adverse possession: how have squatter's rights been affected by the new 'land registration' Act 2002
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.