Disputes over ownership of land all too often become protracted and lead to costs out of...
Disputes over ownership of land all too often become protracted and lead to costs out of proportion to the value of the land involved. Recently, the Upper Tribunal (UT) ruled on a dispute over a strip of land with an area of just 2.2 square metres.
The strip of land was at the end of the driveways of two houses. A couple had bought one of the houses in 2009. They had planted herbs and wildflowers on the strip and let their children play on it. After the house next door was sold in 2022, the couple's new neighbours dug up the plants and put a garden gnome on the strip.
Although the strip formed part of the registered title to their neighbours' house, the couple argued that they had acquired title to it by adverse possession. Several former tenants of the house next door gave evidence in support of the couple's position. However, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that the couple had only established possession of the strip since 2018 and therefore had not been in occupation of it for the 10 years required to establish adverse possession. The FTT directed the Land Registrar to cancel their application to be registered as its owners.
Allowing their appeal against that decision, the UT found that the couple and their predecessors in title had been in possession of the strip since 2002. Taking into consideration the amount of care and attention the couple had expended on it, the UT considered it 'perfectly obvious' that they were in possession of it. No attempt had been made to 're-possess' the strip until 2023.