Hands Off Hartlebury Common

#621: -

I'm glad its clear to you, the title you refer to is not proof of good title as you say. Title exists, in the context of ownership as a statment of propretorial rights. The title you refer to is from a list of former interested- keepers- parties that is all. The issue of ownership IS important in a claim such as this where, to carry out works and to bring about civil actions, then title is pivotal.

This is important in this case because of the claim of ownership of a common, not just some peice of ordainary land. Any former claim to ownership is bogus because a common cannott be bought or sold and at the time in question, it would have been illegal for WCC to own the common anyway. It is not for us to prove that they have not title but for them to prove they have in a proper setting.

Since the "purchase" from the church commissionars was in the early 60's the ownership documents should be evident. To suggest that they might have been thrown away is laughable.

Back to basics though, a claim of title at the land registry does not prove ownership. WCC have simply assumed the rights of ownership. There was nothing wrong with our legal representation, just the circumstances of where we were.

Steve McCarron