Columnist Andrew Fearn looks at the complex issues of squatter's rights

There are many myths about so-called squatter’s rights but what are the facts? Asks Andrew Fearn, consultant at Lincoln-based Knights PLC.

This field of law is technically known as “adverse possession” which really means that a person occupies and has possession of land with the intention to exclude all others, especially the person who holds the actual title to the land.

You will not be surprised to know that the legal position is complex with different regimes applying to unregistered and registered land.

The vast majority of property in this country is registered but the remainder is still a significant minority and the reality is that the owner of registered land has a much greater level of protection against an unauthorised occupier.

These difficulties came to a head recently in a case brought by Milton Keynes Council.

A man named Wilsher was a small farmer who had grazed animals on three fields owned by the council adjoining his own land for many years and so had his father before him.

When the council sued him for trespass, he successfully argued that his late father had established adverse possession by 12 years’ possession well before the advent of the Land Registration Act 2002 (which established much stricter rules for registered land). The evidence was compelling as his father had built a concrete bridge, allowed a third party to camp, locked a gate and erected a notice stating ‘Private Property’.

So, what extra protection does land registration afford?

The most important feature is that any applicant such as Mr Wilsher has to give notice of his claim to the registered proprietor who then has the opportunity to issue a counter notice.

The applicant then has a difficult task as he or she has to establish one of three conditions.

Some of the more common applications are covered by the third condition, which refers to situations where a boundary wall or fence has been erected in the wrong place.

An applicant such as Mr Wilsher might find it much more difficult to achieve the same result under the registered land regime.

This contrast in approach is a powerful argument to apply for voluntary registration if you own land which is currently unregistered. This is particularly the case for farmers who have extensive land holdings, some parts of which might be remote and not often visited.

The fee payable to the Land Registry for registration (which is discounted by 25%) might well prove to be money well spent!