[Steamdrivenandy]

Originally Posted by WillyHeckaslike

I would get legal advice and not take adverse possession for granted. When the Sunderland/Newcastle rail line was electrified for the Metro extension to Sunderland it became apparent to the rail company that owners of some properties had extended there back gardens where they backed on to the line. Land intended as a safety buffer for the line had been annexed in the garden extensions and I believe that the relevant owners tried to claim adverse possession. They were not successful. Different situation to the one on this thread but, nonetheless, food for thought I think.

I suspect that they fell foul of the amended law brought in by the Blair government. That required anyone claiming adverse possession to advise the actual owners of their potential claim and give them 6 months notice to commence tending the land and retake possession. Presumably in this case they had to tell the railway they were going to launch a claim and the railway said we need that land and you can't have it.
The Blair government changes were a bit one sided. They had a review of the law as it stood and asked for comments. Of course the comments they got were from landowners, not from potential claimants who probably didn't even know a review was happening, let alone its significance. So the law that resulted heavily tipped the situation towards the absent landowner, compared to what had been before.