EV-0060 — Reported HM Land Registry notification received after Mary (Nancy) Williams’s death

page · Updated 2026-10-24T07:48:22 · Original source

EV IDEV-0060
TitleReported HM Land Registry notification received after Mary (Nancy) Williams’s death
Date of documentundated (reportedly received after Mary (Nancy) Williams’s death; family record gives death as 26 March 1983)
Typeletter
Evidence labelPRIMARY DOCUMENT — NOT PUBLISHED HERE
Repository / referenceOriginal letter not yet located. Related HM Land Registry titles WA231076 (first-registration application 30 November 1982) and WA240304 (application 23 February 1983).
StatusPENDING — Locate the original letter, reverse side, annotations, enclosures, envelope and postal marks; Obtain HM Land Registry application files, notices, service records and entries for WA231076 and WA240304; Obtain death date record and applicable procedural rules.
ProvenanceSOURCE PENDING: rests only on an unattributed recollection (speaker not yet named on the wiki) of a Land Registry letter arriving after Mary (Nancy) Williams, formerly Buckler, died. No copy, scan or transcript is linked.
Wiki catalogue pageGHF-E180
Claims that rely on thisAllegation: 1983 Land Registry registration and reported late notice after Mary W, BP Properties Ltd v Buckler, Cedwyn Estate Working Theory — Repeated Parcel Capture, Parcel A and the Llandou, Evidence Library, Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr): The Williams–Buckler Dispute, Great House Farm: Case Overview and Key Records, Land Registry Titles, Working theory: fraud, concealment, institutional handling and limitation

Proves: Not held, so nothing yet. Reported: records an unattributed recollection (SOURCE PENDING) that an HM Land Registry notification about the 1982–83 registration activity arrived after Mary (Nancy) Williams’s death and after the time to challenge it.

Does not prove: Does not establish the letter’s existence, wording, reference, dispatch or receipt dates, addressee, entitlement to notice, applicable deadline, or any concealment.

Interpretation: working hypotheses

Working hypotheses, kept apart from the record above. The record text on this page is unchanged. None of these is a finding: each line is labelled as inference, theory, a reading that cuts against the case, or a discarded theory, and names the evidence it rests on and what would confirm or refute it, so the reader can test it. Updated 25 Oct 2026 (v2: ingredients wording).

Why 1983

INFERENCE · W-03The farmhouse title was applied for on 23 Feb 1983, while she was alive and in occupation, and examined after her death (26 Mar 1983 in family records; "March 1983" in the judgment). HM Land Registry's 30 Jul 2026 schedule lists a D23 "inside exam" form with a Linklaters letter of 8 Apr 1983, correspondence of 12 Apr 1983, and Linklaters/Registry letters of 12 May 1983. The register edition carries the application date, 23 Feb 1983 (record). Working hypothesis: whatever the Registry asked about occupation was answered after the occupier had died, while the finished title speaks from a date when she was alive. The content of the three letters is not yet read.

Rests on: EV-0063 · EV-0066 · EV-0069 · EV-0070 · EV-0071 · EV-0161 · research log E133

Would be confirmed by: The 8 Apr, 12 Apr and 12 May 1983 letters (HM Land Registry subject access request, due 28 Oct 2026). If they described the house as vacant, or omitted her son in occupation, this reading is strengthened.

Would be refuted by: The same letters disclosing the occupation and BP's unresolved 1974 action to the Registry.

Status: Open; decisive input due 28 Oct 2026

DISCARDED THEORY · W-08DISCARDED: the theory that the 23 Feb 1983 registration opened a short legal window to challenge it, which closed with her death. Reason: no such window existed in law — LRA 1925 s.70(1)(f) and (g) protected rights being acquired by possession and every person in actual occupation, and s.82 allowed rectification with no time limit.

Rests on: EV-0060 (this page) · research log E49

Would be confirmed by: Would be revived only by a Registry notice setting a time limit that was relied on.

Would be refuted by: Refuted by the statute text.

Status: Discarded

Cited on

11 pages link here.

Browse mirror index

Small print: dotted links explain a word (see the glossary); amber-shaded links list every name the records use for the same thing.