A MAN who was accused of stealing part of his OWN garden by the council has won £30,000.
Christopher Pinto, 77, allegedly changed his back garden boundaries to encroach on Parkland Walk nature reserve in Highgate, north London.
4
4
Haringey Council subjected him to years of legal threats over the piece of land measuring around 460 sq ft at the bottom of his garden.
But a tribunal found earlier this year in the retired magistrate’s favour, ordering Haringey to pay him £32,000 in costs.
Judge Roger Cohen at the Land Registration tribunal in central London ruled Mr Pinto as the rightful owner.
Despite this ruling, the authority failed to pay on time, forcing him to seek a further court judgement.
It has since coughed up, blaming the delay on “an administrative error”, but the cost to taxpayers of Haringey’s own legal fees is yet to be calculated.
Mr Pinto said: “It’s been hell. Haringey made outlandish statements without producing a shred of evidence to me or the court.
“They don’t care about what they are putting people through. It was a huge emotional stress, very time-consuming and a great expense.
“I replaced the old fence, but in exactly the same place. The boundary clearly had changed at some point, but not by me and not by the owner before me either, as stated in his legal document.”
Most read in Money
A conservation group set up to look after the woodland now says it raised concerns over the council’s pursuit of Mr Pinto, but was assured the council was in the right.
Mr Pinto bought his home, that backs onto the nature reserve, in 2004.
In 2012, the Friends of Parkland Walk (FPW) said it carried out a boundary review with Haringey Council, in which a concern was raised about the position of Mr Pinto’s back garden fence.
However he was not contacted by the authority until 2016, when he was told of the possible encroachment.
A year later the council became more forceful, telling him he was “unlawfully occupying” 42.5 sq m of the nature reserve and if he did not “vacate” it he would be taken to court where the council would seek “damages and costs”.
Land Registry documents showed the garden boundary was indeed different to the boundaries on the deeds, but Mr Pinto described the area at issue as “a tiny wedge of land at the bottom of my garden”.
Mr Pinto took Haringey to a tribunal, arguing the land was rightfully his under “adverse possession” rules where occupants can seek ownership of land occupied for at least 12 years without challenge.
What is Adverse Possession?
Adverse possession describes a legal concept where someone who does not have legal title to land and who did not buy it can become its legal owner.
They do this by possessing it for a long enough period to override the interests of the original owner.
It is called adverse possession because it goes against the concept that someone who occupies land should either legally own it or have permission from the legal owner.
Adverse possession can apply to a piece of land, a house or a flat.
If you find someone has taken possession of some land you own or believe you own without permission, you should take legal advice.
You should also report it to the police, especially if the property is residential, as their actions may constitute a criminal offence.
It is a bad idea to try and forcibly evict someone who has taken possession of your land without taking legal advice.
In some cases, you could be breaking the law.
Source: Property Investments UK
The council countered that Mr Pinto had not only stolen the land, but had tried to hide it by erecting a tall fence, describing it as a “deliberate and premeditated land grab”.
But a contractor who worked on the garden shortly after Mr Pinto moved in gave evidence that he simply built a new fence in place of the old one.
Mr Pinto also produced a legal form signed by the previous owner in 2004, stating that the boundary had not changed for at least 20 years.
He branded the council “dishonest, inefficient and uncaring” after it subjected him to years of legal threats, then failed to pay up after he won his case.
At the hearing, Judge Cohen found there was “nothing” to support the council’s claims that Mr Pinto had stolen the land or tried to conceal it – claims which had “put his integrity in issue”.
He said Mr Pinto’s belief that he owned the land was “inherently credible and backed up by documentation” and he declared Mr Pinto the rightful owner.
Friends of Parkland Walk said its members “voiced their concern that public resources would be expended on the case” and “sought assurances” that it was “a good case”.
A spokesman for FPW said: “Council officers and the legal department indicated it was confident in its lawful position.”
The group was therefore disappointed by the outcome, adding: “Whether lawfully or unlawfully, Mr Pinto has acquired, at no cost to himself and for his personal use or benefit, a portion of a nature reserve that belonged to Haringey and therefore to its residents.”
Mr Pinto said the legal process had in fact cost him “an awful lot of money”, not all of which was recouped by the court’s costs order. He said he was still over £10,000 out of pocket.
But Haringey Council stood by its decision-making and was “disappointed” by the outcome.
A spokesman for the authority said: “We defended this case at the tribunal as we believed that we had a good case, backed up by witness testimony and photographic evidence.
“While we were disappointed with the decision of the tribunal, we nonetheless accept the outcome.”
It added: “Parkland Walk is a unique green space which gives residents unparalleled access to nature right in the heart of London.
“We take our role as custodians of this space extremely seriously. That includes acting to prevent encroachment from neighbouring properties, which is in line with our legal obligations to protect the integrity of the nature reserve.”
4
4
