Specifically, it: Section 4 stipulates that registration of an estate in land is compulsory when one of the following events occurs: Failure to register when required, means that the purchaser or transferee gains only an equitable title to the land and the seller or transferor remains as the registered proprietor.

Note: if the transferee is not a purchaser (such as the recipient of a gift, or under a will), he or she takes the title subject to all pre-existing proprietary interests affecting the land – see s.28 LRA 2002 A restriction on the proprietorship register prevents the registration of a disposition unless complied with.

For example, a person with an option to purchase land (e.g. a developer) should protect that interest by means of a Notice.

These special cases usually arise because the adverse possessor has some other reason for claiming ownership in addition to their possession for (at least) 10 years.

These rules are much more difficult to satisfy than the common law with regard to adverse possession, although it is now clear that all rules of adverse possession (in unregistered land, under the LRA 1925 and under the LRA 2002) are human rights compliant, see generally the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in J.

Cobb and Fox's article[7] argues that the 2002 act unjustly favours landowners in claims of adverse possession (through paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 6), whilst overlooking the moral issues surrounding squatting.

The reform brought by the 2002 act holds the view that intentional squatting "...at least in some cases, is tantamount to sanctioning a theft of land'".

The adverse possessor's claim is therefore vulnerable under the 2002 act and the registered proprietor is protected in all but the most unusual circumstances.

The tribunal also hears appeals from aggrieved persons on decisions of the Registrar as to access to the Land Registry Network (Sch.5).