Adverse Possession - difference between old ( pre2003 ? ) and new law ?

[gingeroots]

I'm struggling to understand what the crucial differences are - reduction from 12 to 10 years ? Burden of proof now on " squatter" to show they've occupied and used land ?

I know it's complicated and that there are also transitional arrangements . And that the recommendation is not to persue . But I'd just like to understand a bit .

Please don't advise asking on gardeninglaw site - I'm not thick skinned enough for that lot !

It's a bit of an academic question. If you are in a situation where you're looking for particular advice it may be better for you to outline the situation you're in.

I do know one person who thought he had been given adverse possession, only to find that as he had not paid the council tax for 15 years, the council were re-possessing it anyway (it had belonged to them).

I know another person who would have got it, but had not put his real name to any bills in all the years he had been in the property. So it was re-possessed, even though the council did not own it in the first place.(AFAIK).

IIRC these were both after 2003 or around that time(ish).

Several people in the same borough were awarded their houses but AFAIK it was very hard and they had to provide extensive proof.

(yes this borough 'forgot' what houses it owned)

collaborate that sounded like a very gardeninglaw forum response ...

As is the way with these things my situation would involve lots of details and probably images and I'm not sure I could go into it all here .

My question is academic ,I'm not thinking of taking any action but I'm interested and a bit annoyed with myself that I can't really understand the differences between the old and new situation .

I believe the simplest explanation was I borrowed your lawn mower, kept it, and 12 years later it automatically became mine. Tough shit to the owner.

This was until the case where a land owner let a man rent his field for livestock, the agreement lapsed but the livestock remained and the owner let it happen. Roll on some years, livestock man says the land is mine! Owner says against my human rights to steal something that is registered in my name and worth a six figure sum.

So now if you steal someone else's property and it is registered to them you notify land registry that you want to land transferred into your name, they notify the owner of your wish and that person has 2 years in which to get it back by fencing it off etc.

Bearing in mind not all land is registered and not all land owners occupy the land that they own, they could live 100 mile away/live abroad, rent the house out etc or be senile, old or ill in a nursing home. All of the above makes a land owner unaware that someone has taken their land. Which is why it was amended.

I am not a legal person I just have some knowledge of this and yes I lived on GardenLaw for a long time because of this situation.