The Land Registration Act 2002: Protection of Landowners From Unfair Adverse Possession Claims - Dissertation Example

Be that as it may, the LRA 2002 fails to take into account the situation where a landowner is absent or the position of the owner of unregistered land. It can also be argued that the LRA 2002 does nothing to prevent the risk of deliberate squatting to the detriment of the landowner. This dissertation will argue, that despite the requirement of notice with respect to registered land, the LRA 2002 does not adequately protect the landowner from a theft of property under the doctrine of adverse possession.

This definition automatically gives rise to social and moral concerns because, in reality, the squatter’s intention is no different from the men's rea required of theft of chattels. After all the doctrine of adverse possession functions to facilitate the squatter by making provision for the acquisition of rights in circumstances where the occupation is aggressive and uninterrupted. 2While the doctrine of adverse possession can be justified on the grounds of economic efficiency, it has evolved to such an extent that the Law Commission in its 2001 report commented on its economic consequences for the taxpayer.

3 This was particularly so with respect to property owned by local authorities that had been successfully lost to adverse possession. The Law Commission commented that such acquisitions fell “on the public purse.”4 Media reports of successful adverse possession claim in recent years have given rise to a united stance against the morality of permitting theft of land. Rhys, in particular, refers to such cases involving “undeserving squatters” as “an example of the law being an ass.”5