HM Land Registry — correspondence with David Buckler (email)

Dear HM Land Registry Customer Support, I am writing to raise a formal concern that the registered title to land formerly occupied by my family, first registered in the name of BP Properties Ltd in or around November 1982, may not accurately reflect the legal and factual position that existed at the time of first registration. I respectfully request guidance on the appropriate procedure to apply for the entry of a notice or restriction, and/or for rectification or alteration of the register, on the basis that an occupied and disputed interest was not recorded. *Summary of relevant facts (supported by court records and contemporaneous newspaper reporting):* 1. *Long-term occupation and asserted ownership* My grandmother and family before her, occupied the farmhouse and surrounding land openly and continuously for centuries, but certainly decades prior to registration; without payment of rent and while asserting ownership. The property was maintained as our family home and farm. 2. *No conclusive determination of title in 1974* Proceedings in July 1974 relating to possession and title were adjourned and never substantively determined. Further proceedings in October 1974 were interrupted by correspondence from BP entities offering a purported licence to occupy. As a result, there was no final judicial determination in 1974 establishing BP’s title on the merits. 3. *Express rejection of the purported licence* My grandmother expressly rejected the licence, stating that the land was hers. This rejection was acknowledged in later proceedings, but as having been communicated to BP Pension Trust Limited, not the claimant in BP Vs Buckler 1987 i.e. BP Properties Ltd. 4. *Inconsistent treatment of BP corporate identity* Subsequently the rejection was discounted on the basis that it was addressed to BP Pension Trust Limited rather than BP Properties Ltd. However, in dismissing my father’s appeal to that case almost immidiately afterwards, the court and same judge, treated BP Pension Trust Limited and BP Properties Ltd as “effectively the same entity for substantive purposes”. This inconsistency resulted in the rejection being acknowledged but disregarded when it favoured BP, while corporate equivalence was relied upon to defeat the appeal. 5. *Forced removal and restraint (not abandonment)* My family did not abandon the property or leave by our own accord, nor did we fully understand what or why this was happening. In 1987, my father and all of us, his dependants, were forcibly removed. Contemporary newspaper reports state that he was also taken from a hospital bed, detained without criminal charge, and made subject to a restraining order preventing him from returning to the farm. He was not even permitted to retrieve personal belongings. 6. *Demolition following enforced exclusion* While my father was later restrained from returning to occupy or defend our home, the farmhouse was demolished. This enforced exclusion and demolition rendered continued occupation impossible and removed the physical evidence of long-term residence. 7. *Registration despite occupation and unresolved dispute* BP Properties Ltd was registered as proprietor in 1982, at a time when: – the land was occupied by my family, – ownership was actively disputed, – no court had conclusively determined title, and – cessation of occupation occurred only later through enforcement and restraint, not voluntary departure. No notice, restriction, or record of the disputed and occupied interest appears to have been entered on the register at first registration. *Purpose of this correspondence* I am not seeking to relitigate historic proceedings at this stage. I am seeking to ensure that the land register accurately reflects interests and disputes that existed at the time of first registration, and that the absence of abandonment and the circumstances of enforced removal are properly understood. I respectfully request advice on: – the appropriate procedure to apply for a notice or restriction reflecting an omitted interest; and/or – the process for seeking rectification or alteration of the register under the Land Registration legislation applicable at the time. Please advise on the relevant forms, evidential requirements, and next steps. Regards, Requester

Dear HM Land Registry – Fraud Review Team, Sirs/Ma’am,I am writing to request a review of the integrity of a land registration made in or around *1982*, which later underpinned the proceedings commonly referred to as *BP v Buckler (1987)*. My concern is to raise reasonable grounds of belief that the 1982 registration *may have been obtained or maintained through misrepresentation, non-disclosure, or procedural irregularity*, resulting in a register entry that did not reflect a title definitively determined by a court of law. In summary: 1. *No definitive judicial determination of ownership existed at the time of registration* Prior to the 1982 registration, the courts had not conclusively determined ownership of the land. – Proceedings in *July 1974* were adjourned. – An appeal pursued by my grandmother on *31 October 1974* was effectively neutralised following two letters sent by BP-associated entities, rather than by a substantive judicial ruling on title. – Ownership was *asserted*, not adjudicated. 2. *Competing assertions of ownership were unresolved* BP asserted ownership, but so did my grandmother, who maintained possession and occupation until her death in *1983*, after the registry entry had already been filed. At no point prior to her death was there a final court decision extinguishing hers (or our families) claim or possession. 3. *Inconsistent treatment of BP entities in later proceedings* In the 1987 proceedings, the judge indicated that correspondence had not been replied to because it was sent by a different BP entity (BP Properties rather than BP Trust). However, in my father’s related appeal, the same judge treated *BP Trust and BP Properties as effectively the same entity*. This inconsistency meant that: – We were said to have lost because of non-reply, while – The judgments simultaneously acknowledge that a reply was in fact made and that the entities were treated as one. This contradiction is material, as it goes directly to whether BP’s asserted title was properly established. 4. *Possession and long occupation were not displaced by lawful process* My family had occupied the land openly and continuously for generations without challenge. We consistently asserted ownership and, in any event, possession sufficient to ground squatter’s or possessory rights. Our removal was *not voluntary*; it was effected by force and exclusion, not by a final determination of title. 5. *Subsequent events reinforce the concern* Following the appeal, my father’s application to the European Court of Human Rights was blocked, the farm was demolished preventing re-entry, and he also died thereafter in *1991*. Shortly after his death in 1994, the land was excavated and items of archaeological value were removed, despite prior knowledge of Roman remains on the property (including a Roman soldier previously uncovered within the living structure). Taken together, these matters raise serious questions as to whether the 1982 registration accurately reflected the legal position at the time, or whether it relied on assertions and correspondence that had not been validated by a court and that were later treated inconsistently. I respectfully request that HM Land Registry review whether: – The statutory requirements for registration were properly satisfied in 1982; and – The register may be inaccurate or was obtained by mistake, misrepresentation, or material non-disclosure. I am able to supply supporting documents, title numbers, correspondence, and a concise timeline if required. But everything already on public record indicates and supports everything I’ve highlighted in this email. Regards, Requester

Enquiry Reference: [removed] Dear Customer Thank you for your email dated 31 January 2026. Unfortunately, it is not clear from your email what the allegations of fraud/potential irregularities in 1982 land registration are? In order for us to investigate further, please can you provide us with either the full address of the property or the title number concerned. Can you explain /provide full details of what has happened? If the matter has been referred to the Police (please provide police incident number) and advise us, if any legal advice has been taken regarding the matter It is important to note that HM Land Registry can only consider and investigate circumstances in which an alleged fraud relates to actual or planned changes to the register. (registration) Yours faithfully S.-G. Haste HM Land Registry [signature block trimmed]

[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] *Subject:* Information regarding Registration Irregularities – Great House Farm (Ty Mawr) – Ref: [removed] *Dear S.-G. Haste,* Thank you for your guidance on how to proceed with this report. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the nature of the irregularities I have identified. As requested, I have attached a *detailed PDF timeline* which provides the full address and the historical context of the land formerly known as Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough. To assist your investigation into how the 1982 registration may have been affected by material non-disclosure, I would like to highlight three specific areas where the “actual facts” on the ground differed from the application made to the Registry: 1. *Overriding Interests (The Williams Lineage):* At the time of first registration in 1982, my family had been in continuous possession since 1667. I believe the registration was irregular because it misidentified the occupant, Mary Williams, as “Mrs. Buckler”—a name she did not use—effectively obscuring a 320-year “Living Title” from the Registry’s records. 2. *Suppression of Material Facts (Archaeology):* The site had “actual notice” of national archaeological significance due to a Roman discovery in 1888. I am concerned that this was suppressed during the registration and planning phases to facilitate the land’s transition to housing. 3. *Unresolved Ownership Claims:* In 1982, there was an active, adjourned ownership dispute (from 1974) that I believe should have been disclosed to the Land Registry before a clean title was granted to BP Properties Ltd. I am copying in the relevant heritage and oversight bodies (Cadw, GGAT, and the Ombudsman) not as an act of hostility, but to ensure that all parties holding pieces of this historical puzzle are aware that an investigation into the *integrity of the 1982 registration* is now underway. I have also copied in my MP, the Senedd, and relevant heritage bodies to ensure that all parties with an interest in Welsh cultural heritage and public record integrity are kept informed as we look into these 1982 registration details. I look forward to your thoughts on how we can review the original 1982 application files to see if these interests were disclosed. Yours sincerely, *Requester* *Descendant of the Williams family,* *of Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough* [quoted text trimmed]

The document attached is an official requisition, reminder or letter from HM Land Registry. It is not a circular and relates either to an application you have lodged with us or a property in which you have an interest. No paper copy of the item of correspondence will be sent to you. The document is in ‘Portable Document Format’ (PDF) which replicates the appearance of the hard copy version. You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to open the document. If you do not already have Adobe Acrobat Reader it can be installed free from http://www.adobe.com. Please note that as the document is in PDF format you cannot add text to any document that you need to complete and return to HM Land Registry. You will have to return any such completed document by post. Ymholiad, nodyn atgoffa neu lythyr swyddogol gan Gofrestrfa Tir EM yw’r ddogfen atodedig. Nid cylchlythyr yw hi ac mae’n ymwneud naill ai â chais rydych wedi ei gyflwyno i ni neu ag eiddo y mae gennych fudd ynddo. Ni chaiff copi papur o’r ohebiaeth ei anfon atoch. Mae’r ddogfen ar ffurf ‘Portable Document Format’ (PDF) sy’n dyblygu golwg y fersiwn copi caled. Bydd angen Adobe Acrobat Reader arnoch i agor y ddogfen. Os nad yw Adobe Acrobat Reader gennych yn barod, gallwch ei lwytho i lawr am ddim o http://www.adobe.com. Sylwch na fydd modd ichi ychwanegu testun at unrhyw ddogfen y mae’n rhaid ichi ei llenwi a dychwelyd i Gofrestrfa Tir EM gan ei bod ar ffurf PDF. Ar ôl ichi lenwi unrhyw ddogfen o’r fath bydd rhaid ichi ei dychwelyd trwy’r post. HM Land Registry’s purpose is to protect your land ownership and provide services and data that underpin an efficient and informed property market. Our vision is: “A world-leading property market as part of a thriving economy and a sustainable future”. We check all mail and attachments for known viruses. However, you are advised that you open any attachments at your own risk. If you have received this email and it was not intended for you, please let us know, then delete it. We welcome correspondence in English and Welsh. To see how HM Land Registry treats your personal information, read our Personal information charter: http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/personal-information-charter. Diben Cofrestrfa Tir EF yw gwarchod perchnogaeth eich tir a darparu gwasanaethau a data sy’n sail i farchnad eiddo effeithlon a gwybodus. Ein gweledigaeth yw: “Marchnad eiddo o’r radd flaenaf fel rhan o economi ffyniannus a dyfodol cynaliadwy”. Rydym yn gwirio pob neges ac atodiad am firysau hysbys. Fodd bynnag, fe’ch cynghorir mai chi sy’n gyfrifol am unrhyw atodiadau y byddwch yn eu hagor. Os ydych wedi cael yr ebost hwn trwy ddamwain, rhowch wybod i ni ac yna’i ddileu, os gwelwch yn dda. Rydym yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn Gymraeg a Saesneg. I weld sut mae Cofrestrfa Tir EF yn trin eich gwybodaeth bersonol, darllenwch ein Siarter gwybodaeth bersonol: http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/personal-information-charter.cy.

Diolch Lisa. Requester [quoted text trimmed]

Sir/Madam, I understand you may already be busy, so please don’t feel overwhelmed by this FOI request—I’m conducting my own diligence and happy for you to take the full statutory 20 working days to respond. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I request copies of all records, correspondence, memoranda, internal notes, minutes, file notes, land registration applications, objections, or communications held by HM Land Registry from 1 January 1938 to 31 December 1987 relating to:Ty Mawr (Great House), Llandough, near Penarth, South Glamorgan (also known as Great House Farm). Land registration applications, title transfers, or dealings involving Mountjoy Ltd, Western Ground Rents Ltd, BP Pension Trust Ltd, and/or BP Properties Ltd (including the 1938 auction/reversion conveyance and 1969 sale). Interactions, notices, proceedings, tenancy offers, licences (e.g., 1974 unilateral lifetime licence letters), or disputes involving Mrs Mary Williams (also referred to as Mrs Buckler), Mr Frederick Buckler, or Williams/Buckler family occupiers—particularly the [removed] possession proceedings (Dec 11 order by Judge Temple Morris QC). Any possession proceedings, adverse possession claims, or title objections connected to the property (e.g., [removed] 1974 actions). Please include archived, off-site, or scanned records where applicable.If exemptions apply (e.g., Section 40 personal data), specify which and why. If costs exceed the appropriate limit, advise how to refine (e.g., prioritize 1955-1987 or 1962/1974 events). I look forward to your response within 20 working days. Yours faithfully, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear Requester In order to proceed with your request we require some further information: * Please provide the title number in which you require this information for You may need to apply for a Search of the Index Map to find out if a specific property or area of land is registered and, if it is, the title number(s) of that land. Further information on this service is provided below. Once you have sufficiently clarified the relevant land in which you would like this information for, we will proceed with your request. To assist you in accessing information held by HMLR, please be aware the information you have requested is held within our registers that are open to public inspection and accessible via statutory routes of access. This means that we are unable to provide access to this information via an Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) or a Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) request and it is likely a refusal notice will be issued for this information. Information about how to apply to inspect or obtain official copies is contained with practice guide 11: http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inspection-and-application-for-official-copies/practice-guide-11-inspection-and-application-for-official-copies&lt;http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inspection-and-application-for-official-copies/practice-guide-11-inspection-and-application-for-official-copies&gt; Our Customer Support colleagues are trained to handle queries which relate to information that is held on the register of title If you require any assistance in completing the application form or to determine which documents to order, please contact our Customer Support Team who will be able to assist you with your query. Their contact details are as follows: English language phone [removed] Welsh language phone [removed] What is the Index Map? HM Land Registry keeps a computerised ‘index map’ based on the Ordnance Survey map. This computerised map provides an index of the land in every registered title and pending application for first registration. Applying for an Index Map Search You apply for an official search of the index map using form SIM<https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/index-map-application-for-an-official-search-sim&gt;. This will need to be printed, completed and sent to our Standard address<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/hm-land-registry-address-for-applications#standard-addresses&gt;. You must attach a plan to show the land that you are interested in, it should: * be drawn to scale * be based on the current large scale Ordnance Survey map * indicate scale and north point * show property extent with suitable colouring and position in relation to nearby roads and other features plans of flats and maisonettes indicate floor level (if any) of the property. * You can also search by map on our Search for land and property information<https://www.gov.uk/search-property-information-land-registry&gt; service. Yours sincerely [logo] Amanda Whittaker PC.foi Disclosure Officer Information Rights Team [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Hi, Thanks for your reply. Your agency already responded some weeks ago to say that the registration by BP of Great House Farm, Llandough in 1982, was being scanned. I have yet to receive a response about that, but that is the land parcel in question. Now known as Church View Close, Llandough, Vale of Glamorgan. Regards, Requester [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester Thank you for your email, however the information you have provided does not assist us in locating the title number. We are unable to proceed with your Freedom of Information request without this information. You may wish to contact our Customer Support Team who are trained to assist you with locating information that is held on the register of title. Their contact details are as follows: HM Land Registry Citizen Centre PO Box 7806 Bilston [removed] English language phone [removed] Welsh language phone [removed] Online contact form: HM Land Registry Contact Us form<https://customerhelp.landregistry.gov.uk/guide-page-external/?stepid=2b31bc48-eb96-eb11-b1ac-%5Bremoved%5D&gt; There is no direct contact e-mail address for Customer Support. Please use the online contact form and any responses will be issued via e-mail. Yours sincerely [logo] Amanda Whittaker PC.foi Disclosure Officer Information Rights Team [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Thanks for your reply, See attached the letter to which I am referring. I trust this helps clarify the plot in question. Regards, Requester [quoted text trimmed]

The document attached is an official requisition, reminder or letter from HM Land Registry. It is not a circular and relates either to an application you have lodged with us or a property in which you have an interest. No paper copy of the item of correspondence will be sent to you. The document is in ‘Portable Document Format’ (PDF) which replicates the appearance of the hard copy version. You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to open the document. If you do not already have Adobe Acrobat Reader it can be installed free from http://www.adobe.com. Please note that as the document is in PDF format you cannot add text to any document that you need to complete and return to HM Land Registry. You will have to return any such completed document by post. Ymholiad, nodyn atgoffa neu lythyr swyddogol gan Gofrestrfa Tir EM yw’r ddogfen atodedig. Nid cylchlythyr yw hi ac mae’n ymwneud naill ai â chais rydych wedi ei gyflwyno i ni neu ag eiddo y mae gennych fudd ynddo. Ni chaiff copi papur o’r ohebiaeth ei anfon atoch. Mae’r ddogfen ar ffurf ‘Portable Document Format’ (PDF) sy’n dyblygu golwg y fersiwn copi caled. Bydd angen Adobe Acrobat Reader arnoch i agor y ddogfen. Os nad yw Adobe Acrobat Reader gennych yn barod, gallwch ei lwytho i lawr am ddim o http://www.adobe.com. Sylwch na fydd modd ichi ychwanegu testun at unrhyw ddogfen y mae’n rhaid ichi ei llenwi a dychwelyd i Gofrestrfa Tir EM gan ei bod ar ffurf PDF. Ar ôl ichi lenwi unrhyw ddogfen o’r fath bydd rhaid ichi ei dychwelyd trwy’r post. HM Land Registry’s purpose is to protect your land ownership and provide services and data that underpin an efficient and informed property market. Our vision is: “A world-leading property market as part of a thriving economy and a sustainable future”. We check all mail and attachments for known viruses. However, you are advised that you open any attachments at your own risk. If you have received this email and it was not intended for you, please let us know, then delete it. We welcome correspondence in English and Welsh. To see how HM Land Registry treats your personal information, read our Personal information charter: http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/personal-information-charter. Diben Cofrestrfa Tir EF yw gwarchod perchnogaeth eich tir a darparu gwasanaethau a data sy’n sail i farchnad eiddo effeithlon a gwybodus. Ein gweledigaeth yw: “Marchnad eiddo o’r radd flaenaf fel rhan o economi ffyniannus a dyfodol cynaliadwy”. Rydym yn gwirio pob neges ac atodiad am firysau hysbys. Fodd bynnag, fe’ch cynghorir mai chi sy’n gyfrifol am unrhyw atodiadau y byddwch yn eu hagor. Os ydych wedi cael yr ebost hwn trwy ddamwain, rhowch wybod i ni ac yna’i ddileu, os gwelwch yn dda. Rydym yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn Gymraeg a Saesneg. I weld sut mae Cofrestrfa Tir EF yn trin eich gwybodaeth bersonol, darllenwch ein Siarter gwybodaeth bersonol: http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/personal-information-charter.cy.

Thanks, I appreciate your finding. I will be in touch shortly. Requester [quoted text trimmed]

Ms Griffiths, Thanks for your letter of 23 March 2026 regarding the historic registration of Ty Mawr Farm, title WA231076. I note your explanation of HM Land Registry’s administrative role and that you say there is no evidence of a “mistake” on the basis of the file you have reviewed. My family’s concern, however, is that the first registration was procured by misrepresentation and identity fraud by BP, rather than by a simple clerical error. The occupier was my grandmother, Mrs Williams, from a family that had occupied the property and land since at least 1667, not the fictitious “Mrs Buckler” BP fabricated in 1974 for their unilateral licence, which was the basis of the BP Properties Ltd v Buckler (1987) case. BP also appears to have failed to disclose the long‑running ownership dispute. In a 1978 suppressed newspaper article, my grandmother publicly asserted her ownership and stated that BP could not prove ownership and had never obtained a court ruling that it was the owner, only possession orders. How was BP able to register our land in its name? Did HM Land Registry enquire whether there was any dispute over the land, given that the dispute appears in court records from 1974? Twice that year BP obstructed my grandmother from making her case that she owned the land: first, the hearing was adjourned without a ruling; then the licence letters, using identity fraud, prevented the second hearing from taking place. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Had HM Land Registry recorded or investigated the existence of this dispute, BP’s inability to prove ownership, the archaeological and historic significance of the site, or sought a copy of my grandmother’s death certificate to see that the name on the licence and narrative were completely different, we believe BP would not have been able to achieve first registration on the basis presented. Instead, the use of the wrong name (“Mrs Buckler” instead of my married grandmother, Mrs Williams) and the non‑disclosure of the dispute and family claim enabled dispossession through what we say was identity fraud, which my grandmother was unable to contest as she also died in the same year as registration. I wish to append to this land parcel our maintained position of dispute. We never surrendered. We were removed by around 30 police officers [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Further background is set out at bpvsbuckler.datro.xyz. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I am aware that HM Land Registry operates a statutory indemnity and redress scheme under the Land Registration Act 2002, and that substantial payments (including around £8 million in a single year) have been made where people suffer loss because of mistakes or fraud in the register. I therefore wish to explore, formally, whether our family’s loss of Ty Mawr Farm, in circumstances where BP’s misrepresentations and the suppression of an active dispute were not reflected on the register, can be considered within that indemnity/redress framework. In light of the above, I ask HM Land Registry to state clearly whether you accept or deny that: BP was able to obtain first registration of Ty Mawr Farm even though there was no court ruling that BP owned the land and BP had been unable to prove ownership in proceedings, which were confined to possession. The land was registered while there was an active and public dispute over ownership (including my grandmother’s 1978 public assertion of ownership and the BP v Buckler litigation), and while the long‑term occupier, my grandmother, had died and was therefore unable to challenge the application. My grandmother’s identity and superior family title and land claim associated with that name were mis‑described in the material on which you relied, as BP used “Mrs Buckler” instead of my married grandmother’s actual name, Mrs Williams, and that this misdescription and the concealment of the dispute were not detected or queried by HM Land Registry before completing first registration.� If these matters are admitted, I consider they amount to negligence and maladministration by HM Land Registry in allowing BP to register our family land in its name in those circumstances. If you do not accept that, please explain precisely which of the above points you dispute and on what basis, so that I can take appropriate legal advice and pursue an indemnity/redress claim if available. Separately from that, please also: Provide official copies of the 23 May 1975 and 19 November 1982 conveyances, and of the first registration applications and all supporting documents for WA231076 and WA240304, so I can obtain specialist advice on the extent of any misrepresentation in what was lodged. Confirm the correct procedure and forms to make a claim under your indemnity/redress scheme in a historic case of alleged fraud and misrepresentation in first registration, and whether you consider this matter potentially falls within that scheme, subject to evidence. I appreciate that you cannot determine the underlying ownership dispute, but it is important that HM Land Registry notes that the Buckler/Williams family contests the integrity of the original registration of Ty Mawr Farm on the basis of identity fraud, non‑disclosure of a live dispute, and the absence of any judicial determination that BP owned the land. Regards, Requester [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester, Please find attached our response to your Freedom of Information request. Yours sincerely [logo] Kat Wignall EO Disclosure Officer Information Rights Team [signature block trimmed]

The document attached is an official requisition, reminder or letter from HM Land Registry. It is not a circular and relates either to an application you have lodged with us or a property in which you have an interest. No paper copy of the item of correspondence will be sent to you. The document is in ‘Portable Document Format’ (PDF) which replicates the appearance of the hard copy version. You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to open the document. If you do not already have Adobe Acrobat Reader it can be installed free from http://www.adobe.com. Please note that as the document is in PDF format you cannot add text to any document that you need to complete and return to HM Land Registry. You will have to return any such completed document by post. Ymholiad, nodyn atgoffa neu lythyr swyddogol gan Gofrestrfa Tir EM yw’r ddogfen atodedig. Nid cylchlythyr yw hi ac mae’n ymwneud naill ai â chais rydych wedi ei gyflwyno i ni neu ag eiddo y mae gennych fudd ynddo. Ni chaiff copi papur o’r ohebiaeth ei anfon atoch. Mae’r ddogfen ar ffurf ‘Portable Document Format’ (PDF) sy’n dyblygu golwg y fersiwn copi caled. Bydd angen Adobe Acrobat Reader arnoch i agor y ddogfen. Os nad yw Adobe Acrobat Reader gennych yn barod, gallwch ei lwytho i lawr am ddim o http://www.adobe.com. Sylwch na fydd modd ichi ychwanegu testun at unrhyw ddogfen y mae’n rhaid ichi ei llenwi a dychwelyd i Gofrestrfa Tir EM gan ei bod ar ffurf PDF. Ar ôl ichi lenwi unrhyw ddogfen o’r fath bydd rhaid ichi ei dychwelyd trwy’r post. HM Land Registry’s purpose is to protect your land ownership and provide services and data that underpin an efficient and informed property market. Our vision is: “A world-leading property market as part of a thriving economy and a sustainable future”. We check all mail and attachments for known viruses. However, you are advised that you open any attachments at your own risk. If you have received this email and it was not intended for you, please let us know, then delete it. We welcome correspondence in English and Welsh. To see how HM Land Registry treats your personal information, read our Personal information charter: http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/personal-information-charter. Diben Cofrestrfa Tir EF yw gwarchod perchnogaeth eich tir a darparu gwasanaethau a data sy’n sail i farchnad eiddo effeithlon a gwybodus. Ein gweledigaeth yw: “Marchnad eiddo o’r radd flaenaf fel rhan o economi ffyniannus a dyfodol cynaliadwy”. Rydym yn gwirio pob neges ac atodiad am firysau hysbys. Fodd bynnag, fe’ch cynghorir mai chi sy’n gyfrifol am unrhyw atodiadau y byddwch yn eu hagor. Os ydych wedi cael yr ebost hwn trwy ddamwain, rhowch wybod i ni ac yna’i ddileu, os gwelwch yn dda. Rydym yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn Gymraeg a Saesneg. I weld sut mae Cofrestrfa Tir EF yn trin eich gwybodaeth bersonol, darllenwch ein Siarter gwybodaeth bersonol: http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/personal-information-charter.cy.

Sir or Madam, I write to ask that my complaint regarding title number WA231076 (Land on the North Side of Leckwith Road, Llandough) be escalated to **stage two** of HM Land Registry’s Complaints Procedure. This email sets out why I consider the stage‑one decision to be incorrect, identifies the mistake I say exists in the register, and explains the decision I seek. ### 1. My core contention My core contention is that BP Properties Limited were registered as proprietors on the basis of a factual and legal error regarding my grandmother’s status on the land. My grandmother did not occupy under any genuine licence granted to her and did not relinquish any claim. Instead, any licence relied on by BP related to a different name/person. As her heir, I have succeeded to her claim; I therefore say that registering BP as proprietors was a “mistake in the register” for the purposes of the Land Registration Act 2002. ### 2. Identity mismatch and alleged “licence” Your stage‑one letter records that HM Land Registry relies on the Court of Appeal decision in BP Properties Ltd v Buckler EWCA Civ 2, and treats my grandmother as having occupied under a licence granted by the documentary title holder, so that her possession was no longer adverse. However, the alleged licence and related correspondence did not use my grandmother’s true legal name. My grandmother was Mrs Williams (supported by her birth, marriage and death certificates), not “Mrs Buckler”. The “licensee” referred to in BP’s narrative and in the 1987 litigation is therefore not the same legal person as my grandmother. There is, in other words, a fundamental mis‑identification or identity fraud at the heart of the story that HM Land Registry and the Court have relied upon. If the licence relied on by BP was addressed to, or granted in respect of, a different named individual, it cannot properly be said that my grandmother’s occupation was under that licence. In that case her occupation remained adverse to BP’s paper title, and any finding that she was a “licensee” rests on a factual premise that is demonstrably wrong. ### 3. Timing – “cart before the horse” Your letter explains that the applications for first registration of WA231076 (and the related title WA240304) were made in 1982–83 and that BP demonstrated a documentary root of title back to 1969/1975 by way of conveyances and a 1971 abstract of title. You also confirm that the Court of Appeal only gave its decision in BP Properties Ltd v Buckler in 1987, holding that an offer by BP to let my grandmother remain created a licence and brought her adverse possession to an end. This highlights a fundamental sequencing problem: – At the date of first registration (1982–83), whether there was a valid licence capable of defeating my grandmother’s adverse possession was a live, unresolved dispute. – BP nevertheless presented themselves as entitled to be registered as proprietors and their solicitors certified on form FR1 that there was no question or doubt affecting the title. – HM Land Registry, relying on that certification, registered BP before any court had determined whether my grandmother’s possession had extinguished BP’s title. – Only in 1987 did the Court of Appeal retrospectively treat the alleged licence as bringing adverse possession to an end, and that decision was itself based on the mis‑identification described above. In simple terms, the effect of the alleged licence (if any) was judicially determined **after** first registration, and on the basis of the wrong person being treated as the “licensee”. BP and their solicitors put the cart before the horse, and HM Land Registry accepted that position. ### 4. The specific “mistake in the register” Your stage‑one response concludes that there is “no evidence of a mistake in the register” and therefore no power to alter the register and no right to indemnity. I say this is incorrect. The mistake I allege is as follows: 1. On the true facts, my grandmother’s occupation of the land was adverse to BP’s documentary title and was not under any valid licence granted to her. 2. Her adverse possession had, or may have, extinguished BP’s title by the time of first registration in 1982–83, meaning BP were not entitled to be registered as proprietors at that time. 3. HM Land Registry nevertheless registered BP as proprietors on the basis of: – a licence attributed to the wrong person (identity error/fraud), and – a solicitor’s FR1 certificate stating there was no question or doubt affecting title, despite a long‑running dispute and pending litigation. 4. Subsequent reliance on the 1987 Court of Appeal decision does not cure this, because that decision itself proceeded on the mis‑identification of my grandmother and did not and could not retrospectively validate a licence that never related to her. On that analysis, the register shows BP as proprietors when, in law, my grandmother’s adverse possession should have extinguished BP’s title and given rise to a transmissible proprietary interest which I, as her heir, now claim. The register therefore does not accurately reflect the true legal position and contains a mistake capable of rectification. ### 5. Why the stage‑one reasoning is inadequate In your stage‑one letter you state that: – HM Land Registry has an administrative function and cannot “look behind or challenge decisions of the Court”. [1] – My identity‑fraud claims are “not relevant to the issue of title to the land” because they relate to the dispute heard by the Court. – There is no evidence of negligence or maladministration and no evidence of a mistake in the register. With respect, this reasoning is incomplete: – Once HM Land Registry is presented with clear evidence that the person named as the “licensee” in the litigation and licence documentation is not the same legal person as the occupier (my grandmother), that goes directly to whether the Court of Appeal’s factual premise remains reliable and whether the register is accurate. – Recognising that there is a serious question as to the correctness of the register is not the same as “overturning” the Court of Appeal. HM Land Registry has statutory powers to alter the register where there is a mistake, and it can, where appropriate, refer disputes about rectification to the tribunal or the courts. – To simply say that identity‑fraud concerns are “not relevant to title” is, I say, an error of law and/or an unreasonable application of policy. It disregards new evidence going to the foundation of BP’s claimed entitlement. ### 6. The decision and outcome I seek For stage two, I ask that a Land Registrar (Senior Officer) reconsider the complaint and: 1. Accept that the combination of: – the identity mismatch (licence/name vs my grandmother’s true legal name), and – the timing (registration in 1982–83 before the 1987 decision) gives rise to at least a **serious question** as to whether the register is mistaken in showing BP/ Companies thereafter, as proprietors. 2. Treat this as evidence of a potential “mistake in the register” for the purposes of your alteration powers and Schedule 8, rather than as a mere disagreement with the 1987 judgment. 3. Either: – (a) commence the process of rectification, recognising that my grandmother’s adverse possession may have extinguished BP’s title and that I, as her heir, now have a claim to be registered, or – (b) formally refer the dispute over the correctness of the register to the appropriate tribunal/court, making clear that HM Land Registry recognises that the identity‑fraud evidence raises a real issue about whether the register is accurate. 4. Confirm that, if it is ultimately determined that the register is mistaken and cannot be rectified without prejudice to third parties, HM Land Registry will treat me as having a potential claim for indemnity under Schedule 8. Please also confirm any further documents you require (for example, copies of the licence, the BP v Buckler pleadings/judgment, and my grandmother’s certificates) so that the stage‑two review can consider the identity evidence in full. Fraud unravels all. The limitation act also had a clause for fraud. Furthermore any limitation begins from discovery of fraud not occurrence of it. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

The document attached is an official requisition, reminder or letter from HM Land Registry. It is not a circular and relates either to an application you have lodged with us or a property in which you have an interest. No paper copy of the item of correspondence will be sent to you. The document is in ‘Portable Document Format’ (PDF) which replicates the appearance of the hard copy version. You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to open the document. If you do not already have Adobe Acrobat Reader it can be installed free from http://www.adobe.com. Please note that as the document is in PDF format you cannot add text to any document that you need to complete and return to HM Land Registry. You will have to return any such completed document by post. HM Land Registry’s purpose is to protect your land ownership and provide services and data that underpin an efficient and informed property market. Our vision is: “A world-leading property market as part of a thriving economy and a sustainable future”. We check all mail and attachments for known viruses. However, you are advised that you open any attachments at your own risk. If you have received this email and it was not intended for you, please let us know, then delete it. We welcome correspondence in English and Welsh. To see how HM Land Registry treats your personal information, read our Personal information charter: http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/personal-information-charter.

Karen, Thanks for your reply. Regards, Requester [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester, Our records show you recently made a complaint about HM Land Registry. We want to ensure all our customers have the best possible experience, including if they are making a complaint. To do this, we would be grateful if you could provide feedback on the process of making a complaint. Thinking about the complaints process, rather than the outcome, we invite you to comment on anything we did well or could have done better. Please select the link below to take our five minute survey. [Take Survey <https://public-gbr.mkt.dynamics.com/api/orgs/8dab633e-21a6-41e2-9048-b2acbabe2e10/r/hYEC0tSBYUi6FlhkfH8CAAsAAAA?msdynmkt_target=%7B%22TargetUrl%22%3A%22https%253A%252F%252Femea.dcv.ms%252FnZ9l22tjzk%22%2C%22RedirectOptions%22%3A%7B%225%22%3Anull%2C%221%22%3Anull%7D%7D&msdynmkt_digest=RePFhRotkVfYX%2Bm9aoCuPkzsA29H6cL5iT%2FkN4wevPA%3D&msdynmkt_secretVersion=%5Bredacted%5D%5D Many thanks in advance. Best Wishes Richard Turner Customer Insight and Experience Manager [Gov UK logo <[link removed] [HMLR Blog Logo <[link removed] [signature block trimmed]

Dear Sir/Madam, I write to append further evidence and clarification to my ongoing complaint regarding the registration of title relating to Great House Farm, Llandough (also known as Ty Mawr / Great House). This submission sets out a series of facts which I can evidence and which, taken together, raise serious concerns of fraud, concealment, and wrongful registration that have materially affected the rights of the Williams family and their heirs. 1. Unauthorised transfer of title (circa 1965) I can evidence that the title to the property was transferred or sold in or around 1965 by Frederick Buckler without the knowledge or consent of Mrs Mary Williams, who maintained a rightful claim to the property. This raises the issue that the disposition may have been made without lawful authority. 2. Death of key party and concealment (1968) Frederick Buckler died in 1968. Any knowledge he held regarding the circumstances of the transfer died with him, preventing proper scrutiny or challenge at the time. 3. Inability to prove ownership in court (1974) Mrs Mary Williams was subsequently unable to prove her claim in court proceedings in 1974. This inability must be viewed in the context of the prior undisclosed transfer and the absence of key evidence and testimony. 4. Knowledge of defective title by acquiring party There is a credible basis to assert that the acquiring party (BP and/or its associated property entities) knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the title they acquired was defective. This point is central and I am compiling supporting material demonstrating notice and/or constructive knowledge. 5. Registration following death of claimant Mrs Mary Williams died prior to the land being formally registered in the name of the acquiring party. As a result, she was denied any opportunity to rebut, challenge, or correct the position before registration was effected. 6. Death of additional disputing party Mr Buckler also died during the period in which he was engaged in disputing the matter. The cumulative effect is that all primary individuals with direct knowledge were deceased before the issue could be fully and fairly resolved. 7. Ongoing family claim Despite these events, the claim of the Williams family has never been relinquished. The position remains that the title was wrongfully transferred and subsequently registered on the basis of that defective transfer. — Request for Action In light of the above, I respectfully request that: 1. This evidence be formally appended to my existing complaint file. 2. The register be reviewed in accordance with provisions relating to fraud, mistake, and/or rectification. 3. Consideration be given to whether the registration was obtained through or affected by fraud or concealment. 4. I be informed of the appropriate process for seeking rectification and/or indemnity. I am prepared to provide supporting documents, including historical records, press reports, and family documentation, upon request or via secure submission. Given the seriousness of the matters raised, I would be grateful for written confirmation that this submission has been received and attached to my complaint, along with an outline of the next steps. Yours faithfully, Requester [quoted text trimmed]

The document attached is an official requisition, reminder or letter from HM Land Registry. It is not a circular and relates either to an application you have lodged with us or a property in which you have an interest. No paper copy of the item of correspondence will be sent to you. The document is in ‘Portable Document Format’ (PDF) which replicates the appearance of the hard copy version. You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to open the document. If you do not already have Adobe Acrobat Reader it can be installed free from http://www.adobe.com. Please note that as the document is in PDF format you cannot add text to any document that you need to complete and return to HM Land Registry. You will have to return any such completed document by post. HM Land Registry’s purpose is to protect your land ownership and provide services and data that underpin an efficient and informed property market. Our vision is: “A world-leading property market as part of a thriving economy and a sustainable future”. We check all mail and attachments for known viruses. However, you are advised that you open any attachments at your own risk. If you have received this email and it was not intended for you, please let us know, then delete it. We welcome correspondence in English and Welsh. To see how HM Land Registry treats your personal information, read our Personal information charter: http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/personal-information-charter.

Dear Mr Gill, Thank you for your response dated 25 May 2026 regarding title WA231076. I note your statement that HM Land Registry considered my grandmother to be the same individual despite the use of different surnames and that “there is a marriage certificate to show this”. Please could you clarify: 1. Was a marriage certificate actually lodged with HM Land Registry as part of the registration evidence relied upon by HM Land Registry, or are you referring to information held elsewhere? 2. If such a certificate formed part of the registration evidence considered by HM Land Registry, please identify the document relied upon and whether copies may be requested. 3. Prior correspondence and BP licence letters before 1974, to my understanding, referred to my grandmother as Mrs Williams. I am therefore trying to understand the evidential chain relied upon and how identity continuity was established. I also wish to clarify that my purpose has been to query and understand the historical record and registration process. I did not submit this as a complaint; my intention was to seek clarification and challenge aspects of the historical narrative where I believe evidence may be incomplete or disputed. My concerns extend beyond the surname issue. I remain concerned about whether all appropriate checks and safeguards were applied at the time of registration and whether the underlying evidence was fully scrutinised. I understand HM Land Registry’s position that it records interests presented to it and is not a forum for determining disputes. However, I am still gathering evidence and attempting to understand how these events occurred and whether any procedural irregularities existed. At present I am not asking HM Land Registry to accept my conclusions. I am requesting transparency regarding the evidence and process relied upon. Thank you again for your reply. Regards, Requester [quoted text trimmed]

Sir/Ma’am, I am writing to request clarification regarding first registration files relating to title WA231076 and WA240304. This request is not a complaint, request for reconsideration, or application for rectification. I am seeking only clarification of the documents and records held on the first registration file(s), and the material relied upon in the registration process. Please confirm and/or provide the following: The full list of documents and evidence held on the first registration file(s) for WA231076 and WA240304, including the application form (FR1), transfer/conveyance deed(s), and any supporting abstract, epitome, or statement of title. Whether any requisitions, objections, cautions, notices, or third-party claims were received or recorded during the first registration process. Whether the file contains any correspondence, notes, or other documents of any description referring to a dispute, competing claim, or challenge concerning Mary Williams / Mary Buckler or Great House Farm / Ty Mawr. Whether any personal documents (including but not limited to identity, marital, or probate records) relating to Mary Williams / Mary Buckler were submitted as part of the application or retained on file, and if so whether they were relied upon in the registration decision. A schedule or index of the documentary evidence relied upon to support first registration, including any statement that copies were not retained or are no longer held. Whether any document referred to in the registration process is noted as “copy filed”, “not retained”, or similarly annotated. If this request is not the appropriate route for access to the above material, please advise on the correct procedure for inspection or obtaining copies of the first registration file contents. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear Sir / Madam, We are writing to formally request access to inspect the archived first registration application files relating to: WA231076 WA240304 This request concerns the full first registration case files, including all supporting documentation, correspondence, internal notes, and any associated index map search material. I am specifically requesting permission to: Inspect the physical archived files (or digital scans if the originals are not accessible) Review all documents submitted in support of the applications Review any examiner notes, requisitions, or internal annotations made during processing Identify any records of third-party claims, disputes, objections, or references to adverse occupation or competing claims Confirm whether any such material was present on the file at the time of registration If the files are no longer held in physical form, please confirm: the date and manner of destruction (if applicable), or whether they have been digitised or transferred to another archive location If inspection is not possible, I would be grateful if you could instead provide certified copies of the complete file contents. Please also confirm the procedure for arranging an appointment for inspection, including any identification or fees required. Regards, Requester and heirs of Mary Williams of Great House Farm, Llandough C/O [signature block trimmed]

Dear Sir / Madam, We are writing to formally request access to inspect the archived first registration application files relating to: WA231076 WA240304 This request concerns the full first registration case files, including all supporting documentation, correspondence, internal notes, and any associated index map search material. I am specifically requesting permission to: Inspect the physical archived files (or digital scans if the originals are not accessible) Review all documents submitted in support of the applications Review any examiner notes, requisitions, or internal annotations made during processing Identify any records of third-party claims, disputes, objections, or references to adverse occupation or competing claims Confirm whether any such material was present on the file at the time of registration If the files are no longer held in physical form, please confirm: the date and manner of destruction (if applicable), or whether they have been digitised or transferred to another archive location If inspection is not possible, I would be grateful if you could instead provide certified copies of the complete file contents. Please also confirm the procedure for arranging an appointment for inspection, including any identification or fees required. Regards, Requester and heirs of Mary Williams of Great House Farm, Llandough C/O [signature block trimmed]

Sirs / Madam, Further to my previous correspondence regarding first registration files WA231076 and WA240304, I am seeking a narrow clarification to ensure my understanding of the record set is accurate before any further request is made under statutory access routes. I am seeking confirmation of the composition and scope of the first registration file(s), specifically what material is held, recorded, or identifiable as forming part of the application record at the time of registration. To avoid duplication or misunderstanding, could you please confirm the following factual points only in relation to the actual file contents held by HM Land Registry: Whether a complete first registration application file is still held for WA231076 and WA240304, including any supporting bundle of documents submitted at the time of registration. Whether the file(s) include an index, schedule, or equivalent record identifying the documents that formed part of the application (whether retained or not retained). Whether the file(s) contain any recorded material of any kind (including correspondence, requisitions, internal notes, or annotations) relating to any dispute, objection, or competing claim concerning the property known as Great House Farm / Ty Mawr. Whether the file(s) contain any notation indicating that documents were “not retained”, “copy filed”, or otherwise recorded as not forming part of the permanent archive. This request is limited strictly to confirmation of the existence and scope of records held, rather than a request for reassessment of historical matters or legal conclusions. I would be grateful if this clarification can be provided so that any subsequent FOI or inspection request can be properly scoped to the actual records held. Yours faithfully, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Heir & Successor to Mary Williams, Great House Farm, Llandough, Vale of [quoted text trimmed]

Please ignore my last email. It was not meant for FOI, but another of your departments. Which I have myself forwarded to that relevant department. Regards, Requester [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Sir or Madam, Further to my ongoing requests concerning first registration files WA231076 and WA240304, I am writing to request that all relevant records relating to these matters are preserved. This includes, where applicable: first registration application files and associated bundles FR1 forms and supporting title documentation examiner’s notes and internal handling records requisitions, correspondence, and workflow records any indexes or metadata relating to file contents any archived, scanned, or microfiche versions of the above This request is made on the basis that I am currently engaging with statutory information access routes (including FOI and inspection procedures), and may make further related requests. Accordingly, I would be grateful if confirmation could be provided that no relevant records will be destroyed or deleted while these processes are ongoing or reasonably anticipated. This is not a complaint or request for reconsideration of any decision, but a request to ensure preservation of relevant records pending lawful information access. Yours faithfully, Requester

The document attached is an official requisition, reminder or letter from HM Land Registry. It is not a circular and relates either to an application you have lodged with us or a property in which you have an interest. No paper copy of the item of correspondence will be sent to you. The document is in ‘Portable Document Format’ (PDF) which replicates the appearance of the hard copy version. You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to open the document. If you do not already have Adobe Acrobat Reader it can be installed free from http://www.adobe.com. Please note that as the document is in PDF format you cannot add text to any document that you need to complete and return to HM Land Registry. You will have to return any such completed document by post. HM Land Registry’s purpose is to protect your land ownership and provide services and data that underpin an efficient and informed property market. Our vision is: “A world-leading property market as part of a thriving economy and a sustainable future”. We check all mail and attachments for known viruses. However, you are advised that you open any attachments at your own risk. If you have received this email and it was not intended for you, please let us know, then delete it. We welcome correspondence in English and Welsh. To see how HM Land Registry treats your personal information, read our Personal information charter: http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/personal-information-charter.

Thanks. I did too. I’ve not heard from them yet though. If you could nudge them I’d appreciate. Requester [quoted text trimmed]

The document attached is an official requisition, reminder or letter from HM Land Registry. It is not a circular and relates either to an application you have lodged with us or a property in which you have an interest. No paper copy of the item of correspondence will be sent to you. The document is in ‘Portable Document Format’ (PDF) which replicates the appearance of the hard copy version. You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to open the document. If you do not already have Adobe Acrobat Reader it can be installed free from http://www.adobe.com. Please note that as the document is in PDF format you cannot add text to any document that you need to complete and return to HM Land Registry. You will have to return any such completed document by post. Ymholiad, nodyn atgoffa neu lythyr swyddogol gan Gofrestrfa Tir EM yw’r ddogfen atodedig. Nid cylchlythyr yw hi ac mae’n ymwneud naill ai â chais rydych wedi ei gyflwyno i ni neu ag eiddo y mae gennych fudd ynddo. Ni chaiff copi papur o’r ohebiaeth ei anfon atoch. Mae’r ddogfen ar ffurf ‘Portable Document Format’ (PDF) sy’n dyblygu golwg y fersiwn copi caled. Bydd angen Adobe Acrobat Reader arnoch i agor y ddogfen. Os nad yw Adobe Acrobat Reader gennych yn barod, gallwch ei lwytho i lawr am ddim o http://www.adobe.com. Sylwch na fydd modd ichi ychwanegu testun at unrhyw ddogfen y mae’n rhaid ichi ei llenwi a dychwelyd i Gofrestrfa Tir EM gan ei bod ar ffurf PDF. Ar ôl ichi lenwi unrhyw ddogfen o’r fath bydd rhaid ichi ei dychwelyd trwy’r post. HM Land Registry’s purpose is to protect your land ownership and provide services and data that underpin an efficient and informed property market. Our vision is: “A world-leading property market as part of a thriving economy and a sustainable future”. We check all mail and attachments for known viruses. However, you are advised that you open any attachments at your own risk. If you have received this email and it was not intended for you, please let us know, then delete it. We welcome correspondence in English and Welsh. To see how HM Land Registry treats your personal information, read our Personal information charter: http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/personal-information-charter. Diben Cofrestrfa Tir EF yw gwarchod perchnogaeth eich tir a darparu gwasanaethau a data sy’n sail i farchnad eiddo effeithlon a gwybodus. Ein gweledigaeth yw: “Marchnad eiddo o’r radd flaenaf fel rhan o economi ffyniannus a dyfodol cynaliadwy”. Rydym yn gwirio pob neges ac atodiad am firysau hysbys. Fodd bynnag, fe’ch cynghorir mai chi sy’n gyfrifol am unrhyw atodiadau y byddwch yn eu hagor. Os ydych wedi cael yr ebost hwn trwy ddamwain, rhowch wybod i ni ac yna’i ddileu, os gwelwch yn dda. Rydym yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn Gymraeg a Saesneg. I weld sut mae Cofrestrfa Tir EF yn trin eich gwybodaeth bersonol, darllenwch ein Siarter gwybodaeth bersonol: http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/personal-information-charter.cy.

Dear Mr Haste, Thank you for your letter of 30 July 2026 (reference N610CGV) and for identifying the surviving records held in relation to titles WA231076 and WA240304. I am not seeking to reopen HM Land Registry’s complaints procedure or to ask for any previous decision to be reconsidered. This is a separate request for clarification arising from the additional information in your letter. Your letter is the first to set out in detail which first-registration records survive. It therefore enables a number of factual questions that could not previously be asked with precision. First, earlier correspondence referred to a 1971 abstract of title having been lodged with the first registration applications. That document does not appear as a separate item in the schedule you have provided. Could you please confirm whether: the 1971 abstract of title survives as a separate document; it forms part of one of the listed items (and if so, which); or it is no longer held. Second, earlier correspondence referred to a certificate given with the first registration application in which the applicant’s solicitors stated they were “not aware of any question or doubt affecting the title”. Your schedule identifies the surviving first-registration application as Form 1E (item 13 for WA231076). Could you please confirm whether that certificate forms part of the surviving Form 1E, and if not, identify the surviving document in which it appears. The purpose of this enquiry is solely to establish what information is actually contained in the surviving first-registration records you have listed. Could you therefore confirm whether those records — including the first-registration application, the A13/DL list of documents lodged, the correspondence with Linklaters & Paines, any related applications, and any surviving examiner’s notes, file notes, memoranda or internal correspondence — contain any reference to: Mary Williams (also known as Mrs Buckler); Fred Buckler; Ty Mawr; Great House Farm; any assertion by another person that they owned, occupied, or claimed an interest in the land; any ownership dispute, possession proceedings, litigation, or competing claim affecting the land; any issue, doubt, objection, caution, competing interest, or other matter affecting title. In particular, could you confirm whether any of the surviving first-registration records contain any indication that another party asserted ownership of, or claimed an interest in, the land before first registration was completed for either title. If any such reference exists, please identify the document or item number in which it appears. If no such references appear anywhere in the surviving records, a simple confirmation of that fact would be sufficient. If these questions cannot be answered without inspection of the documents themselves, please confirm that and identify which specific documents are capable of answering them, so that any Form OC2 application can be limited to those documents alone. This request concerns only the factual contents of the records identified in your letter of 30 July 2026. Thank you for your assistance. I look forward to your reply. Yours sincerely, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Mr Haste, Thank you for your letter of *30 July 2026* concerning reference *N610CGV* and the surviving records relating to the first registration of titles *WA231076 and WA240304* at Great House Farm, Llandough. I am writing to clarify the factual contents of the surviving first-registration records and to identify the appropriate documents for inspection/copying. *This is not a request to reopen my previous complaint, nor am I asking HM Land Registry to determine the historical ownership dispute.* I would be grateful if you could clarify the following. 1. The 1971 Abstract of Title You previously confirmed that a *1971 Abstract of Title* was seen in connection with this matter. Please confirm: – whether it still survives; – which title/file it relates to; – its item or document reference within the surviving records; and – whether it is available for inspection or copying. 2. The “question or doubt” certificate Please confirm where in the surviving first-registration material the certificate/declaration appears in which the applicant’s solicitors stated that they were *“not aware of any question or doubt affecting the title.”* In particular, please confirm whether this forms part of the *Form 1E dated 30 November 1982*, or is a separate surviving document. 3. What the first-registration file records about other interests Please confirm whether any of the surviving first-registration documents contain any reference to: – *Mary Williams*; – *Fred Buckler*; – *William (Billy) Buckler*; – *Great House Farm / Ty Mawr* and its farmhouse, garden or curtilage; – any person other than the applicant asserting ownership or another interest in the land; – possession proceedings concerning the farmhouse or land; or – any objection, dispute, question or doubt concerning title. I am asking this *solely as a factual question about the contents of the surviving records*. If no such reference appears in the surviving first-registration material, confirmation of that fact would be sufficient. 4. Identification of the surviving documents Your 30 July letter identifies, amongst other things, the *Form 1E, A13-DL list of documents lodged and correspondence from Linklaters & Paines*. Please identify the specific item numbers I should request by *Form OC2* to obtain the fullest available surviving first-registration record, particularly: – the title evidence submitted by the applicant; – the 1971 Abstract of Title, if it survives; – the A13-DL list of documents lodged; – correspondence with Linklaters & Paines; – examiner’s notes, requisitions, memoranda or file notes, if any survive; and – any document recording the basis upon which the Registrar accepted the applicant’s title. If any of these categories do not survive, please identify which ones do not. 5. Historic records relevant to identifying the land I also wish to ensure that the correct physical parcel is being compared with the land registered in 1982–83. During recent research at the Glamorgan Archives, I have located historic material concerning Great House Farm/Ty Mawr, including: – the *6 November 1877 Bute Estate counterpart lease to John Williams*; – the *1872 Llandough Rate Book*; – the *1924 and 1938 Great House Farm sale particulars and associated OS parcel references*; and – historic plans and notes concerning the farmhouse, gardens and associated boundaries. These records appear potentially relevant to identifying the historic extent and boundaries of the farmhouse and curtilage. I am *not asking HM Land Registry to determine the legal effect of those documents*. I simply wish to establish whether the documents submitted during the 1982/83 first-registration process identify the same physical parcel and, if so, what documentary evidence was relied upon to establish that identity. 6. Subsequent planning record For completeness, the later planning record also contains a significant contemporaneous document: *BP Properties Ltd’s Certificate A dated 16 October 1989 in respect of outline application 89/01396/OUT*, in which BP certified its position concerning ownership of the application land. Again, I am not asking HM Land Registry to determine the effect of that document. I mention it only because it makes it particularly important for my research to establish precisely *what documentary evidence was actually before the Registrar in 1982–83*, several years before that planning certification. 7. Form OC2 I am particularly keen to avoid submitting an unnecessarily broad OC2 request. If you could therefore identify the *specific item numbers* from your 30 July schedule which would provide the fullest surviving first-registration record, I can request those documents directly. In particular, I would appreciate confirmation of the items corresponding to the *Form 1E, A13-DL list, title evidence, Linklaters & Paines correspondence, the 1971 Abstract of Title, and any examiner/requisition material that survives*. Thank you for your assistance. I would be grateful for a substantive clarification of the above points so that I can proceed with a properly targeted inspection/copy request. Regards, *Requester* [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Enquiry Reference: [removed] Title Number: WA231076 Dear Customer I am sorry that the wrong contact information was shown on our letter to you. We are directing our customers to contact us via our contact form<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/contact-hm-land-registry#online&gt;. Background: HM Land Registry has created many email addresses over the years. We can no longer service the incoming emails or route such emails into our current system. Planned system improvements: We plan to remove all reference to individual HM Land Registry email addresses. This process was more complex than expected and some templates still need updating. Working with our Customers: We want to ensure that correspondence goes direct to our customer service team. To do this, we now ask customers to use our online contact form. This is why we put an auto-response in place. [quoted text trimmed]

Enquiry Reference: [removed] Application Reference: 0 Title Number: 0 Dear Customer Thank you for your enquiry. I have referred it for consideration by the appropriate team. HM Land Registry: processing times – GOV.UK<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/hm-land-registry-processing-times&gt; may assist you. It provides information on how we are delivering our services. To contact us If you are an HM Land Registry Portal customer: Please use “Reply to Requisition” or the View Applications “Respond” function. This will attach your correspondence to the application. Please use the View Applications<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/view-my-applications#using-view-applications&gt; function to view and manage your applications. If you are not a Portal customer / if you are a citizen customer: Please reply to this email. Yours faithfully Megan HM Land Registry We only provide factual information and impartial advice about our procedures. Read more about the advice we give.<https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-land-registry-service-standards/our-service-standards&gt; Easy and free support to help you work with HM Land Registry: Guidance for members of the public – GOV.UK<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-for-members-of-the-public&gt; Guidance for property professionals – GOV.UK<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-for-property-professionals&gt; HM Land Registry’s purpose is to protect your land ownership and provide services and data that underpin an efficient and informed property market. Our vision is: “A world-leading property market as part of a thriving economy and a sustainable future”. We check all mail and attachments for known viruses. However, you are advised that you open any attachments at your own risk. If you have received this email and it was not intended for you, please let us know, then delete it. We welcome correspondence in English and Welsh. To see how HM Land Registry treats your personal information, read our Personal information charter: http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/personal-information-charter.

Mr Haste, I refer to your letter of 30 July 2026 (N610CGV) and to my emails of 26 May, 2 June, 3 June (clarification, physical inspection, and preservation), 30 July and 12 August 2026. This is not a complaint and not a request to reopen the stage 2 review concluded by Mr Gill on 25 May 2026. It is a request that HM Land Registry answer the factual questions already put, which remain unanswered. Your 30 July letter listed documents still held. It did not answer what those documents contain, nor the earlier questions that listing was meant to enable. Please answer each of the following. If a point cannot be answered without reading a listed item, say so and name the item number. 1. 1971 abstract of title Earlier correspondence referred to a 1971 abstract lodged with first registration. It does not appear as a separate item in your 30 July schedule. Confirm whether it: survives as a separate document; forms part of a listed item (give the title and item number); or is no longer held. 2. “No question or doubt” certificate Earlier correspondence referred to a certificate that the applicant’s solicitors were “not aware of any question or doubt affecting the title.” Confirm whether that wording appears in Form 1E dated 30 November 1982 (WA231076 item 13), in another surviving document (identify it), or is no longer held. 3. Marriage certificate relied on by Mr Gill Mr Gill’s letter of 25 May 2026 stated that identity was established because “there is a marriage certificate to show this.” Confirm whether that certificate: was lodged on the first-registration file; is one of the items listed on 30 July (give number); or is not held by HM Land Registry and was asserted from some other source. 4. Contents of the surviving first-registration records Confirm whether any of the documents listed on 30 July 2026 for WA231076 or WA240304 contain any reference to: Mary Williams / Mary Buckler; Fred Buckler; William (Billy) Buckler; Ty Mawr / Great House Farm, farmhouse, garden or curtilage; any person other than the applicant asserting ownership, occupation or another interest; possession proceedings, litigation, objection, caution, competing claim, or any question or doubt as to title. If any such reference exists, identify the title and item number. If none exists in the surviving records, confirm that fact in writing. 5. Physical check On 3 June 2026 I asked to inspect the physical files, or scans if the originals are not accessible. That request has not been answered. Please confirm: whether the originals of the 30 July items still exist in physical form; where they are held; the procedure, identification and fee for inspection; and if originals have been destroyed or are not produced for inspection, the date and manner of destruction or the reason inspection is refused. 6. Form OC2 To avoid an unnecessarily broad application, identify the item numbers from your 30 July schedule that comprise the surviving first-registration record, in particular: Form 1E (WA231076 item 13); A13-DL list of documents lodged (item 17); 19 November 1982 conveyance (item 4); Linklaters & Paines correspondence (WA231076 items 16 and 18; WA240304 items 4, 5 and 7); Form 1C and 23 May 1975 conveyance (WA240304 items 11 and 12); A28 / draft entries; the 1971 abstract, if it survives; any examiner’s notes, requisitions, memoranda or file notes that survive. If any of those categories do not survive, say which. 7. Preservation Your 30 July letter stated the listed documents “will remain on file.” Please confirm that none of the WA231076 or WA240304 first-registration material, including scans or microfiche, will be destroyed while these questions and any OC2 application remain outstanding. I asked these questions so that HM Land Registry would either confirm the contents of its own listed records or state that it will not examine them. A further inventory, a direction to Form OC2, or a restatement that the complaints procedure is closed is not an answer. I would be grateful for a numbered reply to points 1–7. Yours sincerely, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] N610CGV — WA231076 / WA240304

Mr Haste, This supplements my email of 16 September 2026 on N610CGV / WA231076 and WA240304. It is not a complaint, not a request to reopen stage 2, and not a FOIA request. Please treat points 8–14 with points 1–7 as one live enquiry (also your customer-support refs [removed] and [removed]). 8. 1971 abstract as listed on the DL, versus the document itself Ms Takeuchi’s letter of 19 April 2026 stated that “an abstract of title listed dated 1971 was lodged” and that the deeds were listed on the form DL. Your 30 July schedule has an A13-DL (WA231076 item 17) but no separate 1971 abstract. Please confirm: whether item 17 still lists a 1971 abstract; if it does, whether the abstract itself is still held, and under which item; if the abstract is listed but no longer held, when and how it left the file. 9. Form 1E / Form 1C / FR1 Ms Takeuchi referred to certificates on Form FR1. Your 30 July letter identifies Form 1E (30 November 1982, item 13) and, for WA240304, Form 1C (item 11). Please confirm: whether an FR1 also survives for either title; whether 1E and 1C are the first-registration application forms; whether the wording “not aware of any question or doubt affecting the title” appears on 1E, on 1C, on an FR1, or on none of them. 10. The 31 December 1969 Western Ground Rents conveyance Ms Takeuchi and Ms Griffiths treated the 31 December 1969 conveyance (Western Ground Rents Ltd to the BP Pension Trust parties) as the root recited in the 1975 and 1982 conveyances. That 1969 deed does not appear as an item on the 30 July schedule. Please confirm whether the 1969 conveyance: is held (give title and item number); was only recited and never lodged; or was lodged and is no longer held. 11. Paper files and the February 2026 scan Ms Griffiths wrote on 13 February 2026 that she had “ordered the historic paper files of the first registration” and was awaiting scanning. Please confirm: whether those paper files were retrieved and scanned in full; whether the originals are still held, and where; whether the 30 July list is the complete surviving set from that retrieval; the procedure under Land Registration Act 2002 s.66 for inspection of the originals, as distinct from paid OC2 copies. 12. Examiner material already identified Your 30 July list includes WA240304 item 7: “Application form D23 (inside exam) and letter dated 8 April 1983 from Linklaters & Paines.” That is examiner/requisition material. Please confirm what the D23 and the 8 April 1983 letter concern, or state that you will not read them and that they should be requested as OC2 items. Identify any other surviving examiner notes, requisitions or file notes for either title. 13. Class of title and cautions at first registration Please confirm, from the surviving register editions you listed (including WA240304 item 10, 23 February 1983, and WA231076 item 23, 13 January 1984): the class of title first granted on each title (absolute / possessory / qualified); whether any caution, notice, restriction or inhibition was entered at or before completion of first registration. Mr Gill’s letter of 25 May 2026 said no caution was received from my family. I am asking what the register editions themselves show, not for a restatement of that conclusion. 14. Amalgamation WA231076 item 14 is an application to amalgamate dated 2 February 1987. Please confirm that WA240304 was wholly absorbed into WA231076, or identify any part of the closed title that was not. I do not need the complaints outcome repeated. I need numbered answers to 1–14, or a written statement that HM Land Registry refuses to examine the documents it has listed. Yours sincerely, Requester N610CGV — WA231076 / WA240304 ———- Forwarded message ——— [quoted text trimmed]

Enquiry Reference: [removed] Title Number: WA231076 Dear Customer I am sorry that the wrong contact information was shown on our letter to you. We are directing our customers to contact us via our contact form<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/contact-hm-land-registry#online&gt;. Background: HM Land Registry has created many email addresses over the years. We can no longer service the incoming emails or route such emails into our current system. Planned system improvements: We plan to remove all reference to individual HM Land Registry email addresses. This process was more complex than expected and some templates still need updating. Working with our Customers: We want to ensure that correspondence goes direct to our customer service team. To do this, we now ask customers to use our online contact form. This is why we put an auto-response in place. Yours faithfully Laura Cotton HM Land Registry We only provide factual information and impartial advice about our procedures. Read more about the advice we give.<https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-land-registry-service-standards/our-service-standards&gt; Easy and free support to help you work with HM Land Registry: Guidance for members of the public – GOV.UK<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-for-members-of-the-public&gt; Guidance for property professionals – GOV.UK<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-for-property-professionals&gt; HM Land Registry’s purpose is to protect your land ownership and provide services and data that underpin an efficient and informed property market. Our vision is: “A world-leading property market as part of a thriving economy and a sustainable future”. We check all mail and attachments for known viruses. However, you are advised that you open any attachments at your own risk. If you have received this email and it was not intended for you, please let us know, then delete it. We welcome correspondence in English and Welsh. To see how HM Land Registry treats your personal information, read our Personal information charter: http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/personal-information-charter.

Enquiry Reference: [removed] Title Number: WA231076 Dear Customer I am sorry that the wrong contact information was shown on our letter to you. We are directing our customers to contact us via our contact form<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/contact-hm-land-registry#online&gt;. Background: HM Land Registry has created many email addresses over the years. We can no longer service the incoming emails or route such emails into our current system. Planned system improvements: We plan to remove all reference to individual HM Land Registry email addresses. This process was more complex than expected and some templates still need updating. Working with our Customers: We want to ensure that correspondence goes direct to our customer service team. To do this, we now ask customers to use our online contact form. This is why we put an auto-response in place. Yours faithfully Laura Cotton HM Land Registry We only provide factual information and impartial advice about our procedures. Read more about the advice we give.<https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-land-registry-service-standards/our-service-standards&gt; Easy and free support to help you work with HM Land Registry: Guidance for members of the public – GOV.UK<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-for-members-of-the-public&gt; Guidance for property professionals – GOV.UK<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-for-property-professionals&gt; HM Land Registry’s purpose is to protect your land ownership and provide services and data that underpin an efficient and informed property market. Our vision is: “A world-leading property market as part of a thriving economy and a sustainable future”. We check all mail and attachments for known viruses. However, you are advised that you open any attachments at your own risk. If you have received this email and it was not intended for you, please let us know, then delete it. We welcome correspondence in English and Welsh. To see how HM Land Registry treats your personal information, read our Personal information charter: http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/personal-information-charter.

Haste, This supplements my emails of 16 September 2026 (points 1–14) on N610CGV / WA231076 and WA240304. It is not a complaint, not a request to reopen the stage 2 review of 25 May 2026, and not a FOIA request. I have not previously asked HM Land Registry to record the following construction of the title chain. I do so now as a factual statement of the case I put on the instruments and their plans. I am not asking you to determine ownership. I am asking you to confirm what the surviving first-registration records show about which parcel was lodged. The land I refer to as the House Plot is the former farmhouse, garden and curtilage of Great House Farm, Llandough, immediately west / north-west of My case on the chain is: The holding was two parcels. The 1916 Bute agricultural tenancy (John Williams) covered both. Farm rents and cottage rents were accounted separately on the Bute rental listings. After quarrying ceased in or about 1928, the House Plot was treated as severed from the agricultural tenancy and held as a separate proprietary parcel by those through whom I claim. The 1938 conveyance from the Bute interest to Western Ground Rents Limited, construed against its plan, conveyed the eastern agricultural parcel. It did not convey the House Plot. The May 1939 agricultural tenancy between WGR and John Williams concerned that eastern parcel. It did not comprise the House Plot. The 1955 enforcement papers and the 11 December [removed] possession order against Frederick Buckler and Mary Williams (sued as Mrs Buckler) were directed at the farmhouse and garden. Those proceedings asserted a right to possession. They did not construe the 1877, 1938 or later deeds and were not a conveyance of the House Plot into the WGR estate. The 31 December 1969 conveyance (WGR to the BP Pension Trust parties), the 23 May 1975 conveyance (BP Pension Trust Limited to BP Properties Limited), and the 1982 first registration of WA231076 could only pass such land as then stood in that documentary estate. On the construction above, that estate did not include the House Plot. Title WA231076 (and WA240304, later amalgamated) nevertheless included the House Plot. That is the alleged mistake as to extent. Please therefore add these numbered questions to the live enquiry (also [removed] and [removed]): Confirm whether any surviving first-registration document for WA231076 or WA240304 identifies, by plan, OS parcel, colouring, exception, reservation or recital, a distinction between (a) the farmhouse, garden and curtilage and (b) the eastern agricultural / quarrying parcel. Confirm whether the 1938 Bute–WGR conveyance and plan, or the 1939 tenancy and plan, were lodged on either first-registration file. If held, give title and item number. If only recited, say so. If neither lodged nor recited, say so. Confirm whether the 23 May 1975 conveyance and plan (WA240304 items 11 and 12 on your 30 July 2026 schedule) describe or colour the House Plot as included, excluded, excepted or reserved. If you will not read the deed, identify it as an OC2 item and say so. Confirm whether the 31 December 1969 WGR conveyance (point 10 of my 16 September email) describes or colours the House Plot as included. Same options as 17. Confirm whether any examiner note, requisition or Linklaters & Paines letter on the surviving files addresses the geographic extent of the land applied for, as distinct from the applicant’s paper title generally. I do not ask you to accept this construction. I ask you to say what the listed records contain about parcel identity, or to state in writing that you will not examine them and that the questions should be answered by Form OC2. Yours sincerely, Requester N610CGV — WA231076 / WA240304

Enquiry Reference: [removed] Dear Customer Thank you for your enquiry. Your email address is not registered for the Search for land and property <https://www.gov.uk/search-property-information-land-registry>service. If you have not accessed your account for over a year, then your account is deleted in line with our terms of use <https://terms.landregistry.gov.uk/terms_of_use/search?lang=en&gt; I have looked at the title number you hav quoted and this is not a current title number, this title appears to have been closed in 2005 and therefore no copy of the register is available. If there is an address you are searching you can use our service above. Yours faithfully Sandra HM Land Registry We only provide factual information and impartial advice about our procedures. Read more about the advice we give.<https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-land-registry-service-standards/our-service-standards&gt; Easy and free support to help you work with HM Land Registry: Guidance for members of the public – GOV.UK<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-for-members-of-the-public&gt; Guidance for property professionals – GOV.UK<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-for-property-professionals&gt; HM Land Registry’s purpose is to protect your land ownership and provide services and data that underpin an efficient and informed property market. Our vision is: “A world-leading property market as part of a thriving economy and a sustainable future”. We check all mail and attachments for known viruses. However, you are advised that you open any attachments at your own risk. If you have received this email and it was not intended for you, please let us know, then delete it. We welcome correspondence in English and Welsh. To see how HM Land Registry treats your personal information, read our Personal information charter: http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/personal-information-charter.

Mr Haste Reference: N610CGV Titles: WA231076 and WA240304 (closed) Property: Land on the north side of Leckwith Road, Llandough (Great House Farm / Tÿ Mawr) Your letter: 30 July 2026 Also: customer-support refs [removed] and [removed]; correspondence via Stephen Doughty MP and Mr Iain Banfield I write further to your letter of 30 July 2026, in which you listed the surviving first-registration documents for both titles and stated that they remain on file and are open to inspection. I cannot obtain a current official copy of WA240304 through the public Search for land and property service. Find a Property Support (Sandra, 21 current title number and that no copy of that register is available on that service. That is why I am writing to you, as the officer who has already identified the historic file. I have also already paid for a hand full of official copies and related land documents in this matter. I am asking you to issue, by email to [removed], unofficial or official copies of the below items from your 30 July schedule, and to waive the information-services fee for this request, more so to make this all less problematic and cumberson. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] From title WA240304 1. Plan to Conveyance dated 23 May 1975 7. Application form D23 (inside exam) and letter dated 8 April 1983 from Linklaters & Paines 9. Old title plan for WA240304 10. Copy of register edition dated 23 February 1983 11. Form 1C application form from Linklaters & Paines 12. Conveyance 23 May 1975 13. Plan to conveyance dated 23 February 1975 From title WA231076 4. Conveyance dated 19 November 1982 13. Application form 1E dated 30 November 1982 16. Customer correspondence dated 12 May 1983 — Linklaters & Paines and Land Registry 17. A13-DL list of documents lodged with first registration 18. Letter from Linklaters & Paines (undated) to Land Registry Please also send the 1971 abstract of title if it survives, whether as a separate document or as part of item 17. I ask for the fee to be waived because: – these documents cannot be bought on the public website for the closed title; – you have already retrieved and, as of February 2026, scanned the historic paper files; – I have already incurred repeated official-copy fees on the live title and related records; – Stephen Doughty MP and the Chief Land Registrar are already seized of this file; – the request is confined to documents you have listed as still held. This is not a request to reopen the stage 2 complaint concluded by Mr Gill on 25 May 2026. I am not asking you to determine ownership. I am asking for copies of records you have already said exist. If you will not waive the fee or issue the copies by email, please say so in terms, confirm that each numbered item above is still held, and state the exact OC2 wording and address so the application can go in the post without a further inventory letter. Please reply to this email. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] The truth is always somewhere in the middle I guess. So perhaps yourselves, BP and my family are all in some ways correct and I other ways incorrect. Establishing that is a key point of this whole excercise. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Sirs/ Ma’ams, I need to correct a date I have used in earlier correspondence about Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough, titles WA231076 and WA240304. I had treated 1983 as the year the two titles were merged. That was wrong. HM Land Registry’s own letter of 23 March 2026 (Lisa Griffiths, ref N610CGV) separates the two acts. 1982–83 was first registration of two live titles, not a merger. 30 November 1982: application to first-register WA231076. The Court of Appeal later treated BP Properties Ltd as registered proprietors of “the farm” from November 1982. 23 February 1983: application to first-register a second title, WA240304. 26 March 1983: Mary Williams died. On the family’s case, notice of those applications did not reach us until after her death, while the family was in mourning. She had no window in which to object. The family was not in a position to use any window that arrived after that. Those two titles remained separate through first instance. 24 July 1986: Hollis J. Both titles were still live. The judgment language treats Great House Farm as one holding. It had not been one holding on the register. On the family’s case it had not been one holding since the 1877 split: Parcel A (house, buildings, garden/yard and about 10 acres, the Thomas/Williams line) and Parcel B (the eastern fields retained by Bute and later WGR/BP). 2 February 1987: application to amalgamate the two titles. WA240304 was then closed and registration continued under WA231076. That is the merge. It was made after the 1986 ruling and before the Court of Appeal gave judgment on 31 July 1987. So 1983 is silent first registration of a second title while Mary was still in Parcel A, or had only just died. 1987 is the administrative merger, carried out while the appeal was still open. This was not a dispute about a single land parcel that BP already owned. Mary was on Parcel A, which she stated she owned [wording updated at the author’s request, 19 Oct 2026], with occupation on that house parcel running in the family from at least 1667. BP, and WGR before it from 1949, were the neighbouring interest on Parcel B. From 1949 onwards the family’s case is that those neighbours ran a decades-long series of tenancy offers, “whole farm” wording, possession orders and the 1974 letters to make her occupation of her own parcel look permissive, and to make both parcels look like one estate they had acquired. They never produced a conveyance of Parcel A. What they had was an unfounded claim that her occupancy was permissive. Please treat any earlier letter from me that said the titles merged in 1983 as corrected by this email. The dates that matter are: 1982/83 — first registration of two titles, without the occupier being heard; 24 July 1986 — first-instance judgment describing one farm while two titles still stood; 2 February 1987 — amalgamation, before the appeal ended; 31 July 1987 — Court of Appeal. Yours faithfully, Requester [signature block trimmed]

Enquiry Reference: [removed] Title Number: WA240304 Dear Customer Thank you for your enquiry. I have referred it for consideration by the appropriate team. HM Land Registry: processing times – GOV.UK<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/hm-land-registry-processing-times&gt; may assist you. It provides information on how we are delivering our services. To contact us If you are an HM Land Registry Portal customer: Please use “Reply to Requisition” or the View Applications “Respond” function. This will attach your correspondence to the application. Please use the View Applications<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/view-my-applications#using-view-applications&gt; function to view and manage your applications. If you are not a Portal customer / if you are a citizen customer: Please reply to this email. Yours faithfully Sara HM Land Registry We only provide factual information and impartial advice about our procedures. Read more about the advice we give.<https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-land-registry-service-standards/our-service-standards&gt; Easy and free support to help you work with HM Land Registry: Guidance for members of the public – GOV.UK<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-for-members-of-the-public&gt; Guidance for property professionals – GOV.UK<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-for-property-professionals&gt; HM Land Registry’s purpose is to protect your land ownership and provide services and data that underpin an efficient and informed property market. Our vision is: “A world-leading property market as part of a thriving economy and a sustainable future”. We check all mail and attachments for known viruses. However, you are advised that you open any attachments at your own risk. If you have received this email and it was not intended for you, please let us know, then delete it. We welcome correspondence in English and Welsh. To see how HM Land Registry treats your personal information, read our Personal information charter: http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/personal-information-charter.

Data Protection Officer HM Land Registry [removed] cc: [removed] Refs already with you: N610CGV; letter of SG Haste, 30 July 2026 Sirs/Madam, Subject access request under UK GDPR Article 15. Requester: Requester. Titles: WA231076 and WA240304 (closed). Land north of Leckwith Road, Llandough (Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr). This is not a request for an official copy of the register. It is a request for personal data in the working file in which I am identifiable, including customer-complaint files, the pack sent to Stephen Doughty MP, and any note of my correspondence on N610CGV. Please also say whether the first-registration file contains personal data about Mary Doreen Williams (died 26 March 1983) or William Buckler, so far as you can disclose it to me as a family representative, and what identity you require before the month starts. The matters to which that file goes, so you can search properly, are these. They are questions, not findings against Land Registry: 1. First-registration applications: WA231076 on 30 November 1982 (form 1E); WA240304 on 23 February 1983 (form 1C); later amalgamation and closure of WA240304. 2. A 31 December 1969 conveyance, Western Ground Rents to BP Pension Trust, identified as a root, and whether it is on the 30 July 2026 schedule of documents surviving on the file. 3. Notice and opportunity to object in 1982–83, while Mary Williams remained in occupation of the farmhouse. Family evidence is that notification was not received until after her death on 26 March 1983. I am seeking the notice and service record. 4. What the 1987 Court of Appeal decided (possession, limitation, October 1974 letters) and what it did not decide (documentary root of the farmhouse and garden parcel). The public evidence index is https://greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com/ . Please preserve the first-registration file and the complaint file. Do not start the statutory month until you have said what identification you need. Nothing in this letter abandons any claim concerning title, registration, concealment, limitation, reopening or alteration of the register. This is not a claim form and not service. Yours faithfully, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [signature block trimmed]

To each recipient, in your own capacity as holder or likely holder of records. Please do not treat this as a joint reply. Answer only for your own holdings. Sirs/Madam, This is a preservation notice. It is not a claim form and not service of proceedings. It does not replace any FOI, review or subject access request already with you. Land: Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough-juxta-Penarth, adjoining St Dochdwy’s. Titles WA231076, WA240304 (closed), WA513690, WA735527, and any related title. Planning refs 89/01396/OUT and 92/00671/RES. Please preserve, and do not destroy, transfer out of your custody without a written receipt, or dispose of, any file, plan, photograph, tape or electronic record in your possession, custody or control relating to: 1. The 1877 split, the 1916 and 1939 tenancies, and the 1938 Bute to Western Ground Rents conveyance. 2. The 1955 and 1962 possession orders, the 1974 proceedings, and BP Properties Ltd v Buckler [1987] EWCA Civ 2. 3. First registration: WA231076 application 30 November 1982; WA240304 application 23 February 1983; later amalgamation. 4. The 1988 possession (29 November) and demolition (begun 6 December), including listing, planning, police and any liaison papers. 5. Mary Doreen Williams (died 26 March 1983) and William Buckler, so far as your file concerns this land. Also preserve, if you hold them, the following planning and land-charge classes. Absence from a 2026 file disclosure is not proof they never existed: 6. Any section 52 Town and Country Planning Act 1971 agreement, later section 106 instrument, deed, undertaking or other agreement regulating the development or use of this land, and any corresponding local-land-charge entry. 7. The historic planning-register entries required by the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 for 89/01396/OUT and 92/00671/RES (applications, reserved matters, plans and drawings, and decision information). 8. The officer’s report annexes to 89/01396/OUT, including Appendix B (further GGAT comments after discussions with the Trust), and Appendices C–E. 9. The condition chain on 89/01396/OUT: conditions 16–18; the Council’s October 1990 confirmation of condition 17; GGAT’s July 1992 archaeological warning; the September 1992 reserved-matters approval; and the 1993–94 papers on whether condition 18 had been discharged. 10. Any preliminary environmental-assessment / screening determination for the outline application (site described as about 3.4 acres / 1.38 ha). 11. Any record of the statutory consultation route used because the land was, or was treated as, a site of archaeological interest / SMR entry under the 1988 Order. 12. The complete 92/00671/RES file, and any sale, option, conditional-contract or transfer paper on the planning files covering BP Properties to Ideal Homes Wales, including the recorded transfer of 3 December 1993. 13. The application-receipt record for 89/01396/OUT (form dated October 1989; reconstructed Council receipt 8 November 1989). Please stop routine deletion, including archived mailboxes, for anything in that scope. The public evidence index is https://greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com/ . The investigation distinguishes the farmhouse parcel from the eastern fields. The 1987 Court of Appeal decided possession, limitation and the October 1974 letters. It did not decide the documentary root of the farmhouse parcel. These records go to that question. This notice is not a finding against any of you. Please acknowledge, name the officer responsible for the hold, and say what you hold in scope. If you hold nothing, say what you searched. Nothing in this letter abandons any claim concerning title, registration, concealment, limitation, reopening or alteration of the register. Yours faithfully, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [signature block trimmed]

Dear Customer, This email address is not the correct method of contact for general enquiries. Therefore, no action will be taken with this enquiry. Our Contact HM Land Registry page<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/contact-hm-land-registry&gt; has comprehensive help pages for most enquiries. Please resubmit your enquiry via our online contact form. [quoted text trimmed]

Enquiry Reference: [removed] Dear Customer Thank you for your enquiry. HM Land Registry is current assessing your enquiry and will respond in due course. Please refer to Our service standards<https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-land-registry-service-standards/our-service-standards&gt; for guidance on response times. For further guidance about accessing information from HM Land Registry, please visit our Publication scheme<https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/publication-scheme&gt;. Yours faithfully Stacy HM Land Registry We only provide factual information and impartial advice about our procedures. Read more about the advice we give.<https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-land-registry-service-standards/our-service-standards&gt; Easy and free support to help you work with HM Land Registry: Guidance for members of the public – GOV.UK<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-for-members-of-the-public&gt; Guidance for property professionals – GOV.UK<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-for-property-professionals&gt; HM Land Registry’s purpose is to protect your land ownership and provide services and data that underpin an efficient and informed property market. Our vision is: “A world-leading property market as part of a thriving economy and a sustainable future”. We check all mail and attachments for known viruses. However, you are advised that you open any attachments at your own risk. If you have received this email and it was not intended for you, please let us know, then delete it. We welcome correspondence in English and Welsh. To see how HM Land Registry treats your personal information, read our Personal information charter: http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/personal-information-charter.

Mr Haste / Customer Support Reference: N610CGV Your letter: 30 July 2026 Also: [removed] Titles: WA231076 and WA240304 (closed) Property: land on the north side of Leckwith Road, Llandough (Great House Farm / Tÿ Mawr) This is not a complaint, not a request to reopen the stage 2 review of 25 May 2026, and not a request that you determine ownership. I am asking you to search the historic files you have already retrieved and to say whether a 1924–1930 instrument for the house plot is on them. Family evidence states that John Williams registered the house and garden parcel in 1928, and that an agreement of 15 May 1924 is on the WA231076 file. Llandough was not a compulsory-registration area in 1928. I need to know whether any voluntary first registration, or any filed conveyance or agreement of that date, exists. Please answer these points, and send copies by email to [removed] where the document is held: 1. Any title number opened between 1924 and 1930 for this land, including a voluntary first registration in the name of John Williams, and any closed title later absorbed into WA231076 or WA240304. If none, please say none. 2. Historical editions of the register and title plan for WA231076 and WA240304 (form HC1), including the edition of 23 February 1983 already listed in your 30 July letter. 3. The agreement of 15 May 1924, if filed on WA231076 or any parent title, with its plan. 4. Any other filed instrument dated 1924–1930, and any entry for such an instrument on the 1971 abstract of title or the A13-DL list of documents lodged with first registration. 5. If a document in 3 or 4 is not held, please say it is not held, rather than omit it. [address removed] Please reply to this email. Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Enquiry Reference: [removed] Application Reference: N610CGV Title Number: WA231076 Dear Customer Thank you for your enquiry. The matter you have contacted us about has already been raised by yourself and an application has been captured internally by HM Land Registry to investigate and correct any error that may have been made. Please note the application reference – Z084NQV Yours faithfully Katy HM Land Registry We only provide factual information and impartial advice about our procedures. Read more about the advice we give.<https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-land-registry-service-standards/our-service-standards&gt; Easy and free support to help you work with HM Land Registry: Guidance for members of the public – GOV.UK<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-for-members-of-the-public&gt; Guidance for property professionals – GOV.UK<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-for-property-professionals&gt; HM Land Registry’s purpose is to protect your land ownership and provide services and data that underpin an efficient and informed property market. Our vision is: “A world-leading property market as part of a thriving economy and a sustainable future”. We check all mail and attachments for known viruses. However, you are advised that you open any attachments at your own risk. If you have received this email and it was not intended for you, please let us know, then delete it. We welcome correspondence in English and Welsh. To see how HM Land Registry treats your personal information, read our Personal information charter: http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/personal-information-charter.

Dear HM Land Registry, Titles: WA240304 (closed) and WA231076. Land: north side of Leckwith Road, Llandough (Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr). 1. What this email is (a) It asks the Registrar to consider alteration of the register under Schedule 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002, and indemnity under Schedule 8. Please add it to Z084NQV. (b) It supplements my emails of 30 July, 12 August, 16 September (points 1 to 14), 18 September, 27 September and 7 October 2026. Where a point repeats an earlier question I say so. Those questions remain unanswered. Points marked NEW have not been put to the Registry before. (c) It is limited to the first registration of WA240304 in 1983 and what followed to 1987. It does not deal with the 1982 application or the eastern land, and I waive nothing on either. Your enquiry [removed] says the Registry can no longer service mail sent to individual addresses. Please treat this email as received on the date sent and confirm receipt against Z084NQV. Copies go to the Independent Complaints Reviewer (ICR/090/26), Stephen Doughty MP, who raised this matter with the Registry, and Llandough Community Council, which holds related local records. I am not asking you to decide who owns the land. I am asking what the Registry examined, what it relied on and what its records show. The dates come from your schedule of 30 July 2026, your letters of 23 March, 19 April and 25 May 2026, and the WA231076 register accessed on 19 September 2026. Public working evidence catalogue: https://greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com Title and chronology index: https://dartboard.bucklerfamily.estate and https://bpvsbuckler.bucklerfamily.estate Long-term archive: https://wayback.bucklerfamily.estate 2. The 1983 record on your own schedule – 23 February 1983: form 1C application from Linklaters & Paines (WA240304 item 11), and a register edition of the same date (item 10). – 26 March 1983: Mary Williams died at the house, still in occupation; she had refused the tenancies offered to her in 1959 and 1965 and asserted title through her grandfather (1959, in the Court of Appeal’s account). – 8 April 1983: form D23 (“inside exam”) and a Linklaters & Paines letter (WA240304 item 7). – 12 April 1983: customer correspondence (item 4), plus undated letters (item 5). – 12 May 1983: several letters between Linklaters & Paines and the Registry (WA231076 item 16). – 13 January 1984: form A3 application (item 15) and a new register edition (item 23). – 22 May 1984: BP’s writ for possession. This is chronology only, not evidence of what the Registry knew in 1983. – 2 February 1987: application to amalgamate (WA231076 item 14). Your schedule says the WA240304 copy of the form has “no annotation on it”. 3. Points arising 3.1 Root of title and class of title. Raised before: my email of 16 September (points 10 and 13) and my ICR referral. NEW detail: your stage one letter says a full documentary title commencing with a good root at least 15 years old should normally establish title. It then concluded a good root was shown and that BP Pension Trust acquired the land in 1969. That conclusion rests on the recital in the 1975 conveyance, which refers to a conveyance of 31 December 1969. The 1969 deed itself is not on your schedule. The recited root was about 13 years 2 months old on 23 February 1983. The letter also quotes the 1975 recital as giving the year as “One thousand One hundred and sixty nine”. Please confirm the original reads 1969. Please say which documents the Registry relied on as the root, whether any exception or alternative procedure was used (and under which provision of the 1925 Act), why absolute title was accepted, and the class of title first entered for WA240304. 3.2 The 1971 abstract. Raised before: 30 July, 12 August and 16 September (points 1 and 8). Your letter says a 1971 abstract was lodged with the WA231076 application and that the Registry “had sight of” one for WA240304. Neither schedule lists it. NEW: a 1971 abstract cannot evidence a conveyance of 1975. What evidenced that conveyance? 3.3 Extent and plans. Raised before in part: 18 September. NEW: WA240304 item 1 is a plan to the conveyance of 23 May 1975, but item 13 is a plan “to conveyance dated 23 February 1975”. Please reconcile those dates and say which plan governed the registration. The WA231076 register records that the 1975 conveyance plan is “filed under WA240304”, which is now a closed title. Please supply the original title plan (item 9) and both plans. Please also identify the land conveyed in 1975 and the vendors’ “Retained Land”, the capacity in which each vendor conveyed, and how the extents of the two titles related immediately before amalgamation, including any overlap. The register also records that a new filed plan was substituted on 5 January 1995. Please supply the plan it replaced and confirm the extent did not change. 3.4 The occupier and what the Registry knew. Raised before in part: 16 September (points 4 and 12), 27 September, and ICR/090/26. Mary Williams was in actual occupation of the farmhouse in February and March 1983. The history includes the 1955 order against Frederick Buckler alone, the 1962 order against Frederick and Mary for the farmhouse and garden (not enforced), and the 1974 county court action in which Mary pleaded ownership, which was part-heard and never concluded. NEW: stage two says the Registry “were unaware of any dispute that was possibly ongoing”. Yet WA240304 holds an inside examination (D23) and letters of 8 and 12 April 1983, and WA231076 holds letters between the applicant’s solicitors and the Registry of 12 May 1983. Please say what enquiry was made of the occupier (Land Registration Act 1925 s.70(1)(g)), what inspection was done, and what those letters said about occupation, possession proceedings or the 1974 action. Please supply the D23 examination record. 3.5 The solicitors’ certificate. Raised before: 30 July and 16 September (points 2 and 9). Stage one relied on certificate wording from form FR1. The 1983 application was on form 1C. Please supply form 1C as lodged and say what it certified about any question or doubt affecting title. 3.6 Notice and caution. Raised before: my email of 27 September (the family’s case) and ICR/090/26. NEW: stage two says my family could have applied for a caution. That requires knowing of the application. Please produce every notice and service record for WA240304, as sent, showing the title it concerned, the addressee’s name, the address, the date and any proof of delivery. A notice addressed to Mary Williams and issued or received after 26 March 1983 went to a person who had died. If it went to “Mrs Williams” at the property, I ask whether that was the right name and the right household. I am not asserting that this happened. I am asking for the record. 3.7 The 1987 judgment and the amalgamation. Raised before: 16 September (point 14) and ICR/090/26. Stage one said it is not for the Registrar to look behind decisions of the Court. The Court of Appeal considered adverse possession, the 1962 order and the 1974 letters. As I read it, it did not review the Registry’s examination of title, the documents supplied or the notices. Please say precisely what HMLR says that judgment established and which parts of its 1983 process it says the judgment answers. NEW: please provide the application, decision and completion dates of the amalgamation, the instrument and plans relied on, the power used, and whether the registered extent changed or only the structure of the register. HMLR has also given the closure of WA240304 as 1987 (the amalgamation) and as 2005 (your email of 21 September 2026, enquiry [removed]). Please state the actual date and the entry that records it. 3.8 What the complaint decisions examined. Raised before: ICR/090/26. The itemised schedule reached me on 30 July 2026, after both decisions. NEW: stage two says the reviewer examined “the evidence lodged in support of the application”. Please confirm which original first-registration documents each decision-maker examined, whether the absence of the 1969 conveyance was identified, and provide the recorded basis for the conclusions reached. 3.9 The 1994 corrections. NEW to the Registry (raised only with the ICR). WA231076 items 12 and 22 are applications “to correct the title”, dated 20 January 1994 and 13 October 1994. Stage one and stage two found no evidence of a mistake. Please say what was corrected, on whose application, under what authority, on what evidence, and whether the registered extent changed, including land derived from WA240304. 4. Schedule 4 (mistake and rectification) and Schedule 8 (indemnity). NEW A. Mistake. I understand Schedule 4 now governs alteration of the register as it stands, including entries made in 1983 under the 1925 Act. The Registrar may alter the register to correct a mistake (paragraph 5(a)). Practice Guide 39 gives “including too much land in a registered title” as an example. I say there is a possible mistake in the 1983 entry in two respects: absolute title entered on a root that is not on the file (3.1 and 3.2), and an extent fixed by plans that do not reconcile (3.3). Please state whether HMLR accepts either as a mistake. B. Possession and proper care. Practice Guide 39 (sections 1.3 and 1.4) says a registered proprietor in possession is protected unless it caused or contributed to the mistake by fraud or lack of proper care, or unless it would be unjust not to correct. Possession means physical possession. Please say who is in physical possession of the land affected. Practice Guide 39 (appendix 12.3.1) gives as an example a solicitor on a first registration who fails to lodge all the documents in their possession. Please say whether the applicant’s solicitors lodged every document in their possession in 1983, including the 1969 conveyance and the abstract, and whether HMLR considers that bears on this protection. I do not assert that anything was withheld. C. Class of title and overriding interests. Practice Guide 39 (section 1.1) says an alteration can give effect to an estate, right or interest not affected by registration where land is registered with good leasehold, possessory or qualified title. If the root evidence supported no more than that, the class entered may itself be the mistake. Section 1.2 says an alteration reflecting an overriding interest is not rectification. Please say whether HMLR accepts that an occupier’s rights in 1983 could be recorded without that being rectification, and how it would deal with them. D. Indemnity and process. Please confirm Z084NQV is being treated as a formal application for alteration, or tell me what form and fee are required (Practice Guide 39 section 2.1; rule 13 of the Land Registration Rules 2003). Practice Guide 39 says anyone may apply, and the fee may be refunded where the Registry caused the error. Indemnity time runs for six years from when the claimant knew or should have known of the claim (Schedule 8 paragraph 8). The family first saw the file schedule on 30 July 2026. Please confirm HMLR will treat any claim as in time. Please also give your consent under Schedule 8 paragraph 3 to reasonable costs, including copy fees at £11 per document. Where indemnity is not available, please consider whether a payment for maladministration is appropriate (Practice Guide 39 section 11). 5. Anticipated responses – “The amalgamation was administrative tidying.” Points 3.3 and 3.7 ask whether it altered the registered extent. Points 3.1 and 3.2 go to the examination of title, not to the structure of the register. – “The missing documents’ contents are unknown, so absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” That is why I ask for the files to be read and the examination record produced. – “The Registry may rely on the solicitors’ certificate.” Please produce the certificate actually given on form 1C (3.5). – “The registrar may approve a title open to objection where the holding is unlikely to be disturbed (section 13 of the 1925 Act, and section 9(3) of the 2002 Act).” If HMLR relied on that discretion, please identify the defect considered, the contemporaneous evidence supporting the opinion that the holding would not be disturbed, and the recorded reasons for approving the title. Please also explain how the occupier’s rights under section 70(1)(g) were examined before they were treated as undisclosed. 6. Requests (a) Confirm these points are added to Z084NQV, and confirm receipt of this email. (b) Answer each numbered point and A to D, or say the record is not held. (c) Provide copies of the WA240304 register as first registered, form 1C as lodged, form D23, the letters of 8 and 12 April 1983 and 12 May 1983, the A3 application of 13 January 1984 and the register edition, the 1971 abstract, both plans, the original title plan, every notice and service record, the amalgamation application with its decision and completion dates, and the two 1994 correction applications. If copies cannot be emailed, please give the OC2 / HC1 wording and the address for each. (d) Reply within 20 working days. Please also keep every document on both first-registration files and every related internal record, in line with my preservation notices of 3 June and 28 September 2026. To the Independent Complaints Reviewer: please confirm whether you will consider this additional material in ICR/090/26, or whether I should raise it separately. Yours faithfully, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]