BP vs [requester] 1987

National Counter Terrorism Security Office,

After the *BP Properties Ltd v [requester]* [1987] ruling, my grandmother died conveniently within the two-week window she would have had to challenge BP’s registration of our land at the Land Registry. They registered the land in their name while failing to disclose her ownership claim. Our 800-year-old home was then demolished with us still partly inside it, and/or we were dragged out in front of our neighbours. It was the first time we had been forced out of our home since the 16th century.

ITV failed to mention that a pregnant woman and three infant children were inside. BP’s bailiffs appeared to be SAS (according to ITV footage and neighbour accounts). All our furniture, originally from Cardiff Castle, was looted. Our home was a county treasure. It was demolished at 4 a.m., the day after Cadw refused to spot-list it as Grade II, the council declined to place a demolition block on it, and our High Court injunction preventing demolition and removal of our property was overturned—all before any appeal proceedings against those decisions had even begun, let alone concluded.

My father also died conveniently while planning permission was authorised for 22 houses on our stolen land. This followed the rejection of his European Commission of Human Rights application (*[requester] v United Kingdom*, 1989) on the basis that BP’s rights superseded ours. The decision cited BP as the owners, even though our ownership claim had never been extinguished and BP had never obtained an ownership ruling in their favour. They were awarded only possession in 1987 because of the scandal that preceded it.

There is clear evidence of fraud, concealment and government involvement. Our title deeds were reported stolen. Western Ground Rents then attempted to recharacterise our occupancy as permissive in 1949, 1955 and 1962. That interest was conveyed to BP in 1969, which continued the same efforts in 1971 (corrupting the Ordnance Survey), 1974, 1975 and again in 1983/87.

The siege on our home in 1988 was a blatant act of terror. Gaddafi was right: Thatcher was a terrorist and murderer. My family have lived as hostages for the last 38 consecutive years in what amounts to concentration/work camps, built on our stolen/ occupied land. A further 133 homes for this rogue regime’s officers or POWs are now being developed on sacred woodland (upon a supressed monestry, roman villa, largest medieval burial site, home of Marconi (and Peerless Jim's fight fight) all whilst holding defective title—all to expand it's terrorist cell/camp on my ancestral birthland.

The British State and local authorities are totally rogue. It's a terrorist/ hostage situationship there.

I've been behind a GPMG in a helicopter, flying through villages in Iraq under war lord Tony Blair. And helped break those 2 SAS guys out of that Iraq prison in 2005, so they wouldn't be executed for who they executed. I know about being Brit'ish. But I also knew, a license to kill is also a license not to kill.

Your rogue regime is executing our souls down in South Wales. And there's no prosthetic for that. Like developing 133 houses (for imported voter Syrians?) on our stolen/ occupied ancestral birthland since 1667, while holding us hostage and captive in concentration work camps.

You've allowed a land marker bubble. And I suspect a land market crash will come, now we're in the advent of artificial intelligence. Fraud unravels all. There's no limitation on occurance of fraud either, only discovery of it.

Careers brief the plastic terrorists in local authorities in South Wales would you already. We're trying to decolonise in Wales, not stand for more imported voters in terrorists camps, on our stolen occupied lands. Which the Brit'ish awarded itself possession of, in it's courts (Magistrates, not Equity, so not judged on the merits of the case). Possession isn't ownership.

Is there peace? No!
Is there peace? No!
Is there peace? No!

Please instruct the plastic terrorists, holding my family hostage in your regimes concentration work camps, to come clean with this scandal. The jig is up. It's a racket. It's lawfare, multi generational warfare. Problem>reaction> solution.

EndEx!

Regards,

[requester] (Ret’d Sergeant)
Royal Signals Cyber and Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member

NPCC Freedom of Information Officers & Decision Maker
National Police FOI & DP Central Referral Unit (NPFDU).

Thank you for your responses of 2 September 2026.

I have now reviewed the position and wish to remove any possible ambiguity as to what I am requesting.

First, I contacted the National Counter Terrorism Security Office (NaCTSO), whereas the correspondence was answered by the National Police FOI & Data Protection Unit on behalf of the NPCC.

I also note that current Government information describes NaCTSO as a police-hosted unit forming part of the National Police Chiefs' Council, while the NPCC states that it has been a public authority for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 since 22 November 2018. NPCC has also published previous FOI responses to requests expressly addressed to the National Counter Terrorism Security Office.

Accordingly, please clarify whether the correspondence is being treated as having been received by the NPCC, by NaCTSO as an NPCC function, or by some other public authority. If the NPCC is the relevant public authority for this purpose, please process the request accordingly.

I also ask that the statement that you were "unable to identify a request for recorded information under the Act" be reconsidered.

The Information Commissioner's Office guidance confirms that an FOI request does not have to use the words "Freedom of Information Act" or adopt any particular legal form. A request made through WhatDoTheyKnow is capable of being a valid FOI request where the applicant is identified and the information sought is described. Where clarification is genuinely necessary, section 1(3) and the section 16 duty to provide advice and assistance provide the appropriate mechanism.

My previous correspondence plainly identified a particular historical event, particular organisations, a particular court case, a particular location and specific categories of records which I was seeking. I accept that it also contained substantial background and allegations. Those additional matters should not, however, prevent the identifiable requests for recorded information from being recognised and processed.

To remove any further doubt, I now expressly request the following recorded information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

A. 1988 operation

- "SAS Style Operation" according to ITV footage not published until 2025 - https://youtu.be/4GXmR7mAas0

Any recorded information held by the NPCC, NaCTSO or any relevant NPCC function concerning the eviction, policing, security arrangements, occupation, enforcement of possession or demolition of Great House Farm, Llandough, South Wales, in 1988.

This includes, where held:

- operational orders or plans;
- briefing material;
- intelligence assessments;
- incident or operational logs;
- correspondence;
- reports;
- minutes;
- debriefs;
- photographs or other recorded media;
- records identifying participating or supporting organisations;
- records concerning the use or proposed use of specialist, armed, military or security personnel;
- and records concerning liaison with other public authorities or private organisations.

B. BP Properties Ltd v [requester]

Any recorded information held concerning BP Properties Ltd v [requester] [1987] EWCA Civ 2, insofar as the case, the parties, Great House Farm, or the resulting possession/enforcement operation was considered by NPCC, NaCTSO, ACPO or any predecessor/successor national policing structure.

I am particularly interested in any recorded material connecting the judgment with the subsequent 1988 operation.

C. Police and security involvement

Any recorded information identifying, or describing the involvement of:

- South Wales Constabulary;
- South Wales Police;
- ACPO or any ACPO committee, working group or national policing function;
- specialist police units;
- military personnel or military units;
- private security companies, bailiffs or enforcement agents;
- or any other police, security or government body

in planning, intelligence, security, support or execution of the 1988 operation.

I am not asking the NPCC to confirm that any particular allegation is true. I am asking whether records concerning these matters exist and, where not exempt, to communicate them.

D. Predecessor and successor records

I recognise that the NPCC did not exist in 1988.

The relevant national predecessor organisation was the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), which existed from 1948 until 2015.

I therefore request any recorded information held by the NPCC concerning:

1. records inherited, transferred or otherwise acquired from ACPO which refer to the matters above;

2. any ACPO committee, working group, national policing portfolio or other predecessor body which dealt with the relevant matter;

3. any later NPCC or NaCTSO record which refers to, indexes, summarises, preserves, archives or otherwise records the existence of earlier material concerning the 1988 operation.

I am not suggesting that NPCC or NaCTSO themselves conducted the 1988 operation.

The purpose of this part of the request is to establish the chain of custody and present location of any surviving national policing records.

E. Searches and record location

If you conclude that no substantive records are held, please confirm whether the appropriate NPCC functions and repositories were searched, including the Counter Terrorism Coordination Committee and any relevant historical/predecessor record holdings.

Please also confirm, where possible, whether relevant records were:

- transferred to another police force;
- deposited with a local or national archive;
- transferred from ACPO to another body;
- destroyed under a retention/disposal schedule;
- or otherwise ceased to be held by NPCC.

I am not asking you to create new information or conduct an investigation. I am asking for information that is already recorded, including records showing the transfer, retention or disposal of relevant records.

The ICO's records-management guidance recognises the importance of records showing where information was transferred, archived or destroyed, including the applicable disposal arrangements.

F. Correct authority / section 16 assistance

If the NPCC does not hold the requested information, please say so expressly.

However, pursuant to the section 16 duty to provide reasonable advice and assistance, please identify the public authority or archival body which you consider most likely to hold the relevant records.

This is particularly important because the historical force structure is identifiable: the police force operating in the relevant area in 1988 was South Wales Constabulary, and South Wales Police's own Heritage Centre states that Glamorgan Archives holds records of South Wales Police and its predecessor forces.

If you consider that another public authority holds the information, please tell me which authority and, where practicable, provide the relevant contact point or record repository.

If you consider that the request should be transferred, please let me know and I will confirm my agreement to the transfer.

G. Exemptions

If any requested information is held but considered exempt, please do not treat that as a reason to decline the request as a whole.

Please provide all reasonably separable non-exempt information and issue a proper refusal notice under section 17, identifying the specific statutory exemption relied upon and the reasoning for its application.

Where an exemption is qualified, please provide the required public-interest reasoning.

H. Internal review

Finally, I formally request an internal review of the decision communicated on 2 September 2026 insofar as the NPCC concluded that it could not identify an FOI request in my correspondence.

Please ensure that this review is conducted in accordance with the NPCC's own published internal-review procedure, including consideration of the matter afresh and, where practicable, by someone independent of the original decision-maker.

Please acknowledge this internal-review request and provide the reference number for both the review and the substantive FOI request.

For clarity, I am not asking the NPCC to investigate my allegations, determine historical ownership of the land, or reach conclusions on BP Properties Ltd v [requester].

I am asking a much narrower and objectively answerable question:

What recorded information does the NPCC presently hold, or know to have been held within the national policing system, concerning the 1988 Great House Farm operation, its policing/security arrangements, BP Properties Ltd v [requester] [1987] EWCA Civ 2, and the subsequent custody or disposal of records concerning those matters?

Please process this as an FOI request and, insofar as requested above, as an internal-review request.

Regards,

[requester] (Ret’d Sergeant)
Royal Signals Cyber and Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member

Dear NPCC FOI Request Mailbox,

Those 133 houses being developed can be considered outside of the scope of this. Another problem for another day.

Yours sincerely,

[requester]

NPCC FOI Request Mailbox,

Re: Freedom of Information Request 3156/2026 – BP Properties Ltd v [requester] / Great House Farm, Llandough, 1988

I request an internal review of the decision dated 16 September 2026.

I am not asking the NPCC to investigate my historical allegations, determine ownership of Great House Farm, or establish whether any allegation made by me is true. I am asking the reviewer to scrutinise whether the response actually addressed the recorded-information request that was submitted and whether the search said to have been carried out was sufficiently directed to the information described in that request.

There are a number of material gaps between the request and the answer provided.

1. The request was substantially more specific than the response

My request did not simply ask whether the NPCC had a file headed “Great House Farm”.

It identified:

- the 1988 eviction/possession/enforcement/demolition operation;
- the specific location, Great House Farm, Llandough, South Wales;
- BP Properties Ltd v [requester] [1987] EWCA Civ 2;
- South Wales Constabulary and South Wales Police;
- ACPO and its committees, working groups and national policing functions;
- specialist police units;
- military personnel or units;
- private security, bailiffs and enforcement agents;
- liaison with other authorities and organisations;
- predecessor records inherited, transferred or otherwise acquired;
- later records indexing, summarising, preserving or referring to earlier material;
- and records concerning transfer, archiving, retention or destruction.

The response, however, principally states that searches were conducted and that no information was identified.

That is not the same thing as demonstrating that each of the above categories was actually searched.

2. Your answer does not identify the search terms used

You state:

«“Searches of ACPO archive listings and catalogues available to the NPCC identified no references to Great House Farm, Llandough, BP Properties Ltd v [requester], or the 1988 operation described in your request.”»

That wording leaves several important questions unanswered.

What names or terms were actually used?

For example, was the search limited to the exact phrase “Great House Farm”, or did it include potentially relevant variants such as:

“Ty Mawr” / “Tŷ Mawr”;
“Llandough-juxta-Penarth”;
“Leckwith Road”;
“[requester]”;
“BP Properties”;
“BP Pension Trust”;
“BP v [requester]”;
“[requester] v BP”;
“[1987] EWCA Civ 2”;
“55 P&CR 337”;
“possession”;
“eviction”;
“enforcement”;
“demolition”;
or references to the police force, operation, security contractor, bailiff or other participating body without naming the farm?

This distinction is important because a historical record may not be indexed under the terminology used decades later.

I therefore ask the internal reviewer specifically to establish whether the searches were capable of retrieving records falling within the actual scope of request 3156/2026, rather than merely documents indexed under the exact words “Great House Farm”.

3. “No references” is not equivalent to “no records”

Your response says that ACPO archive listings and catalogues available to the NPCC contained no references to the matters I identified.

That establishes, at most, that the searched listings did not reveal such references.

It does not establish:

1. that no underlying records existed;
2. that no records were transferred from ACPO;
3. that no records were transferred to another body;
4. that no record existed under a different description;
5. that no local-force record was ever referred to within national policing structures; or
6. that no later index, finding aid, correspondence, transfer schedule or disposal record identifies such material.

Those distinctions were expressly built into parts D and E of my request.

Please therefore ensure that the internal review does not treat the absence of an entry in an available catalogue as proof that the underlying records never existed or were never held.

4. Part D concerning predecessor records has not been answered at the level requested

I expressly recognised that NPCC did not exist in 1988 and therefore asked about records inherited, transferred or otherwise acquired from ACPO, together with records of ACPO committees, working groups and national portfolios, and later NPCC/NaCTSO material which preserved or referred to earlier records.

Your response states:

«“Searches of ACPO archive listings and catalogues available to the NPCC identified no references…”»

That does not tell me whether the reviewer considers that:

- the relevant ACPO holdings were actually searched;
- only an index or catalogue was searched;
- specific ACPO committee/portfolio holdings were searched;
- transferred ACPO records were searched independently of the catalogue;
- or there are particular classes of ACPO records which are no longer accessible to NPCC.

These are materially different propositions.

5. The answer concerning record custody is particularly narrow

Part E of my request expressly sought recorded information concerning whether relevant records had:

- been transferred to another police force;
- been deposited with a local or national archive;
- been transferred from ACPO to another body;
- been destroyed under a retention/disposal schedule;
- or otherwise ceased to be held by NPCC.

Your response states:

«“The NPCC does not hold any information concerning the transfer, archiving, retention, disposal or current location of records relating to the matters specified in your request.”»

I accept that this is an answer as to what NPCC says it presently holds.

However, it does not explain whether the search looked for records evidencing the disposition of the records, as opposed to simply searching for substantive Great House Farm material.

That distinction is important. A transfer list, archive accession record, disposal schedule, retention decision, destruction record, file closure record or later index might itself fall within the scope of the request even if the underlying operational papers are no longer held.

The internal review should therefore specifically consider whether the search methodology was directed to those categories of records.

6. The response does not explain what “relevant NPCC functions” means

You state:

«“The NPCC has undertaken searches across the business areas and repositories considered most likely to hold information within scope, including relevant NPCC functions, CTCC holdings, NPCC shared drives, and ACPO archive listings available to the NPCC.”»

Please do not allow the phrase “relevant NPCC functions” to remain undefined in the internal-review record.

My request specifically identified NaCTSO, ACPO and the Counter Terrorism Coordination Committee, as well as predecessor/successor national policing structures.

The reviewer should establish which of those functions, committees, portfolios or predecessor records were actually included in the search and which were not.

7. The response does not address whether searches extended beyond current electronic material

The subject matter dates from 1987–1988 and expressly concerns predecessor organisations.

A modern shared-drive search is obviously not, by itself, evidence of a search of historical material.

The internal review should therefore consider whether the search included any relevant:

- paper records;
- archived records;
- legacy systems;
- migrated records;
- predecessor filing systems;
- historical indexes;
- transfer registers;
- physical archive inventories; and
- records retained outside the present operational system.

I am not asserting that all of these must necessarily exist. I am asking the reviewer to establish whether the search was designed to find historical information of the kind requested.

8. The section 16 response is inadequate in a specific respect

I expressly identified South Wales Constabulary as the force operating in the relevant area in 1988 and identified Glamorgan Archives as a known repository for South Wales Police predecessor records.

Your response says:

«“The NPCC is unable to identify a specific alternative holder of the requested information based on information it holds.”»

It then gives only the general suggestion:

«“A consideration for you is to make a request with individual police forces.”»

That does not engage with the specific information I supplied to you about the historical force structure and identified archival repository.

I therefore ask the reviewer to explain why those identified potential custodians could not be addressed in the advice and assistance provided.

The ICO's section 16 guidance states that, where an authority believes another public authority may hold the information, it should inform the applicant and, where it can, provide the relevant contact details.

I am not asking the NPCC to certify that either body actually holds the records. I am asking why, having been expressly given those likely repositories, the response did not identify them or explain why they were unsuitable.

9. The “balance of probabilities” assertion needs to be tied to the actual search evidence

Your letter states that the normal standard is the balance of probabilities and then concludes that the search was “robust”.

The ICO guidance makes clear that the relevant assessment depends upon matters including:

- whether the authority correctly understood the scope;
- the searches undertaken and why they were likely to retrieve the information;
- the quality and thoroughness of paper/electronic searches;
- staff consultations;
- electronic search terms; and
- any evidence suggesting the information should be held.

Accordingly, I ask the internal reviewer to assess the quality of the search against the actual scope of 3156/2026, rather than simply repeating the conclusion that the search was robust.

10. There is also a reference-number issue which I ask you to clarify

On 7 September 2026, I was told:

«“We acknowledge receipt of your correspondence as both a Freedom of Information request and a request for internal review.”»

The substantive FOI was subsequently assigned reference 3156/2026.

The separate internal-review acknowledgement, however, states:

«“Internal Review 3157/2026 of 3043/2026.”»

Please confirm that the internal review will not be restricted to the earlier 2 September procedural decision under reference 3043/2026.

My present concern is the substantive decision dated 16 September 2026 under FOI 3156/2026, including whether the searches and conclusions actually answer Parts A–G of that request.

11. What I am asking the reviewer to determine

For avoidance of doubt, I am not expanding the scope of the FOI.

I ask the internal reviewer to determine, against the wording of request 3156/2026:

(a) whether the scope was correctly understood;

(b) whether all material categories expressly identified in Parts A–E were searched;

(c) whether predecessor/ACPO material was searched beyond merely checking currently available catalogue entries;

(d) whether records concerning transfer, archive, retention or disposal were considered as distinct information falling within scope;

(e) whether the NPCC has any recorded information identifying where relevant predecessor material was transferred or deposited, even if the underlying substantive records are no longer held;

(f) whether the statement that the search was “robust” can be supported by a sufficiently specific account of what was actually searched; and

(g) whether the section 16 advice and assistance given was reasonable in light of the specific historical repositories and likely custodians identified in my request.

If any information is held but is considered exempt, my original request expressly asked for the non-exempt portion and a proper refusal notice identifying the exemption relied upon. I therefore ask that this distinction be preserved in the review.

Finally, I wish to emphasise that the issue here is not whether the NPCC can prove or disprove my account of events.

The evidential question is considerably narrower:

What recorded information does the NPCC hold, or recorded evidence does it hold concerning the former national policing system, relating to the 1988 Great House Farm operation, the policing/security arrangements surrounding it, BP Properties Ltd v [requester] [1987] EWCA Civ 2, and the subsequent inheritance, indexing, transfer, archival custody or disposal of records concerning those matters?

The present response does not, in my view, demonstrate that each component of that question was searched or answered.

Please therefore treat this as a request for a substantive internal review of FOI 3156/2026, and please confirm the correct review reference being applied to that decision.

Yours sincerely,

[requester] (Ret'd Sergeant)
Royal Signals Cyber and Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member

Dear Ms Beney,

Internal reviews 3157/2026 and 3176/2026 (FOI 3143/2026 and 3156/2026)

Thank you for your letter of 29 September 2026.

I do not intend to pursue internal review 3157/2026 further, as the substance of that request has been addressed under 3156/2026.

I remain dissatisfied with the outcome of internal review 3176/2026. I intend to ask the Information Commissioner to determine whether, on the balance of probabilities, the NPCC holds recorded information within the scope of FOI 3156/2026.

My grounds are as follows:

1. Search terms

Neither the original response nor the internal review identifies the search terms used.

My internal-review request expressly identified relevant variants, including Tŷ Mawr, Llandough-juxta-Penarth, [requester], BP Properties, [1987] EWCA Civ 2 and 55 P&CR 337. Historical material may not have been indexed under the modern or informal name "Great House Farm".

The absence of any explanation of the search terms therefore leaves it unclear whether the searches were capable of retrieving records described under those alternative names or references.

2. Catalogue listings are not the same as searching the underlying records

The review confirms that "ACPO archive listings" were searched.

That does not establish whether the underlying archival holdings were examined, nor whether any relevant ACPO committee, portfolio, transferred, legacy or migrated records were searched.

I therefore remain unclear whether the search extended beyond catalogue or listing information to the records themselves, including any records that may have subsequently been transferred between custodians or systems.

3. "Relevant NPCC functions" remains undefined

The review refers to searches of "relevant NPCC functions" but does not identify which functions were considered relevant or which were actually searched.

In particular, it is not stated whether NaCTSO / Counter Terrorism Policing Headquarters holdings were searched, or whether the Counter Terrorism Coordination Committee's records or associated holdings were considered.

4. Custody, transfer, retention and disposal records

The review states that there is "no evidence" that transfer, retention or disposal records are held.

That does not establish whether those classes of record were actually searched for.

There is an important distinction between finding no substantive Great House Farm material and finding no records showing where relevant material was held, transferred, retained or disposed of.

5. Section 16 advice and assistance

I identified South Wales Constabulary and Glamorgan Archives as potentially relevant custodians or record-holding bodies.

The section 16 advice provided was generic and did not engage with either of those specific possibilities, nor explain why they were considered inappropriate avenues for the information sought.

Related handling by South Wales Police

For completeness, and because it is relevant to the identification and custody of historical records, I record the following handling of my related FOI request by South Wales Police.

The NPCC directed me to individual police forces. I had already made a request to South Wales Police on the same subject (FOI 719/26, now under internal review 1188/26).

The relevant chronology is:

- 7 August 2026: the South Wales Police Data Management team leader handling FOI 719/26 emailed asking for a contact number "so that I can call you to offer some explanation".
- 7 August 2026: I replied the same day in writing with my telephone number and stated that a message could be left.
- No call was received and no message was left.
- 16 September 2026: I chased by email, asked whether a message had been left, and requested a response by email.
- 17 September 2026: the reply stated that she did not have a contact number for me and therefore had not left a message.
- 17 September 2026: I replied, pointing to my email of 7 August containing the number. I have received no response since.

The number had therefore been supplied in writing, in direct response to the request for it. The explanation that was said to be the purpose of the proposed telephone call was never provided, either by telephone or in writing.

I record this here simply to preserve an accurate public record of the handling of related requests concerning Great House Farm.

Separate FOI request — searches carried out for 3156/2026 and 3176/2026

Separately, please treat the following as a new request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, distinct from my internal-review representations above:

Please provide any recorded information describing or documenting the searches carried out in connection with FOI 3156/2026 and internal review 3176/2026.

This includes, insofar as recorded:

- the search terms or keywords used;
- the repositories, archives, databases, systems, shared drives, email accounts or other sources searched;
- the business areas, teams or functions consulted;
- any search instructions, search logs, enquiry records, notes, or file notes recording searches undertaken;
- any recorded results or conclusions from those searches; and
- any recorded enquiries concerning the custody, transfer, retention or disposal of potentially relevant records.

Where individual staff members were consulted, their role or business area is sufficient; I am not necessarily seeking personal names.

I would be grateful if this could be logged and acknowledged as a separate FOI request.

Yours sincerely,

[requester] (Ret'd Sgt)