Crown Prosecution Service — correspondence with David Buckler (email)

Sir/Madam, I write to formally place before the Crown Prosecution Service evidence concerning suspected historical fraud and related criminal conduct arising from the dispossession and subsequent treatment of the former Great House Farm, Llandough, Vale of Glamorgan. I am currently investigating the matter and preparing proceedings concerning the underlying proprietary dispute. I am also considering the institution of a *private prosecution* in respect of any criminal offences disclosed by the evidence. I specifically invite the CPS to consider, at this stage, whether this is a case in which the Director of Public Prosecutions should exercise the power under *section 6(2) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 to take over the conduct of a private prosecution*, should proceedings be instituted. The principal concern is not simply the disputed ownership of land. The historical evidence appears to disclose a possible pattern in which the family’s established occupation and proprietary position were progressively characterised as merely permissive. Of particular significance is the apparent treatment of the occupation in the *1955 proceedings*, followed by the more explicit attempt in *1974* to establish a rent-free licence arrangement concerning the property. I am investigating whether these were independent legal positions or whether they formed part of a longer and coordinated course of conduct intended to create or manufacture a documentary/legal basis for treating an established proprietary occupation as permissive, thereby facilitating the acquisition or retention of the land. The subsequent involvement of *BP Properties Ltd and BP Pension Trust*, the registration of title WA231076 in 1982, and the litigation culminating in the 1987 Court of Appeal proceedings are material to that investigation. I do not ask the CPS to determine the civil title dispute. The question I ask is whether the documentary sequence discloses evidence capable of supporting criminal offences involving fraud, conspiracy, false or misleading representations, concealment of material information, or other offences arising from the alleged acquisition or preservation of property rights. I am particularly concerned that conduct occurring at different stages may only become intelligible when examined as a single historical sequence rather than as isolated civil proceedings. The apparent attempt to establish permissive occupation in 1955, the subsequent licence proposal in 1974, the later registration of title, and the representations made in the litigation may therefore warrant consideration together. I recognise that the CPS will need sufficient evidence to apply the Full Code Test and that the existence of a civil dispute does not itself establish criminal conduct. I am not presenting the allegation as proved. I am presenting the documentary evidence and asking the prosecuting authority to determine whether it warrants criminal investigation and/or prosecution. The CPS’s published guidance confirms that a private prosecutor may ask the CPS to take over a private prosecution and that, when specifically requested to intervene, the CPS must make a decision whether or not to take it over. The guidance further recognises that the CPS may take over and continue a private prosecution where the Full Code Test is satisfied and there is a particular need for the CPS to conduct the prosecution, including in serious or complex cases or cases involving substantial disclosure issues. I therefore expressly request that the CPS: 1. *Consider whether it would be prepared to take over a private prosecution under section 6(2) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 if proceedings are instituted;* 2. *Confirm whether the matter should instead be referred to an investigative authority for investigation before the CPS considers taking over proceedings;* 3. *Identify the appropriate CPS division or office to which the evidence should be submitted; and* 4. *If the CPS is not prepared to consider taking over such proceedings, expressly confirm that position and the reason for it.* I am able to provide an indexed evidential bundle containing the relevant 1955 and 1974 material, historical conveyances and plans, Land Registry documentation concerning WA231076, relevant court records and a chronology identifying the specific documentary inconsistencies and matters which I consider require investigation. I would prefer the CPS to have the opportunity to consider the matter at this stage rather than for a private prosecution to be commenced without first giving the public prosecuting authority an opportunity to determine whether it considers the case sufficiently serious, complex or otherwise appropriate for public prosecution. Please therefore treat this correspondence as a *formal request for consideration of CPS involvement and potential exercise of the DPP’s section 6(2) power*, and confirm the appropriate procedure for submitting the evidence for that purpose. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] The current possessor holds defective title, in my humble estimation. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] The councillor for Llandough and MP both will not reply. The council clerk retired. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Whereas I am trying to keep the matter open, transparent and in the public eye as it is a matter of public interest being a site of historic and archeological signficants I.e. monestry, roman villa, county treasure home, medieval burials etc. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Yours faithfully, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear Requester Thank you for your correspondence dated 3 September 2026. We appreciate that you are seeking clarification regarding these matters. However, we are unable to comment on hypothetical circumstances or on events that have not yet occurred. If you believe that a criminal offence has been committed, you should report the matter to the police. It is the responsibility of the police to investigate any allegation and determine whether there is sufficient evidence to refer the case to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision. You also ask whether, if a private prosecution were commenced, the CPS would take over the proceedings. We are unable to provide an opinion on that issue in advance. Any decision as to whether the CPS would take over a private prosecution can only be made after considering the specific facts, evidence and circumstances of the individual case. Accordingly, we are not in a position to say whether the CPS would or would not take over any future private prosecution. We apologise that we cannot be of any further assistance at this time. Yours sincerely Victim Liaison Unit Uned Cyswllt Dioddefwyr / Victim Liaison Unit [Gwasanaeth Erlyn y Goron / Crown Prosecution Service] [signature block trimmed]

Victim Liaison Cymru I wrote on 3 September 2026 (subject: Re-Opening of BP vs Buckler 1987) placing before CPS Cymru material concerning suspected historic fraud and related conduct arising from the registration and later dispossession at Great House Farm, Llandough. I have had no acknowledgement. Please confirm: 1. that the 3 September submission was received; 2. the reference number allocated; and 3. whether CPS Cymru will consider the material, or whether I should instead report to Action Fraud / South Wales Police for a crime reference number. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com

Dear Requester Thank you for your email dated 28 September 2026. Unfortunately, I have been unable to locate a case file based on the information provided. Our reference numbers are known as Unique Reference Numbers (URNs) and follow a format similar to: 62HA… followed by seven digits. Could you please contact the officer in the case to request the CPS reference number, if it has been issued. We look forward to receiving the necessary information so that we can assist you with your enquiry. Please provide this by 13 October 2026. Yours sincerely L Rutter Rheolwr Cyswllt Dioddefwyr / Victim Liaison Officer Uned Cyswllt Dioddefwyr / Victim Liaison Unit [Gwasanaeth Erlyn y Goron / Crown Prosecution Service] [signature block trimmed]

Dear Mr/Ms Rutter, Further to my email of earlier today and your message of 29 September 2026. I am writing to place further material and context before the Victim Liaison Unit so that CPS Cymru-Wales has the information necessary to identify any existing record or referral and, where appropriate, to ensure that the material reaches the prosecutor or team responsible for considering it. I am not asking the CPS to determine the underlying civil title to the property. The issue I am raising is whether the documentary history gives rise to potential criminal offences, whether those matters warrant investigation, and, if a private prosecution is subsequently instituted, whether the circumstances are such that the Director’s power under section 6(2) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 should be considered. 1. Police engagement and current references On 28 September 2026 I submitted a formal crime-recording request to South MP for constituency-record purposes only. The request asks South Wales Police to record, or explain in writing why they will not record, a report concerning suspected fraud and related concealment in the creation and subsequent use of registered title to the former Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough. It identifies, in particular, the first-registration application for WA231076 dated 30 November 1982, the application for WA240304 dated 23 February 1983, and matters arising from the subsequent 1987 proceedings. I also have a live Subject Access Request with South Wales Police concerning the 1988 eviction and demolition and related personal data. I previously reported suspected irregularities concerning the 1982 registration to HM Land Registry (reference [removed]). Further HM Land Registry enquiry references include [removed] and related references generated in September 2026. If a Report Fraud reference is issued, I will provide it immediately. For present purposes, I ask that the South Wales Police crime-recording request and the HM Land Registry report of suspected registration irregularities be treated as the principal current investigative references. 2. Documentary title sequence and suspected criminality The public evidence index is available at:

Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr): The Williams–Buckler Dispute

The material assembled there identifies a documentary sequence which, in my present assessment, raises questions as to whether the family’s historic proprietary interest in the farmhouse parcel was displaced through the use of records, possession evidence and registration material relating to a different or wider parcel, and whether subsequent registration and dealings then relied upon that resulting title position. For convenience, I refer on the website to this as the “synthetic title” issue. That is a description of the documentary pattern I have identified, rather than an assumption that criminal liability has already been established. The distinction is important because the 1987 Court of Appeal proceedings concerned possession, limitation and the October 1974 correspondence. My concern is that those proceedings did not determine the underlying documentary root of title to the farmhouse parcel now represented by the registered title history. 3. 1955 possession order and the neighbouring parcel A further issue requiring examination is the relationship between the 1955 possession order and the land historically occupied and claimed by the Williams/Buckler family. My evidence indicates that the 1955 order related to a neighbouring parcel rather than the family’s core farmhouse holding. I am concerned that subsequent possession and development activity may nevertheless have treated that order, or the associated possession history, as extending to land outside the parcel to which it actually related. Recent excavation and works on the former family land make this a live evidential issue. I ask that the underlying order, plans, descriptions and subsequent land use be considered against the documentary title sequence rather than assuming that the parcels were identical. 4. Possible loss or destruction of relevant records I hold dated photographs concerning works which removed a commemorative tree planted by my great-grandfather on or adjoining the former Great House Farm / Church View Close land. I have made a narrowed FOI request to the Vale of Glamorgan Council (case 00211484) seeking the instruction, works order, authorisation and any record linking the tree to the Williams/Buckler family or to the 1988 demolition. More generally, I am concerned that parts of the planning and land-history record which could bear upon the ownership history are incomplete or unavailable. I am not presently asking the CPS to draw an inference from that absence. I ask that any potentially relevant records held by public authorities or other custodians be identified and preserved while the police and other investigations are ongoing. 5. Existing correspondence and preservation I have maintained a continuous documentary record of communications concerning these issues with: – South Wales Police, including FOI, SAR, crime-recording and preservation correspondence; – HM Land Registry and the Independent Complaints Reviewer (ICR/090/26); – Cadw, Heneb, RCAHMW, Glamorgan Archives, National Library of Wales and other heritage bodies; and – Vale of Glamorgan Council, including FOI requests and internal reviews. Preservation requests/notices have also been made to principal record-holders where I consider material may be relevant, so that potentially significant evidence is not inadvertently destroyed, transferred or disposed of while these matters are being examined. 6. Request to CPS Cymru-Wales I respectfully ask CPS Cymru-Wales to: (a) note the South Wales Police crime-recording request of 28 September 2026 and HM Land Registry reference [removed] as the present principal references, with any subsequent police or Report Fraud reference to be added when available; (b) ensure that the material is considered by the appropriate CPS prosecutor or team if it is referred for prosecutorial consideration, including consideration of whether the alleged documentary conduct raises sufficiently serious or complex criminal issues to require specialist casework; (c) note that, should a private prosecution subsequently be instituted, I may make a specific request for the CPS to consider the Director’s power under section 6(2) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985; and (d) advise me of the appropriate procedure for making such a request, and the evidence CPS would require, if that stage is reached. I appreciate that the CPS does not itself conduct the police investigation. My purpose at this stage is to ensure that the potential prosecutorial dimension is properly identified and that the present material is capable of being matched to any police investigation or later referral. I remain ready to provide an indexed evidential bundle comprising the 1955 and 1974 material, historical conveyances and plans, HM Land Registry documentation for WA231076, WA240304 and related titles, relevant court records, chronology, and photographs concerning the former property and subsequent works. The website provides a public index to much of this material. I note the previous deadline of 13 October 2026. I will provide any South Wales Police crime/incident reference or Report Fraud reference as soon as it is allocated. Yours sincerely, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [signature block trimmed]

Dear Victim Liaison Cymru, Thank you for your email of 8 October 2026 acknowledging receipt of my 30 September correspondence and confirming it has been passed to a CPS manager. I note the apology for the delay in acknowledgement. Please keep me informed of any further progress or if additional information is required. Yours faithfully, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]