Don Aitken wrote:
wrote:

I know someone who has purchased a house. The seller said that
they have been looking after one of the sheds adjoining a communal
yard even though he knows it actually belongs to his neighbour. He
signed an affidavit saying he had looked after the shed for the
past 5 years and then said if the purchaser were to continue using
the shed for the next 7 years then providing he isn't challenged
and is quite open about using it then the shed becomes his by law.

It is correct to the extent that a title in course of acquisition
by adverse possession is a right over property which can be bought
and sold like any other. Strictly speaking, though, it should have
been included in the conveyance, and it could easily be argued
that the failure to do so is inconsistent with a claim to
ownership. "Using" or "looking after" is not enough; the adverse
possessor must treat the property in all respects as his own.

In addition it seems to me that saying "looking after" implies that the
owner knew about and consented to the arrangement. If that were the
case, there would be no adverse possession.

Stu