The Land Registration Act was first enacted in 1925.

The next section is the ‘Registration of adverse possessor’, which states that even though no period of limitation runs in relation to a registered estate, it will still be possible for a person in adverse possession to be registered in place of the proprietor of a registered estate or rentcharge. Under Schedule 6 of the LRA 2002, if the registered owner objects to the registration of the squatter’s rights then the squatter’s application will be rejected unless he or she comes within one of three exceptions: It is unreasonable for the squatters application to be rejected, for example, if the squatter mistakenly believed he owned the land, by some act of the proprietor and it would be unconscionable for the proprietor to deny the squatter the rights he believed he had; Secondly, the squatter is entitled to be the registered proprietor, for example, where the squatter contracted to buy the land and paid the purchase price, but the legal estate never transferred to him and; Finally, where a mistake has been made in relation to the boundary of the land, for example, where the dividing walls or fences on an estate were erected in the wrong place and not in accordance with the plans in the title deeds. Encroachment is done frequently by a neighbour who mistakenly takes a piece of land when putting up a fence or, by a licensee who uses land for grazing after the license has expired.  

The last section of Part 9 is ‘Defences’, Schedule 6 refers to the rights of the paper owner and squatter. In relation to this section a squatter can defend an action for possession of the land if they have been in ‘adverse possession of the estate for the period of ten years, the Limitation Act requires the squatter to show an intention to possess during the 10 year period or as per Slade J in Powell v McFarlane  ‘ the intention, in one’s own name and on one’s own behalf, to exclude the world at large, including the owner with the paper title’, which will purport to be an overriding interest. Where the proprietor has obtained a judgement for possession of land and takes it, the squatter will be trespassing, which is a criminal offence. However, if after two years from the date of the judgement, the concurrent paper owner did not signify his right to the land, the squatter is entitled to re – apply for registration.  If successful and the proprietor were to bring fresh proceedings the squatter would have a defence, having an overriding interest and the court would be required to order the registrar to register the squatter as proprietor of the land.

The Law Commission report ‘intended to strike a more appropriate balance between landowner and squatter’. This has been achieved in that mere possession will not confer an absolute or possessory title to land, the requirement is registration alone. The fact that an adverse possessor needs to make the Registry aware of his occupancy after 10 years, can be done if you ‘send yourself a letter – it could be used as proof you are living there’, this relates to the cases that were brought against many of the London Borough Council’s, their houses were not properly recorded in their accounts. As in Ellis v. Lambeth B.C., the squatter claimed possession of a council house worth £200,000.

In Buckingham County Council v. Moran, the facts state, that a neighbour of a plot of land, owned by the Council kept it as his. Moran had uninterrupted use of the land, he kept it clean which showed an intention to possess, therefore his animus possidendi was that he kept it clean, he used the land as his, and therefore excluded others from occupying, at the present time and throughout the duration of the 10 years, as there was no barrier separating the lands. The Council asserted their right by sending the defendant a letter, though nothing materialised after this. It has been shown that ‘[a]n owner who retains land unused because he has a future intended use of land could be dispossessed’ which is part of paragraph 5 Schedule 6 of the Land Registration Act 2002. If this case were to be decided today, Moran would be required to assert his right over the land by making an application at the Land Registry after ten years of similar occupation.

“The registered proprietor has one chance […] to terminate a squatter’s adverse possession” 

This is more logical than the previous system of registering title by adverse possession as it puts a further restraint on people taking other people’s land away. The right to enjoy one’s property is more recognised as an important human right. If Moran’s case were to be considered in today’s times, the Council would have won, as they would reply probably ‘within a period of three months’, within the two – year constraint, as in Mabo v. Queensland (No. 2), ‘possession, even if lost, gives rise to a right to recover possession, since as between mere possessors prior possession is a better right’. The Limitation Act is in place to ensure that people do not sleep on their rights.  

---