A landowner who does not want to be seen to dedicate land as public highways must take some positive steps to demonstrate non-assignment, and that a reasonable user of the highway would have been that the landowner did not have public highways – Section 31 (3) Highways Act 1980. The traditional approach of a landowner blocking a door once a year to prevent the user from refuting the dedication is no longer a good law if the public had not used the path of such a day. This was seen in the case of Ali v Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs 2015 – the case involved a store and commercial outlet lane. The owner of the alley closed the doors to prevent users during the Christmas holidays. Such an act did not refute the presumption of dedication, since users would not have used it anyway, as stores and stores were closed. The intention not to dedicate one`s country must be clearly communicated to the public by unannounced acts. This is evident from the House of Lords in two decisive decisions taken in 2007 (Applications of Godmanchester Town Council and Drain) concerning the application of Section 31 (dedation and adoption). The intention of the landowner not to devote himself must be clearly communicated so that a reasonable user of the track understands that the track was not intended for public use. The test is objective (what a reasonable user would have thought) – the subjective opinions of landowners or users are absolutely irrelevant. In these cases, the applicants had asked their borough council to amend the final card and declaration to add a public priority right. In any event, the landowners challenged the claims – Godmanchester – the landowner complained to the Council and complained of illegal faults, while the owner of the land in Drain complained that the tenant occupying the land had not prevented access to access in violation of the lease. In neither case, such measures (which the landowners argued that you were rebuttal measures for the implicit dedication) were not appropriate, as they would not have been taken by a reasonable user of the route.
In both cases, the applicants were able to have the final map and declaration amended to include the paths. Conflicts arise if there is no explicit dedication and acceptance. It works as follows There is a widespread misunderstanding with land registry title plans. They do not indicate the exact position of the boundaries of a property. Indeed, our land registry system, unlike our continental counterparts, is based on the principle of `general borders` to which we referred in the 1.4 of our accompanying title report and in our border guidelines.