Editing Adverse possession (section)

===Requirements===
Before the considerable hurdle of giving a registered owner notice was introduced in the [[Land Registration Act 2002]], the particular requirements of adverse possession were reasonably straight forward.

First, under schedule 1, paragraphs 1 and 8 of the [[Limitation Act 1980]], the time when adverse possession began was when "possession" was taken. This had to be more than something temporary or transitory, such as simply storing goods on a land for a brief period.<ref>e.g. ''[[Leigh v Jack]]'' (1879) 5 Ex D 264.</ref> But "possession" did not require actual occupation. So in ''Powell v McFarlane'',<ref>(1979) 38 P&CR 352.</ref> it was held to be "possession" when Mr Powell, from the age of 14, let his [[cows]] roam into Mr McFarlane's land. The intruder must also show that they were dealing with the land as an occupying owner might have done, and that no one else had done so.

The second requirement, however, was that there needed to be an [[intention]] to possess the land. Mr Powell lost his claim because simply letting his cows roam was an equivocal act: it was only later that there was evidence he intended to take possession, for instance by erecting signs on the land and parking a lorry. But this had not happened long enough for the 12-year time limit on McFarlane's claim to have expired. As a result, proving intention to possess is likely to rely heavily on the factual matrix of the case and the squatters' factual possession. In ''[[Clowes Developments|Clowes Developments (UK) Ltd]] v Walters and Others [2005] EWHC (Ch)'', the squatter cannot be found to have an intention to possess if they mistakenly believe that they are on the property with the permission of the title owner.<ref>{{cite web |title=Clowes Developments (UK) Ltd. v Walters & Ors {{!}} [2005] EWHC 669 (Ch) {{!}} England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) {{!}} Judgment {{!}} Law {{!}} CaseMine |url=https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff7c760d03e7f57eb207c |access-date=2024-01-27 |website=www.casemine.com}}</ref>

Third, possession is not considered "adverse" if the person is there with the owner's consent. For example, in ''BP Properties Ltd v Buckler'',<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff6fc60d03e7f57ea54c5 |title=BP Properties Ltd v Buckler |access-date=27 May 2021}}.</ref> Dillon LJ held that Mrs Buckler could not claim adverse possession over land owned by BP because BP had told her she could stay rent free for life.<ref>(1988) 55 P&CR 337.</ref> Fourth, under the [[Limitation Act 1980]] sections 29 and 30, the adverse possessor must not have acknowledged the title of the owner in any express way, or the clock starts running again. However, the courts have interpreted this requirement flexibly.