There was no verbal agreement between Giles and Lidstone.
***Sure there was. It was closed down as soon as the bureaucrat was gonna start charging money.
As I wrote, the devil is in the details. In your case, it was “admitted by both sides.”
***I knew you would focus on that. The ISSUE before the JUDGE was whether the verbal agreement stuff PRIOR TO THE verbal thing admitted by both sides was admissible and it WAS. You just blithely go over that aspect.
In your case, it was “admitted by both sides.” This is not the case in the instance of Giles v. Lidstone. That’s why the court ordered Lidstone to vacate the property.
***The case with G vs L is that it’s obvious there was no permission to live there, moving forward from about 2016.
Giles said that Lidstone did not have permission to be there and the court ruled in his favor.
***From 2016 onwards. But the court did NOT assess squatting fees going back 23 more years.
Lidstone was unable to provide evidence to support his claim.
***Not from 2016 onwards.
It’s pretty cut and dried.
***From 2016 onwards. What you are NOT looking at is the 23 years prior to 2016. The judge assessed no squatting fees because there was a verbal agreement in place and the plaintiff did nothing to mitigate his supposed losses.
No, there wasn't. The proof is in Lidstone's own statements.
He claimed he had an agreement with the property's original owner, not Giles. Yet, the property has been in Giles' family since 1963.
Giles family owned the property for 31 years before Lidstone started squatting on it 27 years ago.
Why didn't Lidstone name Giles as the person with whom he had the verbal agreement? Because he's lying. How do we know he's lying?
Because he claims the house he's lived in continuously for the last 27 years isn't really a 'house.' It's a 'hunting/fishing camp' therefore it's exempt from local zoning ordinances.