The new land owner wants to evict me because he says my property is annexed

[oberon]

Hi Approximately 30 years ago I purchased a wooden building which was on stilts from the previous owner who had a licence 'to maintain on site the existing temporary building'

Although I thought I owned the building because it was purchased from the previous owner for which I had a receipt, I realised I did not own the land as I only had a licence to occupy the site.

This piece of land has now changed hands and the new land owner is claiming possession of my building because he says it is annexed to his land and that because the land and building are as one he is claiming the freehold ownership.

He doesn't accept the building is a temporary building which I can take off the site because he is claiming some deconstruction would be required although there are firms who nowadays could remove it from site in one piece.

can he actually claim freehold of my building like this after such a long time I have only lived there on a part time basis but do I have the right to remain in occupation?

[davidjohnbutton]

If the original owner of the land gave your predecessor a licence to erect a building at his (the predecessor)'s own cost and that licence has been assigned properly to you - I cannot thus see that the new owner of the land has any title to the building.

Your right to remain in occupation will be determined by the original and successive licence. If the new owner want to remove you and there is part of the licence left to run - this may well be his way of "getting you out" whereas you might have the legal right to stay.

[oberon]

Hi David

This is quite a complicated problem because I don't know how many people previously owned the building but the one before me had a licence which said

The licence granted is to maintain on site of the owner the existing temporary building.

So I don't know if the building originally belonged to the land owner or whether the land owner gave someone permission to errect it and because of the fact there were no deeds there doesn't seem to be a way of finding out who the original owner of the building was.

And to make matters worse I have never had a licence agreement as such but have been paying for a licence to be allowed to keep a building on the Site but the new land owner is trying to claim ownership of my building because he says it is annexed to his land and as such the land and building are as one.

The fact I bought the building from the previous owner of the building doesn't seem to count either with him or apparently in law.

[Poppy]

You need to sort out ownership of this temporary building pronto. If you cannot figure that out from the documents in your possession to the mutual satisfaction of yourself and the freeholder, then you will have to pay for a solicitor to get the question answered. I don't think this is the sort of question forum members can answer without seeing your documents.

Do you actually live in this temporary building or is it for commercial use?

What do you want to happen ultimately? Do you want to move the building elsewhere? Do you want to continue with the licence?

[Markonee1]

If you're not living under the agreement of an Agricultural/business agreement then its residential. If that is the case then it could be argued that the license was created to avoid giving rights that would exist under leases and rent acts. It was certainly the case in the 1990's that these licenses would be given their true identity ie a lease and possibly a perpetual one. Although you say you don't have an agreement. The landowners previous acceptance of payment is a recognition of your right to be there. I suggest you do some research in distinguishing true licenses from sham licenses (leases)
All my oppinion only (pinch of salt required)
Regards
Mark