Builder took over an empty house and now sold it for 540K.

GrannyGrunter that law had been in place for centuries and I do not remember in the many decades of my life before it was changed that we saw a wholesale takeover of vacant properties by sqyuatters who claimed them as their own.

A property may attract squatters if it is empty for aa while, but owners have always had legal rights to eveict them.To get the rights this builder claimed you need to do what the owner of this property did, go away, leave it, never visit it, or maintain it for decades and do nothing when a squatter moves in.

Remember, if you hand something into a police station that you have found in the road - a large sum of money, valuable watch or jewellry. a work of art even, if after a certain length of time the true owner has not claimed it back, then the police will give the item to you as your property.

Here is a link to what you can do with property you find notlost.com/the-definitive-guide-to-lost-property-laws-in-the-uk/

The rules applying to this house essentially follow the same broad principles that govern other lost property.

Remember the owner of this house had 12 years when he could have visited the house, done something to assert his ownership, ie applied to administer his mother's estate, he could have kept the property in good order. He chose to do none of these things.

This is nothing new GrannyGrunter. The law of adverse possession is centuries old. And if anyone is so daft as to abandon a house for ten years they deserve to lose it to someone who will use it.

GrannyGrunter

It just goes to show what an Ass the legal system is. I can see what is going to happen, any houses that are standing empty will be taken over by the homeless thinking if they stay there long enough the house will be theirs.

Why shouldn't it be theirs if a house isn't claimed within ten or so years?

grandtanteJE65.
just why are you discussing this?

It just goes to show what an Ass the legal system is. I can see what is going to happen, any houses that are standing empty will be taken over by the homeless thinking if they stay there long enough the house will be theirs.

Which is the better neighbour? someone who never comes near a house, and lets it go to rack and ruin, lets it become rat infested and overgrown, causing real problems and distress to immediate neighbours, possibly maaking their houses unsaleable

Or the squatter who rescues the property, looks after it, improves it and saves neighbours for the problems described in the para above?

Reading this I wonder what all the fuss is about.

Mr. Curtis was presumably in his right mind when he moved, and if not he had a court appointed guardian. If the man or his representative did not know how to go about selling a house, or making sure that a squatter did not move into it, that is really their fault.

Squatting is not acceptable, but the squatter in question was apparently able later to apply for permission to legally take over the house.

So why are we discussing this?

If I go out and leave my front door unlocked and someone walks in and steals some of my property, I cannot legally do a thing about it - it is my reponsiblity to lock my doors when I leave home. Likewise, if I decided to go away for three days, or three months, I obviously need a trusted friend to keep an eye on my property.

Mr Curtis owned the sheltered accommodation flat he lived in, so he wouldn't have had to declare the second home to anyone.

Apparently, he inherited it from a relative who died, so he moved in and just locked up his former house.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3601741/Squatter-stole-pensioner-s-three-bedroom-house-blessing-law-cost-250-000.html

This is the timeline, according to the DM article:

Late 1980s – Doris Curtis dies without a will.
1996 – Son (Colin Curtis) moves out into sheltered accommodation.
1997 – Best starts work on house.
2012 – Best moves into house with his family.
2014 – Best becomes legal owner of house.
2018 – Colin Curtis dies.

It all seems weird. Colin Curtis lived in the house for 8 years after his mother died, although it would appear the house didn't legally belong to him.

Did he try to get the paperwork sorted out during that time? Even though his mother didn't leave a will, I would have thought it would have been relatively straightforward to claim possession if there were no other children/claimants.

Curtis moved into sheltered accommodation in 1996. We don't actually know that he claimed means-tested benefits or what he wrote on his application form for the flat. For all I know, he could have been disabled and not have been able to cope with a big house and I don't know whether renting the flat was conditional on not having any assets. It seems that there's some pearl clutching going on here, without knowing all the facts.

Mr Best moved in in 2012 - 15 years after he started work on the house. Why on earth didn't Mr Curtis take some action to claim the house between 1996 and 2012? Did he have some kind of cognitive impairment? If so, didn't somebody have Power of Attorney or some kind of oversight of his finances?

Why has it all been dragged into the public eye now? (Including many posts on a "patriots'" site, which have pointed out (for those who hadn't spotted it) that Mr Curtis is white and Mr Best is black and has framed it as black furriners stealing an honest white man's house.

I think there's a bit more behind this than a badly written article claims.

The house would not have been worth £540,000, but for all the work the builder did. After nearly 30 years of neglect, it would only have been fit for demoition and its value would be site value only, less the cost of site clearance, say £100,000 max.

I don’t know where you get your information from lemsip, but apparently he was last seen at the house in 1996. He had lived in sheltered accommodation for some years before his death. By the time this case was decided - and yes, it is an old one but don’t let that stop the DM reporting it - the builder had been in possession of the house for at least ten years. At no time during that period had Curtis claimed the house. The builder was by no means doing the work on the house secretively. At any time during that ten year period Curtis could have taken action but he didn’t - presumably because he never visited the house.

Curtis quite deliberately did nothing about the house and didn’t declare it's existence! ...... what?


he would have been visited at his home which is the house in question, and interviewed by the benefits people to say ' he didn't declare it's existence' is false.

Now I really am confused.

At the beginning of the article, it states,

"Mr Curtis, who passed away aged 80 in 2018".

The article later states,

"Speaking after losing his case, Mr Curtis fumed: 'It's not fair. The law is an ass. It's like someone getting in your car then saying it's theirs because they're sitting in it.' "

I'm not quite sure when he lost his case, but it must have been before 2018. Why is the DM reporting a case, which must be at least five years ago?

I agree growstuff. It doesn’t add up but the legal position is clear. The house most certainly wasn’t ‘snatched from him’ - he abandoned it with the result that after ten years of possession it was lawfully acquired by someone else. I have seen no suggestion that he was of unsound mind.

Germanshepherdsmum

Thanks for the link growstuff. This was when squatting was criminalised. However that did not prevent a squatter from acquiring ownership as was demonstrated in this case. The law of adverse possession has not been abolished. In the case of registered land proof of possession for ten years without acknowledgment of the title of the owner is required. If the land is unregistered, twelve.

The simple fact is that Curtis was never the owner of the property because he took no steps to administer his late mother’s estate. It’s odd that the ‘heir hunters’ didn’t get involved, but perhaps a quick search showed that the mother had a living son and they didn’t do anything more because they wouldn’t have got a fee.

A very unusual set of circumstances but, typically, sensationalised by the DM with talk of the house having been ‘stolen’. When did they let facts get in the way of a story though?

OK! I get it now (I think).

Thank you for your explanations GSM. It does seem that the whole story hasn't been revealed.

If the owner had wanted to move into sheltered accommodation, he could have sold the house and bought somewhere in a sheltered housing complex without any scrutinising of his assets for means-tested benefits and he would have had more security.

There's something about this story which doesn't seem to add up.

No ‘maybe’ about it. He made no attempt to administer his mother’s estate, which would have resulted in the house belonging to him. He was in receipt of benefits as his income was considerably in excess of the SP - and obviously made no mention of this house which could so easily have belonged to him.

He moved into his mothers home after a divorce. His mother eventually died and he continued living there.. eventually being moved into sheltered housing.. maybe paperwork for house wasn't transferred, who knows! to leave a house empty is not good. Maybe he was in bad health with no one to help and advise. snatched from him while people looked on!

Jane43

I am wondering how the original owner of the home was granted sheltered housing when he owned his own home. We have started researching options for the years ahead as we just turned 80 and we have assumed sheltered housing won’t be an option for us as we own our own home and if we sell it we will have too much capital to apply.

My mother moved into what I would describe as sheltered housing when she could no longer manage independently in her own home. It was a bedsit with facilities to make breakfast and drinks. Lunch and High Tea were provided in a communal dining room and there was a warden and a residents lounge. . I was able to visit and book a guest room and there were laundry facilities. My mum continued to pay her old cleaners to clean her bedsit and do her laundry and they did similar things for some of the other residents. Essentially it was less than a residential home but more than independent living.
Meanwhile we let out her house and the rent we received was more than the fees for her accommodation so she was in a good situation financially. I don't know if there were any restrictions on who could live there as my brother sorted things out when she moved as he was local and I was 200 miles away. I think you just had to join a waiting list and wait until a room became available.

No, exactly the same rules apply Maizie. In the case of land, someone wanting to claim ownership by adverse possession must have fenced it off so as to demonstrate an intention to possess it to the exclusion of everyone else. There must be actual and obvious possession, not just use, and it must be ‘adverse’ to the rights of the lawful owner. In the case of a house, the claimant might not have been actually living in it for the whole of the required period but must show an intention to possess to the exclusion of the rightful owner throughout that period - Best was very openly renovating the house before living in it, obviously with the intention of claiming it and not as an act of charity, and during that period he would doubtless have kept the house secure, thus demonstrating the necessary intention to possess and to exclude others.

Most people who think they have inherited a house would want to live in it or sell it, in the case of land they would seek to use or sell it, so this is a very unusual case. Curtis quite deliberately did nothing about the house and didn’t declare its existence when seeking benefits.

Oh, another question. Is the law on adverse possession different when it involves a house rather than a piece of land?

Some years ago our little community had to deal with someone trying to claim a small piece of land by adverse possession. It couldn't be accepted because there had been no attempt to keep the general public off the land during the claimed period. (In fact the land was unfenced and had been used by the local community for various purposes during the period) Would this apply to someone occupying a house, too?

Thanks for that GSM. I suspect you're probably correct in your assumption.

It’s clear that he just abandoned the property - otherwise he would have been aware of what was going on. Presumably his mother’s estate didn’t consist solely of the house - she would have had some money, no matter how little, household effects, maybe some jewellery. How did he deal with these? Unfortunately we don’t know the facts. But if he genuinely thought he owned his mother’s house without need to administer her estate why was he living on £261 pw pension and tax credits? He could have sold the house (which would have involved getting a grant of letters of administration to his mother’s estate) and lived in greater comfort but seems to have totally ignored it. I believe there is more to this than we will ever know - my suspicion is that he was estranged from his mother and wanted nothing to do with her estate until he discovered that someone else had renovated the house and was claiming ownership.

Poppyred

Jane43

I am wondering how the original owner of the home was granted sheltered housing when he owned his own home. We have started researching options for the years ahead as we just turned 80 and we have assumed sheltered housing won’t be an option for us as we own our own home and if we sell it we will have too much capital to apply.

Where we live, quite a few people have sold houses and been given an “ old people’s bungalow”. I don’t know how it’s justified.

There are so few of them in our area I would hope they are allocated on need.

The simple fact is that Curtis was never the owner of the property because he took no steps to administer his late mother’s estate.

This is what is interesting me, GSM. Unless someone has consulted a solicitor would they know that they had to register as an administrator in order to have legal control of the estate. The judge in the court case made it clear that the son had no legal standing because he hadn't registered.

One would probably assume that being a direct descendant of the deceased the property automatically became theirs.

I'm only fixing on this because I think that it's an important consideration that people should be aware of if they are in the same position.