• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

House Built In A Day

Kondoru said:
I found this from Dartmoor, but the idea of a squatter getting rights to land by building a house on it in a day seems more widespread
Click to expand...

lt’s not true, but it suits a certain mentality to believe it.

lt is possible to gain ownership of land by having lived on it unchallenged for many years, but one has to announce one’s intention to claim ownership legally after that time, at which point any lawful owner can challenge you.

https://www.gov.uk/squatting-law/squatters-rights-to-property

lt was one of those wrong-but-commonly-believed tales as far back as Elizabethan times, that if you could build a house on land overnight, the land became yours. This myth derives from a Welsh belief called Tŷ unnos, or “house in a night”:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tŷ_unnos

maximus otter
 
maximus otter said:
lt’s not true, but it suits a certain mentality to believe it.

lt is possible to gain ownership of land by having lived on it unchallenged for many years, but one has to announce one’s intention to claim ownership legally after that time, at which point any lawful owner can challenge you.

https://www.gov.uk/squatting-law/squatters-rights-to-property

lt was one of those wrong-but-commonly-believed tales as far back as Elizabethan times, that if you could build a house on land overnight, the land became yours. This myth derives from a Welsh belief called Tŷ unnos, or “house in a night”:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tŷ_unnos

maximus otter
Click to expand...
There is allegedly one such house in Braunston, the canal village. Of course if all the locals believed the myth they might have let the builder get away with it?
 
Thank you, Maximus Otter; I was looking at places called `Nomansland` (We have one in Wiltshire) and how they were squatters communities, often in extra parocial areas.

The house on the wikisite seems to be a sheiling rather than a proper building for all year round use.

I dont believe you could put up anything substansial in a day, -a prefab maybe. (and they had those in many different cultures.)

In a `Nomansland` I dont think folk worried too much either.
 
maximus otter said:
lt’s not true, but it suits a certain mentality to believe it.

lt is possible to gain ownership of land by having lived on it unchallenged for many years, but one has to announce one’s intention to claim ownership legally after that time, at which point any lawful owner can challenge you.

https://www.gov.uk/squatting-law/squatters-rights-to-property

lt was one of those wrong-but-commonly-believed tales as far back as Elizabethan times, that if you could build a house on land overnight, the land became yours. This myth derives from a Welsh belief called Tŷ unnos, or “house in a night”:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tŷ_unnos

maximus otter
Click to expand...
It is true. My wife & I own and have lived in Jolly Lane Cott for 16+ years now. Land was knicked from the Duchy, we still have small areas that are owned by Duchy. Cottage was made freehold by the original owners family in the 70's.
 
Up to the early 1800’s there was a tradition on Dartmoor that if any man could build a house in a day and have a peat fire lit in the hearth by nightfall then the builder could claim ‘squatter’s rights’ and claim the house as his own. In 1835, Tom and Sally Satterley (or Satterleigh) needed a house for Sally’s father, Peter and her step mother, Ann to live in. Despite asking local landowners, who were most unhelpful they could find nothing suitable so they decided to participate in a spot of ‘land cribbing’. Having enlisted the help of many of their friends and neighbours they waited for a time when the local landowners would be absent and so unable to hinder their plans. Such an opportunity came on the day of the Holne Revel or Ram Roast (some writers say it was Ashburton Fair) when all the farmers would attend and as likely as not spend the day ‘making merry’. Having watched the small group of sturdy Devon yeoman leave for the revel the labourers set to work. Throughout that day the moorfolk toiled hard, no sooner had the walls at one end gone up, the thatch was being laid at the other end and by nightfall the cott was finished and a fire burning in the hearth. When the landowners returned they saw the house but knew there was very little they could do. There are two versions to the outcome of this case of ‘land cribbing’. Crossing 1987, p.24 considers that although not evicted, the Satterleys’ were charged a small rent by the Duchy of Cornwall. On the other hand, Woods, 2000 p.25 suggests that no action was taken by the farmers because of the fact the house was built for the elderly parents or because the land on which the house was built was agriculturally unproductive.
 
I guess it all comes down to how a house is defined.
 
kesavaross said:
I guess it all comes down to how a house is defined.
Click to expand...
Exactly, because for a start, if concrete foundations are involved ie like a 'proper' house would have, then time has to be allowed to let it set.
 
Don't need foundations, sits on granite. Hasn't moved in nearly 200 years. Lift up the grass it's granite. digging is difficult.
 
JollyLaneCott said:
Don't need foundations, sits on granite. Hasn't moved in nearly 200 years. Lift up the grass it's granite. digging is difficult.
Click to expand...
Yours may well be, but you wouldn't have that option in many (most) other places.
 
Did houses years ago have foundations?

I've been trying to find an answer on the net but as usual now with google etc, getting an answer is anything but simple.
 
kesavaross said:
Did houses years ago have foundations?

I've been trying to find an answer on the net but as usual now with google etc, getting an answer is anything but simple.
Click to expand...
Before concrete use took off, really old houses were just built on dirt or rock, whatever was at the site.
They'd dig trenches and put in rubble, then use stone blocks to act as supports. On top of that, they'd build a wooden frame and then fill it all in with wattle and daub.
Then, the gap between the bottom of the wood frame and the ground would be filled in with a skirt of stones. The floor of the house would be floorboards. Houses that were built on rock that stayed dry could even have a cellar.
For non-rock foundations, this was a problematic way of building, because the areas of dirt under the floorboards would sometimes get damp and cause the floorboards to rot.

Edit: My Mum lives in a bungalow that was (quite literally) built on a bog. So, that bungalow was built on a thick raft of concrete.
Down the road, there's a similar bungalow, which has floorboards. Recently, because the floorboards were rotting in that place, they took them up only to find that there's a small stream running underneath the property. When the developers built it, they should have built it on a concrete raft as they did with my Mum's place.
 
Last edited:
kesavaross said:
Did houses years ago have foundations?

I've been trying to find an answer on the net but as usual now with google etc, getting an answer is anything but simple.
Click to expand...
There's a good site somewhere regarding this, I'll find it, but yes, of sorts. Often it was just a pyramid of bricks or stones to spread the weight but only a few courses deep. A lot of old Victorian houses that are as solid as when built have very shallow foundations (of course many were knocked down or fell down too).

Many houses had tiles in one room and wooden floorboards in the front 'best room'. The tiles were often just laid on ash or lime mortar (much softer than cement mortar) directly onto the soil/dirt.

Whenever I see a grand old building and everyone else is looking up, I am wondering how the foundations are- depth/materials etc.

But my point was- to build something substantial would, more often than not require foundations of some sort ie, as you said ''it all comes down to how you define a house''.
 
Mythopoeika said:
Before concrete use took off, really old houses were just built on dirt or rock, whatever was at the site.
They'd dig trenches and put in rubble, then use stone blocks to act as supports. On top of that, they'd build a wooden frame and then fill it all in with wattle and daub.
Then, the gap between the bottom of the wood frame and the ground would be filled in with a skirt of stones. The floor of the house would be floorboards. Houses that were built on rock that stayed dry could even have a cellar.
For non-rock foundations, this was a problematic way of building, because the areas of dirt under the floorboards would sometimes get damp and cause the floorboards to rot.

Edit: My Mum lives in a bungalow that was (quite literally) built on a bog. So, that bungalow was built on a thick raft of concrete.
Down the road, there's a similar bungalow, which has floorboards. Recently, because the floorboards were rotting in that place, they took them up only to find that there's a small stream running underneath the property. When the developers built it, they should have built it on a concrete raft as they did with my Mum's place.
Click to expand...
'Block and beam' is another way sometimes used

b and b.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Most modern houses mostly have a block & beam ground floor picked up on the innerskin of the external wall and sleeper walls within.. A Raft, reinforced with mesh or bars has an edge thickening to pick up the walls, internal walls may also be picked up on a thickening. Streams / springs are kept out with tanking. A lot of old London houses have stepped brick foundations as built on gravel. Heavy clay is the killer, expands and heaves when wet, shrinks when dry.
 
kesavaross said:
I guess it all comes down to how a house is defined.
Click to expand...
I went to New Orleans, Louisiana several years ago (2014) and went on a swamp tour.

The guide was commenting on the small homes built around the literal edges of the bayou and was talking about rebuilding after hurricanes. He was remarking on some of the places that hadn't yet been rebuilt, but only had a doorway standing with an electrical cord attached from a pole to a light in the doorway. He stated that law stated that a homeowner could rebuild the house as long as a standing doorway existed. Otherwise, if I understood correctly, the home owner would have to rebuild elsewhere further from the bayou. I'm not sure if these homes were homes of landowners, or homes of squatters on the land.
 
kesavaross said:
Did houses years ago have foundations?

I've been trying to find an answer on the net but as usual now with google etc, getting an answer is anything but simple.
Click to expand...
My house hasn't got foundations to speak of. It's built of clay lump blocks onto a sandy soil. The front has been faced with bricks, The floors are pament tiles laid onto soil. It's been here for 130 years so far!
The landlord next door was knocking out part of the outside wall to enlarge an opening and I was amazed by how very very hard the clay lump was, a real bugger to knock out.
 
I won’t bore you with details unless someone asks but I framed, sheathed, and insulated my “cabin” on a remote-ish island in four days. A friend and I placed the foundations in 4 hours. It wasn’t habitable without doors and windows but it was better than a tent.

Mind you this was a current project with engineers, permits, inspections…

Ten years on and I’m still doing finishes.

1700770437375.jpeg
 
Just on the subject of quick builds, I remember a McDonalds being built and fully functioning over 2 or 3 days (obviously pre built sections). Or is this a false memory?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top