ICR09026-Blank letter R7-01102026.pdf

whether HM Land Registry properly investigated and answered the complaint put before it, 
whether it addressed the evidence I supplied, and whether the reasons given for its 
conclusion adequately explain how the disputed registration was accepted 
  
The decision of the ICR  
 
The ICR’s role is to look at how HMLR handles complaints: she can give a view on whether HMLR 
has followed its standard procedure in reviewing registration decisions and whether its complaint 
responses clearly and fully deal with the matters within HMLR’s remit.  However, you are asking the 
ICR to give a view on the evidence that you have provided to us (and previously to HMLR) which you 
consider should have led HMLR to make a finding of maladministration in the first registration of the 
titles.  
 
That is beyond the remit of the ICR. As you have acknowledged, the ICR has no authority to 
comment on legal issues and decisions or to review or change decisions made by HMLR under the 
land registration legislation. She is also unable to assess the evidence that you have provided and 
substitute her judgement for that of HMLR’s professional staff. 
 

To be of some assistance, the ICR has looked at whether HMLR properly explained its position. You 
believe that HMLR has a responsibility to assess the evidence and decide on the validity of your 
claim, but that it failed to do so in your case. You say: 
 
…HM Land Registry should have engaged with the underlying documents rather than treating 
the later registered position and the 1987 Court of Appeal judgment as effectively resolving 
the matter…I am concerned that HM Land Registry's present response treats the 1987 
judgment as though it answers a documentary provenance question which it did not 
determine 
 
However, HMLR’s role is administrative in nature, recording the outcome of transactions and of the 
applications made.  In the Stage 1 response dated 19 April 2025 the Assistant Land Registrar 
explained that the applicants had provided evidence to “show good root of title” thereby satisfying the 
legal requirement for the first registration of the parcel of lands.  The Land Registrar in the Stage 2 
response dated 25 May 2026, with reference to the Stage 1 response, stated  
 
At the time of registration we did not receive or were aware of any interest that you or your 
family may or may not have had in the land. The applicants at the time provided documentary 
title to the land that is registered and we were unaware of any dispute that was possibly 
ongoing. If you believed that you and your family had an interest in the land you could have 
applied at that time for a caution on the register to note your interest which we may have been 
recorded but we did not receive any application. 
 
The applicants had documentary title to the land they were registered with at the time. 
  
All the issues you have raised including identity misconduct, to the issue of title, to the land, are 
issues the Court would have dealt with and if you disagree with the findings of the Court then 
that is the appropriate forum to address your concerns. HM Land Registry is not the correct 
forum to resolve this issue. 
 
In the context of how HMLR arrived at its decisions, the ICR notes that HMLR followed its standard 
procedures for reviewing legal decisions and that those decisions were taken by staff of the 
appropriate seniority. 
  
HMLR is an administrative body and must take account of the findings of the Court. In 1987 the Court 
made a ruling on the substantive issue of ownership. The time to have challenged claimed 
administrative irregularities as to matters of title was during the course of that litigation. The ICR does 
not consider it appropriate to use the administrative complaints process to revisit those issues now 
and has found no basis to review the circumstances of HMLR’s administrative decisions that predate 
the 1987 legal decision. 
 
In the circumstances, the ICR has decided that further investigation by this office would not serve any 
useful purpose. Notwithstanding the ICR’s decision, the provision of an independent complaints 
review process does not affect your right to ask an MP to refer a complaint to the Public Service 
Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will usually expect you to have referred your complaint to the ICR 
first, so I would suggest you include a copy of this letter with any such referral. If the Ombudsman 
decides to investigate your concerns, we will assist if requested. 
 
Yours sincerely 
 
 
Denyse St Rose 
Office Manager and Investigations Officer