White v Fromant [2026] UKFTT 450 (PC), 11 March 2026
Adverse possession cases tend to turn on the same small cast of characters: fences, sheds, mown grass, woodpiles, flowerbeds. White v Fromant has all of that, plus mounting blocks, muck heaps, wheelbarrows and a farrier's van every six weeks, but underneath the equestrian detail sit two points that practitioners and anyone with a stake in an adverse possession dispute should take note of: a smart use of under-claiming, and a two-stage collapse of the "we gave them permission" defence that landowners rely on more often than they should
The Facts
The Whites have owned The Cottage, a small equestrian smallholding at Kislingbury, Northampton, since 2007. The Fromants own the adjoining farmland, Clarkes Lodge, which they bought in 2014 (having farmed it as tenants before that). Wedged between the two registered titles, and a track running past both, sits a small strip of unregistered land, the "Disputed Land", which the Whites applied to register in their own name on the strength of twelve years' adverse possession.
The evidence of what the Whites had actually done with the strip was extensive and, on the First-Tier Tribunal's assessment, entirely mundane in exactly the way an occupying owner would deal with it. From around 2010 they used it daily as an extension of their stable yard: mounting horses and the carriage there, feeding horses that needed to be kept apart from the rest, storing wheelbarrows on their way to the muck heap, taking deliveries of hay, hosting the farrier every six weeks, and periodically parking horse trailers. They had also cleared elder trees and installed a fenced "Walkway" running from the Disputed Land to their paddock, cut and stacked firewood under a Leylandii hedge, mowed the grass, planted and maintained a flowerbed (since 2013, on the evidence of neighbours who had gifted some of the plants), filled in a broken culvert (2008), widened a concrete ramp (2008), and later laid roadstone (2015) to firm up the access route.
The Fromants resisted on four grounds, all of which failed:
Insufficient acts. HM Land Registry itself had initially queried whether storage alone would be sufficient. The judge agreed that no single act relied on was, by itself, enough, but held that the combination was: the Whites had effectively "taken over" the strip as an adjunct to their stable yard, and "this is how an occupying owner would use land of this nature."
The Fromants' own use. Mr Fromant's witness statement suggested he regularly parked, mowed, and moved wood on the strip. Cross-examination told a different story: the parking was a single deliberate act in 2025, done specifically to demonstrate the land wasn't fenced off; the wood was wood he'd given the Whites and later taken back; the mowing amounted to occasional passes lasting "seconds," done, on the judge's finding, so infrequently that the Whites hadn't even noticed it happening.
Permission. The Fromants argued a 2014 conversation had established that the Whites could use the strip pending a formal arrangement. This failed for two independent reasons, discussed below.
Right of way. The Fromants argued a 1992 conveyance's right of way extended across the Disputed Land. The judge found the hatched way on the relevant plab stopped short of the strip in question, and in any event the acts relied on by the Whites - mounting horses, keeping a flowerbed, storing wheelbarrows - went well beyond exercising a right of passage.
The result: twelve years' adverse possession established from 2010 at the latest, with HM Land Registry directed to complete the Whites' registration, and the Fromants facing an adverse costs order from the date the matter was referred to the Tribunal.
Lesson One: Under-Claiming can be a Strength, not a Weakness
The most instructive procedural point in the judgment has nothing to do with muck heaps. The Whites had, on the evidence, also been in possession of the fenced Walkway leading to their paddock, but that land fell within the Fromants' registered title, not the unregistered strip. Rather than contest it, the Whites simply excluded it from their application and, at the end of 2023, removed their own fencing from that section.
Counsel for the Fromants tried to turn this against them: if there's no fence at the point where the eastern boundary of the claimed land crosses the old Walkway, where exactly is the line between what the Whites do and don't possess? It's a fair-sounding objection, demarcation is meant to make a claim precise, and here was an admitted gap.
The judge's answer is worth extracting in full because it captures something genuinely useful for practitioners:
"The fact that the Applicants have chosen (for whatever reason) to claim only part of the land of which they were in possession should not, in my judgment, count against them. It is not a situation where the owner is in danger of losing more land than they might reasonably expect; rather, it is less." [para 87]
In other words: a claimant is not obliged to press a claim to the full extent of their actual possession, and trimming a claim back to its unregistered, undisputed core is not a concession that weakens what remains, it's simply prudent case management. The risk a registered-title owner is meant to be protected against is losing more land than they bargained for; a squatter voluntarily asking for less than they could arguably take doesn't raise that risk at all.
For claimants sitting on a messy boundary where possession spills across both unregistered and already-registered land, this is a genuine tactical option: carve the claim down to the cleanest, least contestable footprint, and don't let the resulting demarcation gap at the edge of the excluded land be used as a stick to beat the whole application.
Lesson Two: Permission needs an Owner behind it, not just a Conversation
The Fromants' permission defence is the part of the judgment landowners should read most carefully, because it fails in two separate ways:
First, the conversation itself was too vague to amount to a grant.
Mr Fromant's account was that, in around 2014, the parties discussed the Whites' use of the strip and agreed they could carry on until "we had resolved the issue over the ownership of the land," at which point a formal (peppercorn rent) agreement would follow. Under cross-examination this became even less precise, he could point to no clear form of words, and the supposed peppercorn-rent arrangement had never previously been mentioned in the Fromants' pleaded case or witness evidence. The Whites' version was that the Fromants had simply said they'd recently bought the land and would write once the boundary was sorted out, no letter ever came, and they carried on using the strip as before. The judge found the Fromants' evidence "severely lacking in detail," making it impossible to say whether anything said actually amounted to permission being granted and communicated, as opposed to a vague non-objection pending some future tidying-up.
Second, even a clear grant would have been worthless, because the Fromants couldn't prove they themselves owned the land.
Permission is only relevant if it comes from someone with the right to give it; a licence from a stranger to the title binds no one. The Fromants' ownership case rested on a 1909 deed between predecessors, which the judge noted "is not the root of title" and which came with no evidence of any subsequent chain of transmission. HM Land Registry had, tellingly, already refused the Fromants' own attempts to register the same land. Once ownership fell away, "the question of permission then falls away" with it [para 57].
The practical warning here is aimed squarely at landowners who manage a boundary dispute through friendly, deliberately-vague conversation "we're happy for you to carry on for now, we'll sort out the paperwork later" on the assumption that a verbal green light is a costless way to keep the peace while ownership gets sorted out. White v Fromant shows that strategy can fail on both fronts at once: the vagueness that made the conversation feel low-stakes at the time is exactly what makes it an ineffective defence later, and even a well-evidenced grant of permission is no defence at all if the "grantor" cannot ultimately prove title.
Wider Context
White v Fromant sits amongst a busy run of 2026 First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal decisions on adverse possession, Aly v Esplen, Phillips & Anor v Mulira, Hayward v Suffolk County Council, among others, all wrestling with the same core question the courts have circled since Powell v McFarlane and Pye v Graham: how much, and what kind, of everyday use is enough to constitute both factual possession and an unequivocal intention to possess, particularly where the land in question is never fully enclosed. This is not a one-off curiosity; it is a live and recurring evidentiary battleground, and White v Fromant's facts, occupation short of complete enclosure, cross-examination that quietly dismantles a witness statement, and a permission defence built on shaky title, are a fair sample of what these disputes look like in practice.
Practical Takeaways
For Claimants and their Advisers:
Build the evidential picture from the accumulation of routine, daily uses, not just the dramatic ones (fencing, structures). No single act needs to carry the case.
Where possession spans both unregistered and already-registered land, consider whether narrowing the claim to the cleanest unregistered core strengthens rather than weakens the application, a demarcation gap at the edge of excluded land is not necessarily a problem.
Be ready to test a permission defence in cross-examination, not just on the pleadings; vagueness in a landowner's account of "what was said" cuts in the claimant's favour.
For Landowners Resisting a Claim
A permission defence needs two things proven, not one: that permission was actually communicated in terms clear enough to be identifiable as such, and that you had title to grant it in the first place. Gather and pin down both before relying on either.
Treat informal "use it for now, we'll formalise later" arrangements as a genuine legal risk, not a costless holding position, put the terms of any such arrangement in writing and be able to prove your own title before relying on it as a shield.
These steps are designed to ensure complaints are not only logged but actively resolved through a transparent and consistent process. Clear records should be maintained of complaints, investigations, decisions and any remedial action taken. This helps demonstrate accountability and good governance, identify recurring issues, and provides valuable opportunities to improve policies, procedures and customer outcomes
Why This Matters for Business
A well-handled complaint can strengthen customer trust, reduce reputational risk and help minimise the likelihood of further regulatory scrutiny. The aim of the new requirements is not to create unnecessary administrative burden, but to encourage concerns to be identified and resolved at an earlier stage. Complaint data can also provide valuable insight into wider issues with data handling, particularly where recurring themes emerge around subject access requests.
Research highlighted by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) suggests that many organisations are still unaware of the new requirements or mistakenly believe they do not apply to them. Now that the changes are in force, it is important to review existing complaints procedures and ensure they align with the ICO guidance processes.
