Margaret Ann Jones v Neil Stanley Jameson [2026] UKFTT 297 (PC)

[2026] UKFTT 00297 (PC)

PROPERTY CHAMBER

FIRST –TIER TRIBUNAL

LAND REGISTRATION DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE FROM HM LAND REGISTRY

LAND REGISTRATION ACT 2002

REF NO 2023/0505

Between

Margaret Ann JonesApplicant

Neil Stanley JamesonRespondent

Property address: Land at Holmlea, Chapel Street, Amlwch Port, Amlwch LL68 9HT

Title numbers: CYM829044

Before: Judge Wear

___________________________________________________________________________

DECISION

Date 2026-02-03

DECISION

[37]Counsel are agreed in this case on the applicable law. The Applicant has to demonstrate factual possession and the intention to possess: JA Pye (Oxford) Limited v Graham

[2003] 1AC 419

. Further, the rule is that adverse possession by a tenant of land outside the tenancy enures for the benefit of the landlord unless there is evidence of a different intention. This was not disputed by Counsel for the Respondent in argument. See Megarry and Wade: The Law of Real Property (10th Ed.) at paragraph 7.042 et seq. There was no evidence from the tenants before the Tribunal.

[38]The burden is on the Applicant to show a title through adverse possession. This she seeks to do by relying on the use made of the blue land while the works of construction were going on and thereafter through the acts of the tenants of Holmlea.

[39]As to the first of these, it is impossible to accept that the erection of scaffolding or the delivery of building materials or the parking of vehicles on the blue land are evidence of an intention to possess. To the contrary, they are all activities associated with a temporary state of affairs namely, the reconstruction and improvement of what were some dilapidated cottages.

[40]As to the occupation by the tenants, the evidence of possession in my judgement falls short of what is required. The placing of wheelie bins or pot plants or seating on adjoining land in a connection with the enjoyment of a dwelling does not, in my judgement, support an intention to possess. There was no evidence of the number of wheelie bins or the location of the bench or seats on the blue land. In Pye the intention to possess was described as the “intention in one's own name and on one's own behalf, to exclude the world at large, including the owner with the paper title if he be not himself the possessor so far as is reasonably practicable and so far as the processes of the law will allow”. In my judgement this test has not been met.

[41]Mr Barrow drew attention to the parking of Mr Bennett's van and the erection of the Heras fencing. This is at first sight rather more substantial. It was explained to the Tribunal that such fencing consists of a series of galvanised metal grids in the vertical plane, supported at each end by a concrete block resting on the ground. It can be opened at any point by lifting one end of the grid out of the block and swinging it through 90 degrees. It is commonly used by the construction industry to enclose land temporarily while redevelopment work takes place. In my judgement Heras fencing bears witness to a temporary state of affairs. It is equivocal on the question of intention to possess.

[42]There is another difficulty with the Applicant case. From 2011 the Applicants factual possession was through the tenants of Holmlea. No copy of the tenancy agreement was in evidence. There is no evidence to show that the Applicant was the sole landlord under the tenancy. On the contrary, the register of the freehold title to Holmlea points to the landlord being the Applicant and her husband. Possession is single and indivisible so it is these individuals who would have a title by adverse possession through their tenants, had there been such. Mr Barrow had no answer to this point when it was put to him at the hearing.

[43]In my judgement no significance can be attached to the construction of the fence and gate in September 2019. It was instantly removed. It might be regarded as showing an intention to possess but it is too fleeting to carry any weight.

[44]There will be an order directing the cancellation of the Applicant’s application so far as it relates to the unbuilt-on parts of the blue land.

[45]The Respondents have submitted an application for summary assessment of their costs. I would ask for the Applicants submissions on the form of the order no later than 5:00pm on the 17 February 2026 Michael Wear Dated this 3 February 2026