How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Jo C. Your Own Question
Jo C.
Jo C., Barrister
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 71050
Experience:  Over 5 years in practice
Type Your Law Question Here...
Jo C. is online now

The LR 2002 allows registration to be given to a person who

Customer Question

The LR 2002 allows registration to be given to a person who has been under the mistaken but reasonable belief that he was owner. It does not give the concession for unregistered land. Can a person who for some years has had the mistaken belief the he owns unregistered land use those years subsequently to count towards the requirement for 12 years to qualify for adverse possession, or does the clock only start ticking when he realises his mistake and decides to claim adverse possession? I believe there was a case where a judge said that it would be unreasonable to treat less favourably someone who has erroneously acted as owner as compared with someone claiming AP but this case may predate the 2002 Act,. ps I have just returned from Majorca, hence my slow response
Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: Law
Expert:  F E Smith replied 1 year ago.

The wording the court used is “factual possession” so it is the fact of the possession, not the knowledge of the possession which is relevant

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
What therefore is the practical significance of the distinction made in this area by LR2002 as between registered and unregistered land? Secondly in Pye v Graham it is stated that what is required is an intention to possess not an intention to own. The clear implication here seems to be that the "erroneous but reasonable" owner has an intention to own and cannot at the same time be said to have an intention to adversely possess ( which incidentally embraces excluding the paper title owner.)
Expert:  F E Smith replied 1 year ago.

This is becoming more of a debate and an analysis of the various areas of law which is exactly the kind of argument that would be decided by the court. LR 2002 supersedes PvG.

I’m going to opt out for another expert. Best wishes

Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.

I have read the exchange above and can confirm the answers you have received are correct.