“… the point of importance is that the LRA 2002 is designed to promote the efficient transfer of land by bringing certainty both to the question of who owns the land and protection for those who have rights in that land.” (Martin Dixon, Modern Land Law, 12th edn, 2020, p. 30)”
Several reasons prompted the creation and inception of the LRA 2002. Issues to do with land ownership feuds and regulations were a commonplace problem by this time and there was an urgent need to ensure that the land-related issues were exposed to better handling and attribution. Here, the LRA Act was crafted in the presets of ownership whereby, in England and Wales, ownership of land takes the form of “title by registration” rather than the conventional “registration of title”. This was the ultimate end of the centuries-long rule that spelled land ownership and possession on the strict basis of a title. Of course, several interpretations and arguments came up following this regulation, with various lawmakers and individuals showing different attributions regarding its efficacy. As it stands, the several outcomes that preceded this law, up to this date, are clear triggers of discussions that may be used to elucidate its effectiveness and efficiency. For this reason, individuals like Martin Dixon, in “Modern Land Law” state that the LRA Act is structurally designed to promote the efficient transfer of land by incepting certainty to land ownership and the individuals who have rights regarding the land. This write-up is aimed at unearthing the effectiveness and the efficiency of this statement and debunking the practicability of the LRA 2002 in solving land ownership issues.
According to Dixon, land ownership (legally proving and adhering to ownership rights) is at the center of the LRA Act, 2002. For this reason, it is essential to analyze the exactness and efficiency of this law in setting clear the adverse possession. Trustees of land or the trustees who invest in land in England need to, according to this law, be aware of the Act’s confounding and landmark land ownership disruptions.[1] This is in particular to the situations where the trustees or individuals are accessing land which had prior been unregistered. With the purchase or gaining ownership of such land, there is an urgent need for the individuals to ensure that they contact the Land Registry whereby the property becomes registered. This, according to this Act, solidifies and enhances their position of ownership under this Act. However, the Act spells out several situations and requirements for the trustees, who hold the land, which is already registered. To this, there is an urgent need, as per the regulations to ensure that the individuals’ addresses and locations, as well as ownership, are up to date concerning this law.
The culmination of the above-mentioned outcomes of this law and its subsequent application is set at ensuring that the landowners have a strengthened position against squatters. That is the core necessity of getting a perfect attribution, understanding, and methodology in the land ownership documentation.[2] To this, the LRA included very essential land transition provisions while ensuring that there was a considerable gradual movement from the way that adverse possession affected registered land in the affected areas. [3] To break down the application of this law in solving the perceived and ownership cases, it is important to analyze how the Act is structured. According to its provisions, adverse possession of registered land, for 12 years, was not initially affect the registration of the landowner nor the registered owner’s title. Besides, the Act provides that upon completion of passing the 10-year adverse possession mark, the squatters were then granted, by law, the chance to register as landowners instead of the registered owner. [4] Furthermore, the law provides that such applications were only supposed to be made by the registered owners. However, this provision was also extended to certain persons that were interested in the land. This category of exclusions took into account individuals like mortgagees. Both parties, according to the Act, were to be notified before the registration and transfer of the land ownership to the squatter. The provision came with the chance for them to oppose the application laid before the Land Registry by the squatter (s).
The most contravening land-ownership issue that was solved by the Act can be traced to the proceedings that came after the objection or acceptance to land ownership registration. Here, any land ownership application that goes unopposed (by either interested parties of the registered landowners) paved way for the squatters to be assigned the land. This made them pass as owners rather than registered owners.[5] However, spelling out the conditions under which the application could undergo a rejection remains one of the most essential sections of this Act. According to this Act, it is unfair in case equity for the registered owner to seek to dispose of the squatter. This is also correlated with the squatter’s seeking to be registered as a landowner. The squatter, in this case, is disadvantaged by the owner’s assurances of the owner or turns out to be entitled to be registered as the owner. This scenario is common in cases where the squatter is a beneficiary under a will or a buyer who has, for instance, exchanged contracts and occupied the land for more than 10 years without transfer.
The LRA Act also treats the squatter’s adverse ownership of the land adjacent to the land in question under the mistaken but reasonable belief of being the owner as unconscionable. In this case, however, rejecting the application to be a landowner in such a case is dictates the legal need to determine the boundaries of the adjacent land in case the application relates to the Land Registry more than a year before the application time. Therefore, getting this issue in control, for instance, can be based on one of the most realistic engagements of the LRA 2002 in solving land boundary disputes. Further, the act states the proceedings that follow the events upon a possible rejection of the application.[6] In his case, the squatter will be able to remain in adverse possession of the land for a period of up to 2 years, only after having met certain specific conditions. These exceptions that allow the extended ownership are also subject to the right of the individual to reapply to pass as owner. The law dictates that, at this point, the applicant will be registered as the landowner whether or not anyone opposes the application upon the expiration of the period. For these provisions, it is thus essential for the landowners to ensure that they are better prepared, placed in similar circumstances to resist adverse possession claims.
In conclusion, the LRA Act 2002 made the various land ownership laws and regulations clear for the stakeholders. With the new provisions, it became difficult for squatters to succeed in claims for adverse possessions in case the situations involve unregistered land. As per Dixon, “transfer of land, registration of ownership, and the extension of rights” pass as the most instrumental outcomes of this act. It is thus proved, as per the discussion and excursion of this act that Dixon’s comments hold undeniable viability concerning the law. Therefore, the prime aim of the act (protecting the interests of registered proprietors against the acquisition of title by adverse possession individuals) can be sourced and labeled as an efficient way of handling the claims proposed by Dixon. The act contains a wide range of other provisions which can be applied to ensure that there is an increased extent of the register to have absolute and complete dispositions that must be subject to registration.
Bibliography
Adam, Amirah. “The Role and Meaning of’Occupation’in Schedule 3, Paragraph 2 of the Land Registration Act 2002.” Southampton Student L. Rev. 11 (2021): 71.
Bogusz, B., 2002. Bringing Land Registration into the Twenty-First Century. The Land Registration Act 2002. The Modern Law Review, 65(4), pp.556-567.
Cobb, N. and Fox, L., 2007. Living outside the system? The (im) morality of urban squatting after the Land Registration Act 2002. Legal Studies, 27(2), pp.236-260.
Dixon, Martin. Modern land law. Routledge, 2021.
Ring, Victoria Anne. “The Long-Standing Complexities of Land Ownership in England and Wales: a Legal Analysis of the Provisions of the Conclusiveness of the Register, Alteration, and Indemnity in the Land Registration Act 2002.” Ph.D. diss., Bangor University (United Kingdom), 2021.
[1] Bogusz, B., 2002. Bringing Land Registration into the Twenty-First Century. The Land Registration Act 2002. The Modern Law Review, 65(4), pp.556-567.
[2] ‘Ibid
[3] Ring, Victoria Anne. “The Long-Standing Complexities of Land Ownership in England and Wales: a Legal Analysis of the Provisions of the Conclusiveness of the Register, Alteration, and Indemnity in the Land Registration Act 2002.” Ph.D. diss., Bangor University (United Kingdom), 2021.
[4] Cobb, N. and Fox, L., 2007. Living outside the system? The (im) morality of urban squatting after the Land Registration Act 2002. Legal Studies, 27(2), pp.236-260.
[5] Dixon, Martin. Modern land law. Routledge, 2021.
[6] Adam, Amirah. “The Role and Meaning of’Occupation’in Schedule 3, Paragraph 2 of the Land Registration Act 2002.” Southampton Student L. Rev. 11 (2021): 71.
write