the same as mine). The issue of mistake is with josh.


There is a set of steps at the far end intended to give my neighbour access to her garage (though they are cutting through behind us). There was a piece of stone which formed a step up onto the wider part of the triangle base. I sent you a pic of that lay out and a pic of the blocking off trellis thereafter.


The residual freeholder is expectant that we will resolve this between ourselves....having been stung elsewhere...and has refused to get involved.


I do not know what happened before me but there was an overgrown bush which another leaseholder wanted cut down. It had not blocked the way entirely as I had got thro and had been told by the LR that I had an easement from his deduction of the lease.


I regularly circulated around the area.

The raised bit was blocked off by fencing in 2003 expressly to stop me. The lower path has remained open and gives me access...but I wish to resume going via the way I could when I came here in 1999. ..since after 12 years of occupation the access via the end steps could be closed off as they have title at that end.


I need
you to do me a favour, please. Can you do me a big plan of the area in
question, so I can see what is where because it is difficult for me to see who
is trying to get access over what or where the steps are or where the gate and
the catch is that you have to put your hand over looking at such a tiny plan?

Customer: replied 4 years ago.

ok sorry for the difficulty.

Hope you and sooty et al are all well.

Could I impose upon you to send me the blue (live) links to HMCS forms for wales





Many thanks

No probs. You will get them all from this link.
Customer: replied 4 years ago.

Thank you so much...but could you possibly send a 'live' link (the blue script connecting me direct) ?

Many many thanks indeed

All I do is put the form number into that link. Doesn't it
work? You might have to cut and paste into yr browser to get this

This is what it gives me.




There is no 402

Customer: replied 4 years ago.


I now have an application notice and an application for an injunction.

Also notes to complete idea what the other (402) was supposed to be.

So an injunction stops time running? That is the correct way to interrupt another's claim to land in which one has an interest?


Please NB

this thread has gone over the usual Just Answer length by many posts, I no
longer get notification that you are waiting. So If I don't happen to notice, I
might not reply for some length of time


injunction does whatever it is that you have applied for an injunction for.

So, if
someone else is using the land, it stops them using it to pending determination
regarding their application at a land tribunal.

could stop them chopping a tree down moving or moving a fence.

can be interim or permanent. So it could be a temporary measure pending a full
hearing or it could tell someone to stop doing it full stop.

It can
also compel people to do things such as, if they have removed a fence, feedback.

is whole legal subject on it's own

Stuart J and other UK Property Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 4 years ago.

is it maybe unwise to include a third person on the same form of injunction as the primary subject?

maybe I should first write asking them to desist?

Always ask them to cease and desist 1st.


On a different note:


I took one of the cats to the vets the
day before yesterday.


This is Smudge, a black and white cat
with no tail that I got from rescue about three or four years ago.


We don't know how he lost his tail and
it wasn't docked because the vet said that if he had an anaesthetic to remove
the tail (perhaps because of trauma) they would have put his nuts off at the same
time and he was not nutless at that time.


We don't know who he belonged to but
he was found tied to a fence with an electrical wire that had cut deep into his


He has always been very timid but
likes being stroked and tickled under the chin but lacerates your hands if you
try to pick him up.


He is short hair but lately he has not
been cleaning himself and his first has gone in lumps and his mouth has been
dirty. Signs of bad teeth, although his breath wasn't anything out of the
ordinary and he was eating although sometimes when he was eating he did turn
his head on one side as though he was chewing on one side of his mouth.


Anyway, I took him to the vets day before
yesterday and he has some gum disease and some Tartar and a couple of teeth
that needed removing so he stayed in the night before last night to have that
done yesterday today.

I had a phone call from the vets
yesterday afternoon and there is a lot of tenderness under his tongue and which
they think is a tumour.


The prognosis is not good and I will
have the result of the biopsy in a week. The vet said not to hold my breath
because she has seen enough of these in her time to be almost certain it is a malignant
tumour but she wanted to be sure before putting him to sleep, on the off chance
that it was just the spread of the gum disease. I think the writing is on the
wall for poor Smudge.


She said that if it is malignant, then
within weeks, he will find difficulty eating and it would not be fair put him
through that and wait that long. I must admit, his "personal hygiene"
and his general visual persona has gone down the tubes in the last couple of
weeks although he has been as bright as a button otherwise. The difficulty of
course is having to put a cat to sleep which outwardly looks fine but is
inwardly extremely poorly, and will be extremely poorly outwardly if things are
left to go their natural course.

Ironically enough, he has never eaten
as much as he did yesterday. He ate five pouches of food!


Anyway, that was my yesterday.


Customer: replied 4 years ago.

Oh dear L, I am so sorry.

Poor Smudge.

This is a difficult call for you and of course you must decide what to do. Are you in any way relunctant or ambivalent about taking his Life?

I don't want to comment if you are clear about how to proceed and would not wish to shake your resolve about such a difficult task. It would be unhelpful. But if you were to invite my modest thoughts on the matter I would share them.

you. I love them all dearly but would not want them to suffer.

I will
know when the time is right.

this stage, while he is bright and eating he is fine. When he starts to
noticeably go downhill, that is the time. At that stage, I would not hesitate
to make the decision.

To be
honest, if the result had been certain when they took the biopsy and he was under
anaesthetic for his teeth, I would have told them to let him go then. But it isn't fair if there is small chance it isn't malignant

crossed it's negative, but I am not putting money on it

Customer: replied 4 years ago.

oh good luck with the results. I shall be on tender hooks (is that the correct expression?)


My applic for injunction has been returned to me. I must tick

is it


- by applic in pending proceedings


- under stat prov


- under part 8 CPR


also does it raise issues under human rights act 1998?



or none of the above. I ticked nothing but applic returned to me for completion.

Customer: replied 4 years ago.

How is Smudge?

Still bright and breezy?

Good morning. Thank you for asking.
Smudge is eating me out of house and home. He ate five packets the other day so is clearly feeling better by having his mouth done.
That did say however that if it is malignant, he will go downhill quite quickly.
We shall just see.
You have learnt a valuable lesson and something which many solicitors do all the time. Firstly, if you ring the court when asked for advice, they will tell you they can’t give legal advice. I agree that they cannot give legal advice but they can tell you how to fill the forms are! That isn’t legal advice that admin.
So what you do, you complete the form as best you can, Sandy Tim and they send it back telling you what needs doing. The same thing happens with the land Registry.
There are no human rights issues as nobody is being deported back country where they are going to have their fingernails ripped out.
There are no current proceedings (are there?) proceedings to which this injunction relates. For example you are not suing someone for money and fearful that they are going to do a runner with the funds so you want to freeze their bank account in that case, there are current proceedings.
They are not failing to comply with any statutory order.
So that just leaves one which is part 8 application
Stuart J and other UK Property Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
Please would you be so kind as to help me prepare to bring an injunction. Then it may not need to be brought if that makes sense.Or it will be successful if warranted. Here is my perspective.
I have two neighbours on either side who have tried to change the boundaries in place when we both came. And registered at the Land REg showing mine as the wider at the expense of both of theirs. It was my intention to try to deal with them one at a time with the priority on restoring my access to an unregistered area. Your colleague josh helpfully pointed out that they have to prove the land is theirs. However they are behaving like a gang. But would I have a chance against a gang and their solicitor on my own in a court of law?
My first effort failed. He was lecturing me about giving up.
Due to a misunderstanding that i had to make the application in person it was treated as ex parte.
I would like my neighbours at the higher no to remove obstructions to an unregistered area. And another time? to get the other to leave my fence in parallel with hers.
What right did the woman on the lower side have to lay hands on my fence? Four times now she has removed it. The first incident amounted to criminal damage but nothing was done.
Please don't tell me I have to put up with this