1988 Dispossession of Great House Farm, Llandough from the Williams/ Buckler Family
Ministry of Defence,
I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 regarding any involvement of UK Armed Forces personnel in mine, my pregnant mother and heart conditioned fathers eviction/dispossession that took place in 1988 at Ty Mawr (Great House Farm), Llandough, near Penarth, Vale of Glamorgan.
Specifically, I request the following:
1. Whether any units of the UK Armed Forces, including but not limited to UK Special Forces (e.g. SAS), were deployed, tasked, or otherwise involved in this incident before, during or after the 1988 eviction (involving upto a reported 30 police officers).
2. Any records, logs, operational reports, orders, requests or communications referring to military support to civil authorities in relation to this event.
3. Any documentation relating to Military Aid to the Civil Authorities (MACA) requests connected to this incident.
4. Any correspondence between the Ministry of Defence and:
+ South Wales Police
+ Vale of Glamorgan Council
+ Welsh Office (as it existed at the time)
concerning the eviction or associated operations.
5. Any internal assessments, reviews, or after-action reports relating to the use of force or military involvement in this case.
For clarity, the incident involved the removal of myself and my family from Ty Mawr (Great House Farm) in 1988, reportedly involving a significant and coordinated enforcement presence.
If any of the requested information is held but exempt from disclosure, please specify the relevant exemption(s) and provide any information that can be released in redacted form.
If the cost of compliance exceeds the statutory limit, I would be grateful if you could advise how the scope of this request might be refined.
Please confirm receipt of this request and provide a reference number.
Regards,
Sion Buckler Esq. (Ret'd Sgt)
Manor of Llandough, Vale of Glamorgan
Service ID: 25148537
Dear Mr Sion Buckler,
Please find attached our response to your recent FOI request.
Kind regards,
Defence Business Services Records Review – FOI Team
Dear Information Rights Compliance Team,
I am writing to request an internal review of FOI2026/09019, and to formally clarify that this correspondence should also be treated as a Subject Access Request under UK GDPR (Article 15) insofar as it relates to my personal data.
1. Dual legal basis (FOIA + UK GDPR)
My original request concerns an incident in which I was a child directly present in the household at the time of the 1988 eviction/dispossession. This engages not only FOIA considerations but also my right of access to personal data under UK GDPR, including any information from or about me held within MOD systems, historical records, liaison files, or operational documentation.
Accordingly, please ensure this review is handled with the correct distinction between:
FOIA exemptions relating to third-party or operational sensitivity, and
UK GDPR obligations regarding personal data concerning a data subject (myself)
Where information is mixed personal and third-party data, I expect proper consideration of redaction rather than blanket refusal or “no information held” responses where records exist.
2. Anticipated issue: “No information held”
Your response states that no information is held for the non–section 23 parts of my request.
Given the nature of the event described (a coordinated enforcement operation involving multiple police officers), this conclusion requires clear evidential support.
Please confirm whether the search performed included:
MACA (Military Aid to the Civil Authorities) liaison records and requests
Regional military headquarters or district command diaries (Wales / Western regions, circa 1988)
Civil contingency planning files involving police support or cross-agency assistance
Defence–Home Office / Welsh Office liaison correspondence streams
Archived operational logs later transferred to The National Archives (including DEFE/WO series material)
If these were not explicitly searched, please explain why they were considered out of scope.
A conclusion of “no information held” is only reliable if searches were targeted, reasonably comprehensive, and capable of identifying transferred archival holdings, not limited to centrally indexed MOD FOI repositories.
3. Anticipated issue: “Section 23(5) neither confirm nor deny”
I acknowledge the application of section 23(5) in relation to Special Forces information.
However, I request that the internal review confirms:
Whether the “NCND” position was applied narrowly to Special Forces only, or
Whether it has been used in a manner that may have inadvertently limited wider searches across non-exempt MACA or civil support records
It is important that section 23 is not treated as a proxy limitation on the scope of the entire request, as my request explicitly extends beyond Special Forces involvement.
4. Adequacy of search (core issue)
The key issue for review is not exemption alone, but whether the search strategy was capable of identifying relevant historical operational liaison records at all.
Given the passage of time (1988), I would expect a reasonable approach to include:
Historical / archived command records
Decommissioned or transferred MACA documentation
Cross-referencing of police support operations involving military liaison
Keyword and event-based archival searches rather than only current MOD holdings
If none of these methods were used, please set out the reasoning for limiting the search methodology.
5. UK GDPR – personal data scope
As I was a child present during the events described, I formally request confirmation of:
Whether any MOD-held records contain personal data relating to me
Whether any such data has been withheld under FOIA exemptions without assessment under UK GDPR
Whether a separate Article 15 disclosure search has been conducted or will now be initiated
If necessary, I request that this part of my request be processed independently as a SAR with appropriate identity verification steps.
6. Requested outcome of internal review
For clarity, I am seeking a review that specifically determines:
Whether the MOD’s search strategy was sufficiently wide to capture historical MACA / civil support records
Whether “no information held” remains a supportable conclusion after inclusion of archived and transferred record series
Whether FOIA and UK GDPR obligations have been correctly separated and applied
Please confirm receipt of this request for internal review and confirm whether it will also be logged as a Subject Access Request under UK GDPR.
Yours sincerely,
Mr Sion Buckler (Ret'd Sgt)
Dear Mr Buckler,
Receipt is acknowledged of your email of 9 June 2026 requesting an internal review of your request, our reference FOI2026/09019.
The Department's target for completing internal reviews is 20 working days from date of receipt. We therefore aim to have a response with you on or before 21 July 2026. However, in the interests of providing you with a realistic indication of when you should expect a response, the majority are currently taking longer depending on their complexity, but we will aim to complete the review between 20 and 40 working days.
The review will involve an independent assessment of the processing of the requests and the outcome.
Yours sincerely,
MOD Information Rights Compliance Team
Dear Information Rights Compliance Team,
I am writing to request an update on the progress of the internal review of FOI2026/09019.
Your acknowledgement advised that the review would normally be completed within 20 working days, or between 20 and 40 working days for more complex cases. As I have not yet received the outcome, I would be grateful if you could advise when I should expect the review to be completed.
I look forward to your response.
Kind regards,
Sion Buckler (Ret'd Sergeant)
Royal Signals Cyber & Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE - PERSONAL
Good morning
Thank you for your email.
We have been passed on your enquiry and to allow us to proceed can I ask
you to provide your personal email address along with Valid
Identification. Please see guidance below.
The Data Protection Act 2018 and General Data Protection Regulation
require us to verify the identity of an individual before releasing any
information. As such, to allow us to proceed with your request please
forward a copy of either:
A. Your photographic Driving Licence showing your current address
Or
B. Your current signed passport AND a utility bill or official
correspondence which shows your current address and is dated within the
last three months.
If your current name differs from the name under which you served, please
provide documentary proof of your name change, such as a copy of a
marriage certificate, divorce decree or a copy of your deed poll showing
the change.
Upon receipt of the above we will begin processing your request.
Kind Regards,
Paula
AO |Disclosures Triage MP 660 | Support Branch | HQ Military Secretary
| 65 Brown Street | Glasgow G2 8EX
[1][email address]
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE - PERSONAL
-----
From: Sion Buckler <[2][FOI #1440573 email]>
Sent: 20 June 2026 21:27
To: DBS KI-RR FOI (MULTIUSER) <[3][email address]>
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - 1988
Dispossession of Great House Farm, Llandough from the Williams/ Buckler
Family
Dear Information Rights Compliance Team,
I am writing to request an internal review of FOI2026/09019, and to
formally clarify that this correspondence should also be treated as a
Subject Access Request under UK GDPR (Article 15) insofar as it relates to
my personal data.
1. Dual legal basis (FOIA + UK GDPR)
My original request concerns an incident in which I was a child directly
present in the household at the time of the 1988 eviction/dispossession.
This engages not only FOIA considerations but also my right of access to
personal data under UK GDPR, including any information from or about me
held within MOD systems, historical records, liaison files, or operational
documentation.
Accordingly, please ensure this review is handled with the correct
distinction between:
FOIA exemptions relating to third-party or operational sensitivity, and UK
GDPR obligations regarding personal data concerning a data subject
(myself) Where information is mixed personal and third-party data, I
expect proper consideration of redaction rather than blanket refusal or
“no information held” responses where records exist.
2. Anticipated issue: “No information held”
Your response states that no information is held for the non–section 23
parts of my request.
Given the nature of the event described (a coordinated enforcement
operation involving multiple police officers), this conclusion requires
clear evidential support.
Please confirm whether the search performed included:
MACA (Military Aid to the Civil Authorities) liaison records and requests
Regional military headquarters or district command diaries (Wales /
Western regions, circa 1988) Civil contingency planning files involving
police support or cross-agency assistance Defence–Home Office / Welsh
Office liaison correspondence streams Archived operational logs later
transferred to The National Archives (including DEFE/WO series material)
If these were not explicitly searched, please explain why they were
considered out of scope.
A conclusion of “no information held” is only reliable if searches were
targeted, reasonably comprehensive, and capable of identifying transferred
archival holdings, not limited to centrally indexed MOD FOI repositories.
3. Anticipated issue: “Section 23(5) neither confirm nor deny”
I acknowledge the application of section 23(5) in relation to Special
Forces information.
However, I request that the internal review confirms:
Whether the “NCND” position was applied narrowly to Special Forces only,
or Whether it has been used in a manner that may have inadvertently
limited wider searches across non-exempt MACA or civil support records It
is important that section 23 is not treated as a proxy limitation on the
scope of the entire request, as my request explicitly extends beyond
Special Forces involvement.
4. Adequacy of search (core issue)
The key issue for review is not exemption alone, but whether the search
strategy was capable of identifying relevant historical operational
liaison records at all.
Given the passage of time (1988), I would expect a reasonable approach to
include:
Historical / archived command records
Decommissioned or transferred MACA documentation Cross-referencing of
police support operations involving military liaison Keyword and
event-based archival searches rather than only current MOD holdings If
none of these methods were used, please set out the reasoning for limiting
the search methodology.
5. UK GDPR – personal data scope
As I was a child present during the events described, I formally request
confirmation of:
Whether any MOD-held records contain personal data relating to me Whether
any such data has been withheld under FOIA exemptions without assessment
under UK GDPR Whether a separate Article 15 disclosure search has been
conducted or will now be initiated If necessary, I request that this part
of my request be processed independently as a SAR with appropriate
identity verification steps.
6. Requested outcome of internal review
For clarity, I am seeking a review that specifically determines:
Whether the MOD’s search strategy was sufficiently wide to capture
historical MACA / civil support records Whether “no information held”
remains a supportable conclusion after inclusion of archived and
transferred record series Whether FOIA and UK GDPR obligations have been
correctly separated and applied Please confirm receipt of this request for
internal review and confirm whether it will also be logged as a Subject
Access Request under UK GDPR.
Yours sincerely,
Mr Sion Buckler (Ret'd Sgt)
Dear Ms Buckler,
Please find attached a response to your request for internal review.
Yours sincerely,
MOD Information Rights Compliance Team
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now