How can someone prove adverse possession of an area of lawn in an open front garden, which has no fencing to mark the boundary with a neighbouring property or with the verge?
This was the fundamental issue in a case where a couple tended a strip of land for many years, until the new neighbours (the legal owners of the strip) took it over. The facts of the case will resonate with many property owners where there are potential disputes concerning use of land.
The specialist property litigation team at mfg Solicitors are highly experienced in adverse possession claims, boundary disputes and other property disputes.
What is adverse possession?
A property owner registered at HM Land Registry with full legal title of a parcel of land enjoys the highest level of protection. Even so, if another individual has been in factual possession and use of the land (or part of it) without the owner’s permission for at least 10 years, they may be entitled to be registered as the legal owner (Schedule 6 Land Registration Act 2002).
A person who has been in adverse possession of registered land for at least 10 years may apply to be registered as proprietor. However, if the registered proprietor serves a counter-notice, the application will be rejected unless the applicant can establish one of the limited conditions in paragraph 5, namely: (i) it would be unconscionable for the proprietor to dispossess them, (ii) they are otherwise entitled to be registered, or (iii) in the case of adjacent land, they reasonably believed for at least 10 years that the land belonged to them- which is the most commonly relied on of the three.
What happened in this case?
The facts in Dobson v Unsted [2026] UKUT 93 (LC) are not unusual: a homeowner spends years tending a piece of land adjoining their own property - and eventually the neighbours put a stop to it.
In this case, Liz Dobson and Andrew Pleming tended a small strip of lawn outside their Surrey home since 2009 when they moved in. The piece of land measured 8 x 3 feet and was located on their side of the driveway, although it was actually registered under the title of the neighbouring property.
Alison and Darren Unsted moved into the property next door in 2022 and, in 2023, they cleared the strip of the plants and placed a garden gnome there.
Liz and Andrew’s claim for adverse possession of the strip of land was initially rejected as the Tribunal judge was unconvinced they had proved possession of the land prior to 2018 (the point at which they had planted on the land and kept it as a flower bed). They have now won on appeal.
The Upper Tribunal judge concluded that they had demonstrated more than 10 years’ of continuous use and possession of the strip and could, therefore, be registered as the legal owners. Liz and Andrew had extensively cultivated the strip; their children had played on it, without any objection; and they had treated it as an integral part of their garden.
He added: “Looking again at the nature of the land, I fail to see what more an occupying owner could have done.”
Furthermore, the previous owner of the Unsted’s property had been unaware the strip of land had belonged to her. Possession of the disputed land had been discontinued and it was not until 2023, when the Unsteds moved in, that there was a move to re-take possession.
Guidance
The judge gave useful general guidance on these types of scenario. He emphasised that maintaining a lawn with the neighbour’s agreement or permission will not do, nor will an intention to possess the piece of land. There must be factual possession of the land which must be obvious and unequivocal.
He stated:
“In an open-front mown front garden, what an occupying owner might have been expected to do would be to mow the grass and keep it tidy, for their sake and their neighbours’. The appellants’ predecessors in title… did so from when they bought the property in 2002, and no-one else did so. In my judgment that was what was needed to establish adverse possession in this period, both in terms of the relevant conduct and in terms of the objective manifestation of intention…
“People do not generally mow their neighbours’ grass without their agreement. Nor do they let their children play on it. Nor do they replace topsoil on it or plant herbs in it. Taken together it seems to me perfectly obvious that the appellants were in possession of the disputed land, and that their acts of possession taken together demonstrated their intention to possess it.”
How we can help
If you are involved in a land dispute, it is important to speak to specialist property litigation specialists. Contact Kirsten Bridgewater, a partner in the team, on 01905 610410; or email kirsten.bridgewater@mfgsolicitors.com.