No fu*ks given.

The principle of adverse possession was subject to scurtiny in the case of Pye V Graham, which concerned a farmer who was given right to graze his cattle on land owned by a company worth millions. He was given mere license to operate which could be revoked anytime. He renewed it every year, but after a couple of years due to an error or whatnot, they failed to issue him license. He continued using the land, and after a period of 12 years, he claimed ownership to the land as an adverse possessor. The court ruled in his favour, and this case was taken to the ECHR where the courts decide it was rather an infringement of ones human rights, and rightfully revoked the decision. Yet this was old law under the Land registeration Act 1925, they reformed the law now found in s.96 and schedule 6 of the Land registeration act 2002 which to be fair balances out the rights of squatters with land owners, and makes it more difficult to claim title over anothers land. Adverse possession continues existing under the eyes of ECHR, but do you still think it should be allowed? 12 years under the old law, minimum of 10 years under the new law and you can now apply for adverse possession of the land!

This more important things going on at the moment! !!!

It is all dodgy as fk
Good topic btw

If your land is subject to occupation by a squatter and adverse possessor which can sometime happen completely accidently, it's worth notifying the possessor of the occupation or initiating proceedings as the land can go to him for good even if you are the registered owner! All they need to fulfil are facts of possession and intention to possess! Slade J puts it quite well in the case of Powell v Mcfarlane, if you use the land the as an original owner would, and no else does so, you can be an adverse possessor! In cases such as Pubrick v hackney, installing a lock in an abandoned house allowed adverse possession! In the case of Redhouse farms v catchpole, the fact that a man visiited a swamp land once in a blue moon sufficied to form facts of possession.

Even installing fence on land ultimately belonging to another is best evidence for facts of possession pursuant to the case of Sedden v Smith! It's really worth watching out for your land if you live abroad or if you share area with neighbor that you are not sure belongs to whom, but it's being used anyway, as genuine mistake as to boundaries can also allow for adverse possession subject to the case of Zarb v Perry! Intention to possess is even inferred from your actions alone, and the test is even considered aritifical by courts as such stated by Slade j again in powell v Mcfarlaine! Courts are very much inclined to decide in favour of squatters.

The interesting part however is from s.144 of Legal Aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders act, which literally states that not leaving premise once asked to constitutes as an offence of tresspassing, in spite of the fact that the court legally allows you to to adversely possess land of another, and after facts of possession and intention to possess is firmly established, you can refuse to leave if the land owner asks you to.

Under the new law, in land registeration act 2002 (LRA), once a minimum period of 10 years is completed, the adverse possessors files an application pursuant to Schedule 6 of the LRA to claim ownership of land, the land register office then notifies all interested parties over the land for the adverse possession, including the owner who can either allow the claim (LOL, imagine doing that), object or counter claim. Usually they object and counter-claim simultaneously, and then are given 2 years to evict the possessor from land. You can evict by initiating legal proceedings (which is literally the only way as stated by courts in the case of Markfield investments v evans and written communication to tell them to GTFO won't work.) This is where time on property really 'freezes' so after the proceedings, the adverse possessors will usually want to rely on Schedule 6 para 5, under the 3 exceptions that will allow them to take YOUR land.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/schedule/6

These exceptions are usually either if they can claim by equtiy that is they relied on YOUR assurance now to their detriment that they can live on your land, or for any other reason (which I think grants courts absurd powers, as other reasons seems too wide) or if they were genuinely mistaken as to the boundaries of the property! If these criterias are fulfiled, you cannot evict them and they will be the new registered propriter of the house, but if they can't, you may evict them.

Going back to the question, do you still think adverse possession is jusitified after the reforms under the LRA 2002? Remember, under the old law under LRA 1925, the limitation act of 1980 pursuant to s.15 and s.17 applied which means after 12 uninterrupted years of possession on your land allowed the bug*ers to claim adverse possession over your land, and pursuant to s.75 of LRA 1925, they were the beneficiries of your land and s.70(1)(f) gave them overriding interests over you and anyone who may have had interest on your land. You had virtually no protection from adverse possession prior to LRA 2002, but the reforms make adverse possession a tad bit more difficult to happen, still do you think it's continued existence is justified?