Does it appear that ownership of half of the book on your side was excluded from the first registration at the Land Registry?
Is the landowner on the opposite side of the brook shown as owning all the brook?
If not, who is the registered owner of the brook?
Have you got any title deed to the brook and do you know if it’s registered or not registered?
On what basis does the objector claim he has these rights over this piece of stream? Does he live adjacent to it?
What also assists you is the fact that the rest of the stream is registered to you which would imply that this part should be also.
If you don’t have sufficient proof to satisfy the land registry for registration, then it is the application for adverse possession. It’s still a land tribunal job.
Can I clarify anything else for you?
Please rate the service positive. It is an important part of the process by which experts get paid. It does not cost you anything but helps us greatly.
It is an interesting point.
You could certainly threaten the proceedings but I’m not convinced they would succeed in court. It would depend whether the neighbour had done this simply to be a pain in all your sides whether he has a genuine reason for objecting.
There is a legal test with regard to any intervention like this called the “but for” test. For something happening but for someone doing for someone not doing something, XYZ would not have happened. You could argue that but for his objection you would not have been flooded because the flood alleviation scheme would have gone ahead.
You can tell him in your legal threat that if the properties are flooded as a result of the scheme failing to go ahead because of his objection, you would be suing him for the cost of the remediation. That kind of lawsuit would probably lead to his bankruptcy if it went ahead assuming of course that he could fund it in the interim.
Unless he is a multimillionaire, seven against one are not good financial odds even if the claim is not a particularly good claim.
You could do that now and say exactly that. If there are 7 families involved, the legal costs divided by seven is going to be far more attractive the legal costs paid by one! However any family that doesn’t join in any potential litigation is still going to get the benefit of any positive outcome without having the burden of a negative outcome.
He is probably jealous!
I think you probably have enough with that tape to go to the police.
I think you certainly have enough to win at the land tribunal.
I wouldn’t be that bothered about being taken to court over it because recording someone’s voice is not actually illegal. After all, what’s he going to do? Get an injunction to stop you doing it again? He hasn’t suffered any loss as a result and English law is not punitive.
I think any judge would have very little sympathy for him particularly in view of the content.