At Taylor Emmet our specialist Inheritance Tracing team advise on intestate estates, when someone has died without leaving a valid Will. In many of these situations, the estate (including any property) may remain unadministered for months or even years. Unfortunately, when an estate is left unattended, particularly where no one is actively managing or securing the property, it becomes vulnerable to a range of legal and practical issues.
One of these issues is adverse possession, where individuals may acquire legal title to land/property through long-term occupation. The recent landmark Court of Appeal decision in Nazir v Begum makes it clear that “statutory trusts” do not prevent adverse possession. So what does this mean for long term empty properties and what can be done?
What is adverse possession?
Adverse possession allows someone to acquire legal title to land they occupy without permission. There are certain elements a person has to satisfy under the Land Registration Act 2002 which include having physical control and occupation of land and an intention to possess the land for at least 10 years.
How can this impact intestate estates?
Section 33 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 establishes a statutory trust during estate administration which has certain specific characteristics that don’t necessary align with other types of trust.
The trust created under Section 33 is a mechanism for administering the estate, but it is not a traditional trust with a separation of legal and beneficial ownership. The Land Registration Act 2002 often disqualifies adverse possession if the land in question is “subject to a trust” but only in cases where beneficiaries have interests in possession, which a statutory trust created under this Act does not have.
Nazir v Begum
The facts of the case in Nazir v Begum follow that Mr Nazir died intestate in 2010. His land was occupied by his neighbour, Mrs Begum, for more than 10 years. The estate was left unadministered for a significant period. It was only in 2019 that the Personal Representatives obtained Letters of Administration, allowing them to take steps to deal with the property. Once Letters of Administration were obtained, Mrs Begum applied for adverse possession over the land she occupied.
Both the High Court and Court of Appeal in this case held that the statutory trust created under the Administration of Estates Act did not amount to a conventional trust and therefore the protection under the Land Registration Act 2002 would not apply. Mrs Begum’s claim was therefore successful meaning she was able to claim adverse possession of the land and the Estate of Mr Nazir had no right to the land, impacting the value of the Estate.
Preventative actions and how to reduce risk
- Act swiftly. Personal Representatives should apply for Letters of Administration without delay.
- Monitor the land. Personal Representatives should visit the property, inspect boundaries and engage with neighbours.
- Seek legal advice early.
How our team can help
Intestate estates can be complex and cases like Nazir v Begum show that delay or inaction can lead to significant and irreversible financial loss, particularly where property is involved. At Taylor Emmet, our specialist team is experienced in navigating the unique challenges of intestacy and we work proactively to ensure estates are administered efficiently, reducing the chance of claims arising from unauthorised occupation. Nazir v Begum represents a crucial warning that intestate estates are not protected from adverse possession threats during administration.
Speak to our team of experts
0114 218 4200