MPs (House of Commons) — correspondence with the family (email)

Sir/Ma’am, [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I am writing to request your assistance in reviewing a historic legal matter involving my family: *BP Properties Ltd v Buckler (1987)*, relating to Great House Farm, Llandough. My family lived on, cared for and claimed to own that farm for generations. The events surrounding the 1987 case resulted in the loss of our home and land[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]. Recent research I have undertaken has revealed significant procedural inconsistencies, historical irregularities, unanswered questions regarding corporate identity, unverified service of key documents, and heritage considerations relating to the site. I have attached a short report summarising SOME of these issues. I am requesting your help in identifying the appropriate bodies—legal, historical, or governmental—who may be able to independently review the historical record to ensure fairness, accuracy, and transparency. My interest is not solely personal; Great House Farm has a heritage significance to Wales, including documented accounts that Guglielmo Marconi stayed there while experimenting with early radio technology. I believe this should form part of our preserved historical record. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] My intention is simply to seek clarity, proper review, and justice where appropriate. I would be grateful for your guidance on the correct avenues to pursue. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response. Yours sincerely, *Requester* [signature block trimmed]

Dear Soin, Thank you for your email to Kanishka Narayan MP and for passing on your concerns. [removed] unfortunately does not fall within the Vale of Glamorgan Parliamentary Constituency and Parliamentary protocol states that Kanishka is unable to assist anyone outside his constituency. I would like to recommend contacting your MP, Stephen Doughty. His contact details are: [removed] Email Address: [removed] I hope they are able to assist you. Kind regards, Madelene ] Madelene Larsson Constituency Support Manager, Kanishka Narayan MP [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Hi Requester, I regret to inform you that we are unable to assist with the matter you raise. Regards, Paul Paul R. Egan BA, Chartered MCIPD, CiLCA, F. Inst. LM, FIPSM Clerk to Llandough Community Council, [signature block trimmed]

Dear Committee Members, I am writing to draw your attention to a historical land matter which I believe may illustrate potential vulnerabilities in public administration, record-keeping, and the governance of land registration. My purpose is solely to provide factual information for consideration, rather than to request remedial action. The matter concerns land formerly known as *Great House Farm, Llandough, Vale of Glamorgan*, later developed for residential use and historically associated with *BP v Buckler (Court of Appeal, 1987)*. *Chronology of relevant events (as reflected in public records):* – *July 1974:* Court proceedings involving my grandmother were adjourned without determination of ownership. – *31 October 1974:* A subsequent hearing did not proceed substantively, following correspondence received from BP entities that same day. No judgment on ownership was issued. – Throughout this period, my grandmother was not included in dealings concerning the land, while the opposing party continued to assert ownership. – *1982:* The land was registered in the name of BP entities, despite unresolved competing claims and no final judicial adjudication. – *1983:* My grandmother passed away after the registration, with ownership never conclusively adjudicated. – *1987 Court of Appeal:* The record reflects an apparent inconsistency in the treatment of correspondence and corporate entities. Specifically: – The court noted that my grandmother had replied to correspondence on 31 October, asserting ownership. – The reply was treated as directed to the “wrong” corporation (BP Pensions Trust Ltd rather than BP Properties Ltd). – In a later appeal by my father, the same judge acknowledged that both BP entities were effectively treated as the same for the purposes of the ruling. – These circumstances resulted in the court upholding the opposing party’s registration despite prior correspondence demonstrating an assertion of ownership. – Following these proceedings, my father’s application to the *European Court of Human Rights* was blocked. – The family home was demolished, preventing re-entry, even for the retrieval of personal belongings. – Despite its historical significance and a petition to protect it, the property was not preserved. The house had prior heritage interest, including documented connections to Marconi. – *1991:* My father passed away at just 41. – *1994:* The land was subsequently excavated, with items of archaeological interest removed. Taken together, these events demonstrate a situation in which *land registration and subsequent reliance by public bodies proceeded without definitive adjudication of ownership*, raising questions regarding administrative safeguards, procedural coherence, and record integrity. I am submitting this information purely for institutional awareness. I am *not making allegations of misconduct*, nor requesting investigation. I am able to provide a *concise factual timeline and references to public records* should it assist the Committee’s understanding. Yours faithfully, Requester

✔ Your full name Requester ✔ Your full address (including postcode) [removed] ✔ A contact method (email or phone) [removed] ✔ Details of your case (including any relevant reference numbers) BP vs Buckler 1987 Regards, Requester [quoted text trimmed]

MP, Further to my last email, please would you; – Pose a Parliamentary Question to the UK Government about the historical case or current land registration policies. – Request a debate on historical property disputes. – Refer me to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman a I have evidence of maladministration by a public body (e.g. Land Registry, court, council, CADW etc). Regards, Requester [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester, Thank you for contacting the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Unfortunately, this is not a matter within the remit of the Committee. The role of the Committee is to examine constitutional issues; the quality and standards of administration provided by Civil Service departments; and the reports of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). You can find out more about the work of the Committee here: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee – Summary – Committees – UK Parliament<https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/327/public-administration-and-constitutional-affairs-committee/&gt; Best wishes, Kate Kate Johal Second Clerk Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

*Kate Johal,* [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Is it not PACAC’s role to ensure that the *machinery of the state*—the courts, the Land Registry, and planning authorities—operates with transparency and protects the constitutional rights of citizens against administrative abuse? My case relates specifically to *maladministration* and *constitutional overreach*: [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] By focusing on how these public institutions failed to maintain accurate records and fair procedures, I am presenting a case of *systemic failure in public administration*, which is the core reason I understand your Committee to exist. I must formally contest the assertion that this matter falls outside the Committee’s remit. While the origin of this case involves a dispute with a private entity (BP), the core of my grievance concerns *constitutional issues* and the *quality of administration provided by government-funded bodies*, specifically regarding the protection of national heritage and the integrity of land registration. I ask the Committee to review this matter under the following three pillars of your mandate: [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] The 1987 Court of Appeal ruling (*BP Properties Ltd v Buckler*) created a significant legal precedent regarding “unilateral licenses”. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] *2. Standards of Administration: Suppression of Heritage by Public Bodies* The Committee examines the quality of administration. My investigation reveals that: – *Archaeological Suppression:* Evidence of a Roman soldier was discovered in 1888, providing “actual notice” of the site’s significance. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] – [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] *Missing Records:* Vital title evidence and Bute Estate deeds disappeared from the public library system—a failure of public record administration. *3. Accountability of the Land Registry and Parliamentary Oversight* The registration of this land under BP’s title occurred during a period of transition in Welsh land law (c. 1982). If public registries accepted title without disclosing active disputes or the presence of a known national monument (the Roman/Medieval site), this represents a failure in the “standards of administration” by the Civil Service. Furthermore, this matter was raised in the House of Commons by MP Ted Rowlands in 1980, yet the administrative failures continued unabated. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] If the Committee exists to ensure the Civil Service and constitutional frameworks protect the public interest, then the demolition of an 800-year-old heritage site under a cloud of administrative “silence” must be within your purview. I look forward to your reconsidered response. Sincerely, Requester [quoted text trimmed]

Ms Smith, Thank you for your detailed response regarding selection policies and retention schedules. I appreciate the procedural clarity you have provided. However, I must respectfully indicate that your reply does not address the substantive concerns I have raised, and I am now compelled to escalate this matter formally. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] You correctly note that archival silences are well-documented in academic literature. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] 2. The Computerised Records Question You direct me to search your catalogue. I have done so. However, I now ask specifically: – Does The National Archives hold any digitised or microfilmed copies of the Bute Estate records that might contain references to the Daniel Thomas quarrying agreement (circa 1895-1905) or the 1938 auction at the Bear Hotel? – Are there any internal indices or finding aids (particularly from the 1970s-1980s) that might reference Great House Farm, Llandough, or the BP/Western Ground Rents acquisition records that are not reflected in the current online catalogue? The 1994 archaeological excavation report (Cotswold Archaeological Trust) confirms the site’s national significance. The absence of corresponding land transaction records from the same period is itself an anomaly requiring explanation. 3. The BP Corporate Records Question You note that parties are generally responsible for maintaining their own records. However, BP Properties Ltd and BP Pension Trust Ltd were corporate entities with statutory filing obligations. I ask: – Were any BP corporate records relating to land acquisition in South Glamorgan (1969-1988) selected for preservation under the Companies Act or as part of the public record? – Has The National Archives ever received or sought records from BP regarding the Great House Farm acquisition, demolition, or the 1987 litigation? The Court of Appeal judgment [1987] EWCA Civ 2 notes that BP issued letters on 31 October 1974, not received until November 4th 1974 —letters that were allegedly “accepted by silence.” [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] If these were not preserved, I ask under what authority they were destroyed and whether this occurred before or after the litigation concluded. 4. Request for Formal Investigation I am not seeking annotation of records. I am seeking: 1. A formal review of whether records relating to Great House Farm, Llandough (ST 168 733) were selected for preservation, destroyed, or remain non accessioned; 2. A search of microfilm, digitised, or legacy finding aid holdings for any reference to the 1938 auction, Western Ground Rents acquisition, or the Daniel Thomas quarrying agreement; 3. Confirmation of whether The National Archives has ever received complaints regarding missing Bute Estate records or BP land acquisition documents from other researchers; 4. Guidance on the appropriate authority to investigate allegations of document removal from Cardiff Library (1984) and potential fraud in the 1982 land registration. 5. Public Interest and Parliamentary Scrutiny This matter involves: – The forced removal of a family from land occupied since at least 1667 [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] – A Court of Appeal decision ([1987] EWCA Civ 2) that may have relied on incomplete or fraudulent evidence I am copying my MP and the Parliamentary Ombudsman in this correspondence. I will also be submitting a Subject Access Request to HM Land Registry regarding the 1982 registration and a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office regarding potential destruction of records relevant to ongoing property disputes. I request a substantive response addressing the specific questions above within 20 working days. Should The National Archives be unable to assist further, I request a formal referral to the appropriate body with jurisdiction over historical record fraud and spoliation. Yours sincerely, Requester [quoted text trimmed]

Councillor Carroll & co, I write regarding potential gaps in the Council’s planning and record-keeping processes relating to Great House Farm, Llandough, which was demolished in 1988 following the 1987 Court of Appeal decision in BP Properties Ltd v Buckler. Recent evidence suggests the Council may wish to examine its own position on this matter, as it raises questions about procedural compliance and record integrity [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]. CORE ISSUES **1. Identity and Procedural Integrity** The 1987 judgment turned on a 1974 licence addressed to “Mrs Buckler”. My grandmother, Mary Williams, did not use or accept this designation. Contemporaneous evidence (1978 newspaper article attached) records her asserting ownership under her correct name. If the 1987 court was not presented with this evidence, the judgment may rest on an incomplete factual record. This raises procedural fairness concerns relevant to any future review of the decision. **2. Heritage Information and Statutory Compliance** The site’s archaeological significance was documented by 1978 (Roman burials, monastic associations). Yet professional excavations in 1994 revealed 1,026 early medieval burials and monastic structures—findings that should have prompted evaluation under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. Critical question: Did the Council conduct or require prior archaeological assessment before granting permissions to demolish? If not, this represents a potential gap in statutory process that may affect the validity of the permissions granted. **3. Land Registry Disclosure** BP registered title in 1982 based on the disputed licence. The Council should establish: – Whether any dispute notice or heritage caution was lodged; – Whether the Council disclosed relevant heritage information to the Land Registry; – What planning records exist from 1978–1988 regarding the site’s known archaeological potential. **4. Corporate Identity Inconsistency** During my father’s appeal, the court treated BP Properties Ltd and BP Pension Trust Ltd inconsistently—as separate entities when convenient, then as one when dismissing his claim. This raises questions about how thoroughly the litigation was scrutinised and whether the Council’s records reflect this uncertainty. WHY THIS MATTERS TO THE COUNCIL These issues go beyond a single historical dispute. They touch on: – **Planning record integrity**: Whether heritage information was adequately documented and acted upon; – **Procedural compliance**: Whether statutory protections (Ancient Monuments Act) were properly applied; – **Institutional liability**: Whether decisions were made on incomplete or misleading information; – **Precedent risk**: Whether similar vulnerabilities may exist in other historical planning decisions. REQUESTS I ask the Council to: 1. **Commission a review** of the planning permissions granted between 1978–1988 for Great House Farm, specifically examining what heritage and archaeological information was available to decision-makers and how it was handled. 2. **Refer this matter to the Monitoring Officer** for examination of procedural compliance and record integrity. 3. **Establish** what correspondence, cautions, or dispute notices exist in relation to this site’s title or heritage status. 4. **Clarify the Council’s current protocol** for handling historical title disputes, previously unknown heritage information, or allegations of material non-disclosure in past planning processes—to prevent recurrence. I am not asking the Council to reverse the 1987 judgment or disturb current residents. I am asking it to ensure its own records are accurate and its own processes are defensible. I attach the 1978 article and supporting documents, and am available to meet or provide further information. Yours faithfully, Requester[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Executor for the Manor of Llandough

Ms Hollis, I write further to your letter of 27 April 2026. This correspondence constitutes formal pre-action notice of my intention to pursue legal remedies arising from the historic proceedings concerning Great House Farm, Llandough. While I note your position regarding judicial independence, I do not accept that the issues raised can be dismissed at an administrative level. My representations concern alleged fraud, procedural irregularity, misrepresentation, non-disclosure, and structural unfairness which, taken together, raise serious questions as to whether the proceedings to dispossess my disabled, widowed nan, of our land and farm since 1667[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] were properly and fairly determined. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] And the fraud I discovered this year is the beginning of the Limitation clock so far as I understand, despite the fraud occuring almost 40 years ago. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] These matters warrant proper consideration, or at minimum clear direction to an appropriate forum capable of examining them. —————————— A. Grounds for Reparations The basis upon which reparations are sought includes: – Continuous occupation over approximately 318 years (1667–1988), open, peaceful, and without permission (*nec vi, nec clam, nec precario*), establishing de facto ownership; – No voluntary surrender of rights at any stage, with the claim maintained consistently to the present day; – Uncompensated dispossession, including eviction and demolition without settlement; – Coercive enforcement measures, including forced removal, detention, restraining measures, and demolition under duress; – [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] – [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] – Destruction of an ancestral home of significant age and character (approximately 800 years); – Loss or disappearance of family records and evidential materials relevant to ownership; – Failure to act upon known archaeological and historical significance, resulting in loss of heritage protection; – Resulting public interest harm through the destruction of a site of historical importance. —————————— B. Grounds to Set Aside or Reopen the 1987 Ruling 1. Reliance on a disputed “licence by silence” The judgment relied upon an inferred licence accepted through silence. This is unsafe where: – correspondence was addressed to a disputed identity (“Mrs Buckler”); – evidence of active rejection (including 1978 news paper article) was not before the court. 2. Identity misrepresentation Mary Williams was treated as “Mrs Buckler,” which: – did not reflect her asserted identity; – weakened her position by obscuring lineage-based claims; – artificially linked her to the alleged intent of another party. 3. Misplaced reliance on Frederick Buckler’s intent Any alleged intention: – was personal to him and legally distinct; – did not bind Mary Williams; – was extinguished upon his death in 1965; – and was not supported by fulfilment of tenancy obligations. 4. Procedural irregularities (1974) There are serious concerns that: – an appeal attempt and request for a stay were disrupted; – licence correspondence was timed and/or presented so as to defeat due process; – a key hearing was effectively neutralised before determination. 5. Non-disclosure of material facts Relevant matters appear not to have been disclosed, including: – evidence of public rejection of the opposing claim; – archaeological and historical significance of the site; – the existence of an ongoing dispute in the context of land registration. 6. Inconsistent treatment of corporate identity – In 1987, my grandmother’s rebuttal to BP Pension Trust was disregarded on the basis that BP Pension Trust and BP Properties were separate entities; – In subsequent proceedings, the same entities were treated as effectively the same when dismissing an appeal. This inconsistency materially affected the outcome and raises concerns as to fairness and legal coherence. 7. Avoidance of substantive title determination The case proceeded within a possession framework rather than determining underlying ownership in an appropriate forum, resulting in the absence of a definitive adjudication on title. 8. Possible misrepresentation / constructive fraud Concerns arise that: – licence arrangements were asserted under a disputed identity; – the authority of the issuing entity was unclear; – planning and property descriptions may have mischaracterised the nature of the building. 9. New or previously unavailable evidence This includes: – missing or unavailable title documentation; – evidence relating to arrangements (including that attributed to Daniel Thomas); – testimony of family members not previously considered; [wording updated at the author’s request, 19 Oct 2026] – subsequent archaeological findings supporting the site’s significance. —————————— C. Core Position Taken together, the 1987 outcome is arguable as unsafe due to flawed assumptions, missing evidence, and procedural unfairness. The resulting dispossession, demolition, and long-term harm give rise to a basis for reparative consideration. —————————— D. Why the Matter Requires Proper Consideration This matter should not be dismissed solely on the basis of judicial independence because: – The issues raised concern the *integrity of the process*, not simply disagreement with a result; – Allegations of *misrepresentation, non-disclosure, and procedural irregularity* fall outside ordinary appellate disagreement; – There is a *public interest dimension*, including loss of heritage and potential systemic issues; – The passage of time does not extinguish claims where *fraud or material injustice* is alleged; – Clarification is required as to the appropriate forum capable of examining such matters. —————————— E. Request for Clarification Before commencing proceedings, I request clarification of the following: 1. Whether any formal mechanism exists within government for referring allegations of procedural irregularity or fraud in historic cases for independent review; 2. Whether my correspondence has been referred to any oversight or investigatory body; 3. Whether the Ministry maintains any position as to the appropriate route for consideration of such evidence outside of direct court proceedings. —————————— Please treat this letter as a formal pre-action notice. I would be grateful for a substantive response within 14 days. Nothing in this letter should be taken as a waiver of any rights or remedies, all of which are expressly reserved. Yours sincerely, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Manor of Llandough, Vale of Glamorgan

Councillor of Llandough, [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I’m still waiting for you and the MP to respond to this matter. For months now. MoJ won’t comment as they say its ongoing. See attached. Which doesn’t make sense as I’ve not begun legal proceedings and this hasn’t been touched in decades. They also took half a year just to reply. Land Registry made my query into a complaint and shut it down instantly. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] They should have listen it as a grade II. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] There’s gaps in records. Court mistakes. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Procedural unfairness. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] In any case I believe my families standing, title and estate was stolen. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

[address removed] you and you say speak to him. Llandough has been our home since 1667 (Great House Farm). It appears that fraud is how it was taken from us. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Requester [quoted text trimmed]

Dear MP of Vale of Glamorgan I am seeking your assistance in referring a complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman concerning HM Land Registry. I have exhausted HM Land Registry’s internal complaints process and have received what they describe as their final Stage 2 response regarding title number WA231076 and land at Great House Farm / Land on the North Side of Leckwith Road, Llandough. My concern is not simply that HM Land Registry disagrees with me. Rather, I believe there has been a failure to properly engage with key evidence and historical issues raised by my family concerning ownership claims, missing title documentation, and the procedural history of litigation connected with the property. In particular: – HM Land Registry relied on references to court findings but did not clearly identify which court determination finally adjudicated the historical ownership claim advanced by my family. – My request for examination of registration issues appears to have been converted into a complaints process and then closed through administrative procedures. – HM Land Registry repeatedly stated that it would not “look behind” court decisions, yet did not address whether certain historical ownership issues were ever substantively determined by a court. – Important factual concerns were treated as irrelevant to registration without detailed investigation. – I remain concerned that potentially significant historical evidence and title issues have never been fully examined. I am therefore requesting that you refer this matter to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman for independent review of HM Land Registry’s handling of my case and its decision-making process. I can provide the full correspondence, Land Registry references, court materials, historical documents, and supporting evidence if required. I would be grateful if you could consider making a referral on my behalf. Yours sincerely, Requester [removed] P.S. Having carefully reviewed HM Land Registry’s responses, I remain concerned by several matters that appear unresolved. The responses state that the registered proprietor evidenced a good documentary title, yet do not identify the precise chain of title relied upon, the key documents considered, or how that documentary title was assessed against the long-standing ownership claim advanced by my grandmother, Mary Williams. The responses rely upon references to court findings, but do not clearly identify whether any court ever finally adjudicated the merits of my grandmother’s ownership claim. My understanding is that earlier proceedings may have encountered procedural difficulties and may not have resulted in a substantive determination of title. HM Land Registry states that it will not “look behind” court decisions. However, this leaves unanswered the question of whether certain historical ownership issues were ever examined by a court in the first place. The responses also do not explain what consideration, if any, was given to my grandmother’s repeated assertions of ownership, the documents she believed supported that ownership, or the circumstances under which those documents became unavailable. Similarly, concerns raised regarding the manner in which my grandmother was identified in historical dealings were treated as irrelevant to registration, but the underlying factual issues were not addressed. What I am seeking are clear answers to the following questions: • What specific documentary chain of title was relied upon for first registration? • Was there ever a final judicial determination of the Williams ownership claim on its merits, and if so, what was the case, court, and order? • What records are held by public authorities relating to documents relied upon by Mary Williams when asserting ownership? • Have the historical ownership issues raised by my family ever been independently investigated, or have they been treated as settled by reference to later proceedings concerning different legal questions? These questions have remained unanswered despite many years of enquiries and are central to understanding whether my family’s concerns have ever been fully examined.

[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I am now working to formally collect and present evidence. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Furthermore, regarding the information I have received, I am horrified by the gaps in records, peculiar circumstances, missing information, and the general inaccessibility of public records. I am just trying to understand what happened here; I require the whole truth. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] With this clear reconstruction of the evidence and story, I can also seek legal adjudication and remedy. We maintain our absolute claim to the land, which was passed from my grandmother to my father, and then to me and my expanding family. As you are well aware, fraud and concealment unravel everything, which I suspect they will in this case. If you could instruct all parties to be more forthcoming with records held on me, my family, and our former family home since 1667, we would be most grateful. Thus far, I see a clear miscarriage of justice, court mistakes, and procedural unfairness. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] From what I can gather so far from the information and testimony from family members I have (including [wording updated at the author’s request, 19 Oct 2026] five aunties, my dad, an uncle, my mum, and cousins), my working theory is that my grandad, Frederick Buckler, pawned his wife’s (my nan, Mrs. Williams) virtual freehold to the surrounding farmland. However, the house, garden, and immediate land may have been a separate plot to which we did obtain absolute title from Bute following a quarrying deal, which granted permission for quarrying/limeworks in exchange for that title. That title was later stolen from our house. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] There were numerous court hearings where Mary won, but she was later unable to present the title (though its prior existence was not denied). The copy from the public library was gone too. My mum’s testimony states she went back to retrieve the index card almost immediately afterward, but that had been taken as well. Consequently, the dispossession escalated, with BP registering our land in their names at the Land Registry in 1983. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Later, in 1987 (the landmark case *BP vs. Buckler*, 1987), the judge is quoted as saying my nan “conceived the notion” she owned it. He claimed that had she challenged BP’s license letters, the outcome would have been different. Yet, she is well-documented as challenging the BP Pension Trust in the press, via a petition with 1,100 signatures, and in the 1975 conveyance. The judge then claimed that even if she challenged them, it would not count because the plaintiff was BP Properties, not the BP Pension Trust, asserting they were two separate companies. Thus, BP won possession. However, no court has ever ruled against our claim of ownership, and we have never willingly surrendered it. No court has ever ruled that BP owns it. When my dad appealed that ruling, arguing that the BP Pension Trust should have been the plaintiff, the same judge dismissed his appeal by stating that BP Pension and BP Properties were effectively the same company. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I believe the possession of our surrounding farmland is dubious and highly arguable. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Our home and garden were evidently a separate plot. In the worst-case scenario, we should have been granted an easement or thoroughfare across the surrounding land to access our home and garden. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Furthermore, the Land Registry claims the 1987 ruling justifies their actions in 1983, yet the 1987 ruling relies on their actions from 1983. The 1987 ruling is also retrospective in how it validates the invalid license letters from 1974. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Will you take this on? Will you instruct the Senedd to launch a public inquiry into this? [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Last week, my system of AI tools discovered a social media comment from many years ago mentioning a photo of our farm inside the disabled toilet of a pub. I sent someone there, and low and behold, it was still on the wall: a clear aerial image of the Roman villa remains, taken between the demolition of our home and the construction of the 20 houses. I believe that with proper cooperation, I can reconstruct the timeline of this story with all supporting evidence for the public record. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] It is vital to me and the public that this story be told accurately while the previous generation of my family is still alive to participate. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] OBO Williams/Buckler Estate (Est. 1667) [signature block trimmed]

Your full name: Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [address removed] Kingdom • Your contact telephone number: N/A • Any relevant reference numbers: N/A [quoted text trimmed]

Stephen Doughty MP, I am writing to follow up on my previous email regarding Great House Farm, Llandough, and the concerns I raised about historical records, council involvement, and transparency surrounding this matter. I have not received a substantive reply and would appreciate an update on whether you are able to assist or raise the matter with the relevant authorities. As this concerns a historic site of local importance and questions about past decisions affecting the community, I believe it warrants proper consideration. Please could you confirm whether this has been reviewed and advise what further action can be taken. I look forward to your response. Kind regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [signature block trimmed]

Stephen Doughty MP, With great regret I am writing to lodge a formal complaint about the failure of your office to provide any substantive response to my repeated correspondence concerning historic land, planning, enforcement, heritage and related public-interest matters at Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough (now Church View Close). I am a constituent (address below) with a legitimate and long-standing family interest in the site. The issues raised include alleged defective notices, loss of opportunity to contest enforcement leading to demolition in 1988, heritage/regulatory oversight, planning and title records, and related transparency failures. Despite multiple contacts, I have received only automated acknowledgements and no substantive reply. ### Full correspondence log with your office ( [removed]) | Date | Subject / Key content | Response received | |————|—————————————————————————————|—————————-| | 29 May 2026 | Formal disclosure notice & litigation hold / FOIA-EIR style request on historic significance, planning and displaced family records | Automated acknowledgement only | | 31 May 2026 | Reply to auto-reply supplying address and further detail | None substantive | | 12 Jun 2026 | “Great House Farm, Llandough (now Church View Close)” – detailed personal/historical letter with attachments | Automated acknowledgement only | | 12 Jun 2026 | Reply to auto-reply supplying full name, address and contact details | None substantive | | 25 Jun 2026 | Complaint of maladministration (defective notice, enforcement process, loss of opportunity) copied to you | Automated acknowledgement only | | 25 Jun 2026 | Reply to auto-reply supplying full personal details and references | None substantive | | 13 Jul 2026 | Follow-up on previous emails regarding historical records, council involvement and transparency; request for update and confirmation of review | None | ### What I am asking for 1. A full written response addressing the points raised in the logged emails. 2. Confirmation whether your office has reviewed the matter and what, if any, assistance or representation you are able to offer. 3. A clear reply within **14 days** of the date of this email. I have retained the full original emails and attachments and can supply them on request. Please acknowledge receipt of this formal complaint. Yours sincerely, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [signature block trimmed]

Dear Requester, Thank you for your email of July 27. We are sorry that you have not received a reply to your earlier emails – we have searched our systems, and despite you receiving auto-replies as mentioned, we haven’t been able to find any of the messages you sent on the dates listed below. Were there large or multiple attachments perhaps? Sometimes this can prevent messages from coming through to us. In order to assess whether we can assist, could you please send a summary outline of your case/concerns – to make sure this gets through – and then follow up with any supporting information? Kind regards Office of Stephen Doughty MP ] Office of Stephen Doughty MP Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament for Cardiff South and Penarth [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Sirs/Ma’am, This is brilliant we are now in communications. Your theory maybe correct. Do you see the attached? I believe I have discovered fraud and consealment in information the court relied on for the ruling in landmark legal case BP vs Buckler 1987. My fathers and families case. I am preparing my evidence for legal ajudication. I believe in 1983 the land registry made a mistake by excluding our claim to what is now Church View Close, Llandough. Partly due to information being witheld/ concealed from them. More details in the attached documents. I believe this is a matter of public interest. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Good morning Requester Thank you for your email below and for the additional information provided. We have now made further enquiries on your behalf and will be in touch once a full response has been received. Kind regards, ] Office of Stephen Doughty MP / AS Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament for Cardiff South and Penarth Llafur a Cydweithredol Aelod Seneddol dros Dde Caerdydd a Phenarth [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Good Sirs, [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I have now spent considerable time reconstructing what happened. The deeper I dig, the more the story appears to unravel. We were not merely separated from a house. We were separated from ancestral land, family history and heritage. And now the woodland on that land is being cleared for a development of 133 homes. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Whatever one’s political position, the fact remains that possession being awarded through historical court proceedings does not magically make every underlying question of title, evidence, procedure or institutional conduct disappear. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I attach a summary of my grievances concerning CADW, particularly its historic involvement in this matter. I also attach a mock court application which I have been developing alongside AI-assisted legal research, not as a substitute for legal advice, but as a means of stress-testing the evidence and identifying the questions that require proper legal determination. I hope you will read them carefully. This is considerably larger than one parcel of land The parcel my family occupied — Church View Close — may ultimately prove to be only one piece of a much larger story. The same apparent pattern of irregularity that I am investigating in relation to our parcel appears potentially relevant to: – the parcel we leased immediately to the east, now proposed for the 133-home development; – the playing fields subsequently acquired by the council; – the 33 acres associated with the limeworks; and – potentially the underlying question of whether the Marquess of Bute possessed the freehold interest that has subsequently been assumed. That last question is obviously not something I intend to settle by rhetorical flourish. It is precisely the sort of question that should be settled by *documents, title records and evidence*. One relevant public-record reference is here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2020_01590_hyb <https://reference-url-citation.invalid/0&gt; That is the point of my investigation. I am not asking anybody to accept my conclusions simply because I have reached them. *I am asking institutions to produce the evidence.* [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Instead, the historical record appears fragmented, inaccessible and in places remarkably difficult to obtain. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] The emerging picture includes questions concerning procedural fairness, court proceedings, evidential failures, institutional decision-making, heritage protection and the apparent absence of effective oversight. The more documents I obtain, the more questions arise. And I am increasingly uncomfortable with the proposition that *the descendants of the people affected should have to conduct the investigation themselves simply to discover what the institutions already ought to know.* [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I appreciate that public bodies have procedures. I appreciate that officials have workloads. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I am asking you to intervene I do not expect either of you to determine the merits of my family’s historical or legal claims yourselves. I am asking you to ensure that the matter receives *proper independent scrutiny*. Specifically, I am asking you to assist in ensuring that: 1. relevant surviving records are identified and preserved; 2. agencies holding potentially material records provide substantive answers rather than procedural evasions; 3. the historical involvement of CADW and other public bodies is properly examined; 4. the underlying title, conveyancing and land-history evidence is obtained wherever it survives; 5. any allegations of procedural unfairness or institutional failure are referred to the appropriate independent bodies where necessary; and 6. my family is finally given a meaningful opportunity to establish, through evidence, what actually happened. I have no interest in mythology. I want the documents. I want the chronology. I want the title deeds. I want the correspondence. I want the decisions. I want to know who knew what, when they knew it, what they did with that information, and why. If the evidence ultimately disproves some of my suspicions, so be it. *But the evidence must first be allowed to speak.* [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I am asking for cooperation in recovering whatever evidence remains and allowing it to be examined properly. The local community members who have contacted me have long memories. Many remain convinced that something about this episode was profoundly wrong. I intend to establish exactly what happened — not through rumour, grievance or inherited mythology, but through the surviving documentary record. And if the record contradicts me, I will accept that. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I therefore ask you, gentlemen, to address this matter with the seriousness it deserves and to assist my family in obtaining the answers that have been denied to us for far too long. I am not asking for special treatment. I am asking for the truth. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Thank you. Could we meet so that I may explain this to you in person? [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I’m registered to vote, I am a constituent. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] The land registry didn’t appear to have notified my grandmother. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Land registry also seem to have somehow looked at the 1974 court proceedings between BP and my disabled, widow, pensioner grandmother Mary Williams and selectively not seen her on there. The licence letters BP presented also said Mrs Buckler, her name was Mrs Williams. She was only a Buckler from marriage in 1935 for a brief period afterwards. In that period she was married to her husband Fredrick Buckler, they were presented a tenancy for the parcel of land they lived on and claimed to own, which my grandmother rejected specifically asserting ownership. Despite reporting (as per her statement) her paper title deeds were stolen shortly beforehand. Therfore the land registry didn’t consult Mrs Williams, and didn’t challenge the discrepancy with the name difference in 1982/1983, they instead fished out my 1935 marriage certificate with Mr Buckler, to officiate and provide supporting evidence of a Mrs Buckler. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] BP also moved the descriptor from their parcel to our parcel in 1971 on the ordinance survey. Making it more neatly appear to be the subject of thr 1962 possession order for our parcel. Which was itself possible generated in secrecy, as it was recorded as not being enforced, only the interest in it conveyed to BP in 1969. But that 1962 order, is based on misinterpretation of the ambiguity in the 1955 order. The 1955 order is for the “whole farm” and excluded our parcel because of my nans “condition and resistenance” having just had her leg amputated. But the definition of whole farm had changed from the 1916 agricultural tenancy it was based on, from 2 parcels to 1 parcel. Our parcel wasn’t in what was conveyed from marquess of bute to western ground rents in 1938. Because the 1977 Daniel Thomas & Son agreement enacted in 1928 when the last quarry machine left. Nor was our parcel in the revised tenancy between Western Ground Rents and my great grandfather in 1939. So the definition “whole farm” in the 1955 order didn’t include our parcel of land but was treated as though it was, just temporarily excluded due to my nans “condition and resistenance”. And her condition and resistance was, like in 1949’s rejection of WGR’s attempt to offer her and her husband a tenancy on her own land, rejected due to her ownership claim. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] But keeping her as Mrs Buckler when she wasn’t appeared to be important to BP. Even in the 1987 case the judge defended our family when BP tried to claim Mr Fredrick Buckler (my grandad) expressed interest in the 1949 tenancy offer, and in doing so waivered any ownership claim in any case, which the judge actually rejected. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] The core issue is the 1916 agricultural tenancy from Bute to our family was 2 parcels. Our house and farm north of the church, with woodland north of that. And the land to the east of this parcel (see attached) we leased, defaulted on and was repossessed. But merging our parcel into the parcel possessed, and ignoring the split so that from 1916 to 1983 the “whole farm” can appear and be treated as one parcel, with WGR and later BP appearing to own both parcels during that split is fraud. Fraud unravels all. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] And so the statue of limitation doesn’t apply. I am seeking to reopen this case. And have ownership adjuctated, as the ownership ruling was adjourned and only possession was awarded and final. We also don’t seek possession of the 13 houses, which were being planned to go on our land long before ownership was even tried in 1974 (and petitioned) and long before even possession was awarded to BP in 1987. They didn’t even have the land to give, in 1974, when they gave their licence letters. Their title for our parcel was defective all along. Land registry took the ploy by WGR and BP to make our occupancy permissive, which wasn’t just in 1974 with the licence letters, but the ambiguity injected into the 1955 order so it could later be misinterpreted, like with the stealthful 1962 (unenforced/ possibly undeclared) possession order for our parcel based on misinterpretation of the ambiguity inserted into the 1955 order. Not withstanding the 1949 and other 40’s attempt to make our ownership claim difficult to prove and our occupancy permissive. I’ve even had archives check the content of packets to see if their titles had been tampered with and they confirm there was errors. Much like records are missing or alleged to have been destroyed with no authorised record disposal registery entry. I also believe I may have located other records which support our ownership claim but the titles have been altered so as they don’t appear in searched. I have only 6 years from discovery of fraud to reopen this case[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] 2,200 year old celtic round houses also we’re discovered under our farm house. The church built in 1840 also got grade II listing with ease in 1989, after our 1200’s home was denied it in 1988. Despite a huge huge pile of advice to acknowledge it’s historic significants. Much evidence was ignored, IS MISSING, was downplayed etc. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] South Wales police first said they held no records. Then I cited collar numbers of officers and some info I have from my father’s diaries and declassified footage. Then they said they’d only speak by phone not in writing. Always taking the maximum time to respond. So I provided my number. Then got no call for weeks. So I followed up. They then said I didn’t provide my number, when the thread clearly shows my phone number provided in my previous email under their statement fasly alledging I didn’t provide a contact number. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Ty Mawr was actually the north half of Llandough and Leckwith up to Ely river. Some 40 parcels. I believe Cedwyn Estate. Our manorial house and home since 1667 was the manner house. And many of our dealings with Bute were that of equals and minor gentry. So this unravelling of fraud is only for one land parcel, but more appear to exist. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

*MP *Doughty, Further to the correspondence from Mr Iain Banfield, and my earlier email, I am writing again to be sure, placed on record, is the central issue which HM Land Registry’s response still does not answer. I appreciate that HM Land Registry is not a court and that it cannot simply reopen a Court of Appeal judgment. That, however, does not answer the separate question of whether the land registered in 1982/83 was correctly identified and supported by the documentary title then placed before the Registrar. Mr Banfield’s response relies heavily upon *BP Properties Ltd v Buckler* [1987] EWCA Civ 2. That judgment post-dated the registration by approximately four years. It records BP Properties Ltd as having become registered proprietor of the “whole farm” in November 1982 and then determines the later adverse-possession dispute concerning the farmhouse and garden. It does not, however, determine whether the 1982 first-registration application had itself correctly included the farmhouse parcel in BP’s documentary title, or whether the registration had mistakenly conflated two historically separate parcels. That distinction is fundamental. My family’s parcel — the former farmhouse, garden and curtilage, which I refer to as the *House Plot* — was historically distinct from the adjoining eastern agricultural land. The documentary history I have obtained indicates that these areas were not simply one undifferentiated proprietary parcel. The 1916 agricultural tenancy is one important document because it embraced both areas. But that is not the end of the conveyancing history. The earlier 1877 Daniel Thomas & Son instrument, and the arrangement subsequently acted upon when the quarrying ceased in 1928, point to a separate proprietary interest in the House Plot. I have the 1938 conveyance from the Marquis of Bute to Western Ground Rents, and the revised 1939 version of the 1916 tenancy, and it did not convey or demise the House Plot at all[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Indeed, the 1987 judgment itself records that the alleged yearly tenancy commencing in 1949 has not been produced in the proceedings. Its geographical extent therefore remains unproved. Not withstanding it may pertain to the parcel to the east we leased and defaulted on, not our freehold parcel. Furthermore my nan expressly rejected the 1949 tenancy and attempt to make her occupancy of our parcel permissive in such a way, but expressly rejecting it while asserting her ownership claim of her parcel. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] The 1987 judgment records that and the 1962 proceeding, after the agricultural tenancy was terminated, as Western Ground Rents obtaining a 1955 possession order for the “whole of the farm”. Crucially, however, when that order was enforced on 4 July 1955, possession was taken of all parts *except the farmhouse and garden*. The judgment gives the immediate reason as Mrs Mary Buckler’s condition and her strong resistance to leaving the farmhouse. Ambiguity which is later misinterprited and clearly an early attempt at making her occupancy of her parcel appear permissive. WGR subsequently brought a *fresh action in 1962 specifically against Mr and Mrs Buckler for possession of the farmhouse and garden and mesne profits*, resulting in the possession and mesne-profits order of 11 December 1962. The judgment records that this order was not enforced before 1974. That sequence matters. If the two areas had genuinely always constituted one undifferentiated proprietary estate subject to the same right of possession, it is difficult to understand why possession of the agricultural land was recovered in 1955 while the farmhouse and garden were left occupied and a separate possession action had to be brought in 1962. I therefore ask that this fact not be retrospectively converted into an assumption that the 1955 “whole farm” wording necessarily comprised the House Plot in the same legal sense as the agricultural land. The statutory effect attributed by the Court of Appeal to the 1955/1962 proceedings cannot itself establish title to a different, historically separate parcel which was never actually comprised in those proceedings. The possession orders were orders for possession and associated relief. They were not conveyances. They did not retrospectively create a documentary chain of title where none existed, nor did they by themselves determine the geographical extent of an underlying freehold documentary title. That is especially important in light of the sequence of events recorded in the 1987 judgment. WGR’s own successive proceedings and selective enforcement distinguished the agricultural land from the farmhouse and garden in practical terms, whatever the later interpretation of the expression “whole farm”. There is a further point which I believe HM Land Registry has not addressed. In 1949, according to the history now being assembled, Mrs Mary Williams was offered a tenancy of the farmhouse and garden which she rejected because she asserted ownership. The 1987 judgment itself confirms that she was offered a tenancy of the farmhouse and garden by Western Ground Rents and refused it. It also records that she had come to believe she had a title through her grandfather and that documents existed which supported that claim. Thus there was plainly a known dispute over the House Plot long before first registration. The 1974 proceedings and letters must also be put in their proper place. The Court of Appeal held that the 1974 letters operated as a licence, notwithstanding that Mrs Buckler had never expressly accepted them, and held that her possession thereafter was no longer adverse. I am not asking HM Land Registry to disregard that decision. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Made out to a non existent Mrs Buckler. And quashed the case within minutes of Mary being notified of them, with no ample opportunity to respond. Albeit she actually did in writing. And asserted her ownership and challenged BP in a public newspaper. Not withstanding BP couldn’t give something they don’t own i.e. permissive occupancy. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] 1969 conveyance (WGR to BP Pension Trust Ltd) [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] 1975 conveyance (BP Pension Trust to BP Properties Ltd) Nor am I asking the Land Registry to even acknowledge the fact court clerked notified the press who all decended on the scene, covered the story (that Mary asserted ownership, family occupancy since 1667, lawyer confirms her ownership claim was valid etc). I am asking a different question: *what land did BP actually have title to in 1974, and what land was actually capable of being registered in BP’s name in 1982?* If the House Plot had never formed part of WGR’s documentary estate (not in the 1938 conveyance from Bute, as it went to Daniel Thomas & Son in 1876 then to my great grandad John Williams in 1928), then the 1974 letters and the 1962 possession order cannot simply be assumed to cure that problem. The 1987 judgment did not adjudicate that separate issue of first-registration procedure and documentary extent. BP never had ownership. Ours ownership claim was never legally exstiguished. BP never even saught ownership, only possession. And with no title chain, only their own issuance of permissive occupancy, based on interest they’d purchased in a possession order, which itself was also based on issuance of permissive occupancy. And with little to no meeting of the minds, but instead stealth/ secrecy. And the registration itself in 1983 was secret and undisclosed to Mary Williams and us living heirs and successors. The Land Registry issue The applicable statutory framework in 1982/83 was the Land Registration Act 1925 and the Land Registration Rules 1925. The Rules expressly contained provisions dealing with first registration, including *rule 20, requiring the applicant to deliver the original deeds and documents relating to the title which were in its possession or control*. The operation of that rule in the first-registration context is confirmed in *Walker v Burton*, where the High Court described the requirement in those terms. The Rules also contained a specific provision headed *”Examination of title by Registrar”* and provisions concerning searches and enquiries by the Registrar. This means that the question cannot simply be reduced to “Land Registry registers what it is given”. The relevant question is whether, in this case: 1. the applicant supplied the material title documents in its possession or control; 2. the documents supplied actually demonstrated that the House Plot formed part of the estate being registered; 3. the Registrar examined the documentary chain sufficiently to identify any inconsistency between the deeds and the land claimed for registration; 4. any discrepancy between the deeds, plans, possession orders and the proposed registration plan generated a requisition or further enquiry; 5. the registration was completed as an absolute title despite a material uncertainty as to the extent of the documentary title; and 6. the Registrar’s own records contain any warning, requisition, note, correspondence or other indication that the separate House Plot issue was considered. There is a particularly important point concerning *registration in error*. The Law Commission’s review of the 1925 system records that the Land Registration Rules 1925 contained a specific power in *rule 14* dealing with “registration in error”, including registration of too large a part of a title, and explained that the registrar had an express power to rectify registration arising from mistake. That is significant because HM Land Registry is currently saying, in effect, that there was no mistake. That conclusion should not be treated as established unless HM Land Registry has actually examined the surviving 1982/83 registration file and established what documentary evidence justified the extent registered. HM Land Registry’s present published guidance also expressly recognises that *including too much land in a registered title can constitute a mistake in the register*, and gives as an example a title being mapped to include land for which the registered proprietor has no documentary title. It also recognises that failure by a solicitor to lodge documents in their possession can amount to lack of proper care. I appreciate that this is modern guidance and I do not suggest that it can simply be imposed retrospectively as the law of 1983. It is nevertheless directly relevant to the distinction HM Land Registry now draws between a genuine registration mistake and a mere disagreement about the title boundary. Likewise, HM Land Registry’s current guidance states that a title plan cannot describe the land more accurately than the pre-registration deeds allow, and that the pre-registration deeds are crucial to resolving questions about the extent of a registered title. Again, I cite this as an expression of the documentary basis of registration, not as a claim that a 2025/26 practice guide was itself the governing rule in 1983. The present register raises further questions [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I seek restoration of property in that I seek possession of the undeveloped woodland half of our land parcel. Which is virgin land, having not been touched since we were forced from it in 1988. The current title material itself refers separately to: – the *23 May 1975 conveyance of land tinted blue*, with the copy plan filed under *WA240304*; – the *19 November 1982 conveyance of land tinted pink*, with the original filed under *WA231076*; – rights and retained land associated with those separate conveyances; and – the vendors’ adjoining or retained land. Those entries require the original plans to be compared with the House Plot. I am particularly concerned that two separate conveyancing areas were subsequently presented as part of a single “whole farm” registered estate. If the House Plot was not actually comprised in the conveyances relied upon, the relevant question is not whether the modern red edging can be made to fit an Ordnance Survey map. The question is *what deed, order or other legally sufficient evidence put that specific land into BP’s registrable estate in the first place*. An Ordnance Survey description cannot by itself create a conveyance. Much like BPs 1971 alteration of the descriptor of our parcel, shifting “ty mawr” from theirs to ours and appending “farm” to the end of it. Nor can a later registration description retrospectively supply a missing link in the pre-registration conveyancing chain. I’ll repeat this as its important; Nor can a later registration description retrospectively supply a missing link in the pre-registration conveyancing chain. The 1982/83 registration file HM Land Registry’s letter of *30 July 2026, reference N610CGV*, has already confirmed that surviving first-registration material relating to the relevant titles exists and is open to inspection. I therefore ask you to write again to HM Land Registry, not asking it to decide the family title, but asking it to answer the following precise administrative questions: *1.* What exact first-registration applications were made for *WA231076* and *WA240304*, and what deeds, abstracts, declarations, plans, court orders and other documents accompanied each application? *2.* Did the application files contain the *1938 Bute–Western Ground Rents conveyance*, the *1939 revised tenancy and plan*, *1877 Daniel Thomas & Son instrument*, or any other document showing that the House Plot was historically separate? What was included and not included. *3.* What document was relied upon to establish that the House Plot formed part of BP Properties Limited’s documentary estate? How was Land Registry not able to see only a plaintiff on the court paperwork preceeding 1982, and no defendant? *4.* What was the precise geographical extent attributed to the 1955 possession order and the 1962 possession order by the Registrar, and were the original orders or plans ever examined? *5.* Were the Registrar’s records aware of the 1974 proceedings and Mrs Williams asserted ownership claim when the first-registration applications were processed? [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] *6.* Did the Registrar raise any requisition because the possession history, the separate 1955/1962 proceedings, the 1975 blue conveyance, the 1982 pink conveyance and the proposed registered extent did not correspond straightforwardly? *7.* On what evidence was the House Plot incorporated into the land registered to BP, rather than being left outside the registration pending proof of title? *8.* Was the title registered with an absolute title, qualified title, possessory title or another class, and what was the evidential basis for the class of title granted? *9.* Does HM Land Registry’s surviving file contain any memorandum, examiner’s note, requisition, map correspondence or other record explaining how the apparently separate areas were reconciled into the registered extent? What I am asking you to investigate I am not asking you, or HM Land Registry, to determine that my family is presently entitled to reporations of land now occupied by others. Or possession of the unoccupied woodlands north of church view close. I am asking that the Department distinguish between two entirely different propositions: *First:* the Court of Appeal decided the legal effect of the 1962 possession order and the 1974 letters in the particular litigation that came before it. *Second:* HM Land Registry registered land in BP’s name in 1982/83. That administrative act necessarily depended upon a first-registration application, documentary evidence and a determination of the land capable of registration. The second proposition cannot simply be proved by citing the first. If HM Land Registry now asserts that there was no mistake in registration, it should be able to identify the documentary chain and the registration evidence which led it to that conclusion. Is land registry claiming my great grandad John Williams DID NOT gain and register title, in 1928, when the 1876/77 Marquess of Bute to Daniel Thomas and Son agreement enacted, thus title chain/ freehold transferred from DT&S to us? Is their understanding it conveyed from Bute/ DT&S to Western Ground Rents in 1938? Or even Williams Title ended up being conveyed to Western Ground Rents prior to 1955. And then to BP in 1969? Because both my nans statement alleges her paper title was stolen in the 40’s. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] If the surviving file shows that the House Plot was supported by a valid conveyance or other legally sufficient title, that would answer these questions. If, however, the file shows that the House Plot was included because an ambiguous “whole farm” permissive occupancy/ possession history was treated as equivalent to documentary title, or because two separate parcels were inadvertently conflated, that would be a materially different situation. It would raise an obvious question as to whether the registration process contained an error, an omission, inadequate examination, or reliance upon an incomplete or inaccurate presentation of the title. I am deliberately not asserting fraud or negligence as an established fact at this stage. I’m just determined to make sense of what happened so that I can make the case and get this matter and evidence adjudicated. Evidence must establish what happened. But the possibility of *administrative error, inadequate examination, lack of proper care, or mistaken inclusion of land* cannot sensibly be dismissed until the original registration material has been examined. That is precisely why I am asking for the surviving file to be reviewed. I remain willing to provide the title extracts, the 30 July 2026 HM Land Registry letter, the relevant historical documents and my chronology. I would also be grateful for your assistance in obtaining a substantive answer from HM Land Registry rather than a further general statement that it cannot reopen *BP Properties Ltd v Buckler*. I just bought some records from them ref the forest half of our land parcel. To begin seeking possession of that. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I was born on this land, it seems to be my land. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I also resent Land Registry’s initial response to my intial enquiry was to convert my enquriy into a complaint, only to shut it down. And say I could never ask the same question again. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I have allocated at least 6 years to gathering evidence and making my case on this. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I’m just finding out who will co-operate at this stage. I’m also perfectly willing, like with CADW and Llandough councillor, to file complaints so that each party has ample opportunity and due procedure to try to satisfy our grievances directly. Dwr Cymru already posted me a cheque for ignoring my initial FOI. Albeit minor. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] And gather evidence before any more goes missing or is destroyed. If it transpires the case can be reopened and reporations are due and/or possession of some/ any of our ancestral birthland can be returned to us, then all the better. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Yours sincerely, *Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]* [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Hello, I would like to share a public documentary archive and historical research project: Great House Farm Wiki (Ty Mawr). The archive documents the 150-year history of Great House Farm in Llandough-juxta-Penarth, South Wales. It brings together primary records from Glamorgan Archives, tithe apportionments, historical Ordnance Survey maps, lease instruments, and family records. Key highlights of the repository include: – A structured Two-Parcel Analysis of the land and historical titles. – Primary evidence records cross-referencing Bute Estate and Western Ground Rents tenancy documents. – A machine-readable index and evidence library for legal and local history research. If you are interested in South Wales history, land archival records, or local heritage, please feel free to explore the wiki and share it within your network. Best regards, Bob

*FORMAL PRESERVATION NOTICE* *Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough-juxta-Penarth* *Titles: WA231076, WA240304, WA513690 and WA735527* *Planning references: 89/01396/OUT and 92/00671/RES* *URL: **greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com <https://greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com>* *To each recipient separately, in your own capacity as a current or potential holder, custodian or controller of relevant records:* This notice is addressed to each recipient *individually*. It is *not a joint request*, and it does not ask any recipient to speak for, investigate on behalf of, or answer in place of any other person or organisation. Each recipient is asked to respond only in respect of records within that recipient’s own possession, custody or control, including records inherited from a predecessor organisation or retained on its behalf. 1. Nature and purpose of this notice This is a *formal preservation notice* concerning documentary material relating to Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough-juxta-Penarth, adjoining St Dochdwy’s, and the subsequent development of the site, including the area now associated with Church View Close. It is *not a claim form, is not service of proceedings, and is not intended to constitute or replace any FOI request, internal review, complaint, subject-access request or other statutory process already made to any recipient.* The purpose of this notice is to require the preservation of potentially relevant material while the documentary history, title chain, registration history, planning history, possession proceedings, demolition and subsequent development are being reconstructed. A separate first-stage preservation notice has been issued or is being issued to Cadw / Welsh Government FOI, HM Land Registry Wales Office and DPO, Heneb / GGAT HER, RCAHMW, Vale of Glamorgan FOI Unit and DPO, Glamorgan Archives, South Wales Police FOI, The National Archives, the Wales Office FOI team, and the National Library of Wales. Persimmon Homes (Wales) Ltd has received a separate preservation letter. *You are receiving this notice separately because the published documentary record places you, or a predecessor whose records may remain in your custody or control, within the documentary, legal, professional, administrative or development chain concerning this land.* 2. Land and documentary scope Please preserve, and do not destroy, alter, overwrite, discard, transfer out of custody without a recorded handover, or otherwise dispose of, any record within your possession, custody or control relating to the land or matters identified below. The scope includes, without limitation, *originals, copies, working papers, drafts, annotations, plans, photographs, negatives, films, tapes, maps, registers, indexes, correspondence, emails and attachments, electronic files, archived mailboxes, databases, metadata, internal notes, meeting records, instructions, client or matter files, survey material and other associated records.* The material requested includes: *1. Historical ownership, occupation and conveyancing* The 1877 split; the 1916 and 1939 tenancies; the 1938 Bute to Western Ground Rents conveyance; the 1969 Western Ground Rents to BP Pension Trust conveyance; and any plans, schedules, abstracts, searches, correspondence or other documents relied upon in relation to those transactions. *2. Possession proceedings and subsequent litigation* The [removed] and [removed] possession orders; the 1974 proceedings; *BP Properties Ltd v Buckler [1987] EWCA Civ 2*; House of Lords leave papers, including *YHL/PO/JO/10/11/2536*; and *Buckler v United Kingdom (1989)*, including associated correspondence, instructions, evidence, plans and working papers. *3. Land registration* The first registration of *WA231076*, including the application dated 30 November 1982; the first registration of *WA240304*, including the application dated 23 February 1983; subsequent amalgamation, transfer or closure; and every plan, conveyance, abstract, search, application, correspondence trail or professional file relied upon in connection with those registrations or changes. *4. 1988 possession and demolition* The taking of possession on or about *29 November 1988* and the demolition commenced on or about *6 December 1988*, including any planning, listed-building, heritage, police, enforcement, media, contractor, survey, photographic or inter-agency liaison material. *5. Planning and subsequent development, 1989–1996* Planning application *89/01396/OUT*; reserved matters application *92/00671/RES*; conditions 16–18; GGAT / Cotswold Archaeology material; records concerning any *section 52, section 106, planning obligation, local land charge or equivalent instrument*; and the transfer from BP to Ideal Homes dated *3 December 1993*, together with all associated plans, correspondence, approvals, agreements, searches and completion material. *6. Family records* Records concerning *Mary Doreen Williams (died 1983)* and *William Buckler*, insofar as those records relate to Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, the land described above, its occupation, ownership, possession, disposal, registration, development or demolition. 3. Predecessor and inherited files Where you hold, or may hold, a file originating with a predecessor, successor, merged practice, affiliated practice, client or other entity, that material is also within scope. This includes, without limitation, records originating from: *Loosemores of Cardiff; Robbins Olivey & Blake Lapthorn / Blake Morgan; Linklaters & Paines; Debenham Tewson / DTZ / Cushman & Wakefield; Wyn Thomas + Partners; Ideal Homes Wales; BP Properties; BP Pension Trust; Cotswold Archaeological Trust; Cardiff Bay Development Corporation; and South Glamorgan County Council.* The reference to a predecessor file does not assert that you necessarily hold such a file. It identifies material for which a reasonable custody or succession inquiry should be made where applicable. 4. Preservation steps Please take reasonable steps to prevent the routine destruction, deletion, alteration or overwriting of potentially relevant material, including material held in *archived mailboxes, legacy systems, off-site storage, document-management systems, backup repositories and other electronic or physical stores*. Where relevant material has been transferred to another repository, archive, successor organisation or third party, please preserve the information necessary to identify the transfer and its current location, including any accession, file, box, reference or custody details. Nothing in this notice requires the creation of records that do not exist. The request concerns the preservation of records already held or controlled by you. 5. Purpose and legal position This notice is *not a finding against any recipient*, and I am not asking any recipient to determine title or adjudicate the underlying dispute. The *1987 Court of Appeal judgment* is relied upon here only for matters actually determined by that judgment, including the issues concerning possession, limitation and the October 1974 letters. This preservation notice does not treat that judgment as having determined the complete documentary root of title to the farmhouse parcel. The underlying documentary history, including the relationship between the farmhouse parcel and the agricultural land subsequently dealt with through Western Ground Rents and BP, remains a matter requiring reconstruction from the primary records. Accordingly, preservation is requested precisely so that the documentary record can be established from the records themselves rather than through assumptions based on later registration, later occupation, later planning treatment or secondary descriptions. 6. Acknowledgement and identification of records Please acknowledge receipt of this notice and, in your own capacity, confirm: *(a)* the officer, partner, records manager or other person responsible for implementing the preservation hold; *(b)* what records within your possession, custody or control you have identified as falling within the scope above; and *(c)* where you identify no records within scope, what relevant systems, files, repositories or predecessor records you searched in reaching that conclusion. A substantive assessment of title is not requested from you. The immediate requirement is preservation and identification of the documentary material you hold. The public documentary index and developing evidence record is available at: *https://greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com/ <https://greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com/>* Please monitor that site for subsequent identification of documents, references and specific schedules relevant to your organisation’s records. Where a reliable public email address is unavailable, a postal preservation notice will also be sent. For example, a postal notice will follow to *Loosemores, Nothing in this notice constitutes an abandonment, waiver or limitation of any claim, position or remedy concerning *title, registration, concealment, limitation, reopening, rectification or alteration of the register, or any associated matter.* [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear Stephen Doughty MP’s Office, Thank you for forwarding HM Land Registry’s letter of 18 September 2026 (reference 260900). I confirm I have received it and will catalogue it with the other material concerning Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough-juxta-Penarth. Your earlier correspondence indicated that a reply from the Ministry of Justice was still awaited. Please could you confirm whether that reply has now arrived and, if so, its date and reference? If it has not arrived, I would be grateful for the latest status, any expected response date, and whether the Ministry has supplied a case/reference number. Please let me know if your office requires any further information from me to trace it. For clarity, I am asking for an administrative status update only. I am not asking your office to determine title or endorse any party’s interpretation of the historical events. Thank you again for your assistance. Yours sincerely, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear Mr Doughty, Great House Farm, Llandough — HM Land Registry ref N610CGV — follow-up Thank you for your office’s forwarding on 18 September of the letter from HM Land Registry’s Chief Executive and Chief Land Registrar. I understand your office is still waiting for a reply from the Ministry of Justice. Could your office please: 1. tell me whether the Ministry of Justice has replied, and if not, when your office last chased it; 2. confirm that my emails of 27 and 28 September 2026 have been received and logged as casework, since earlier messages were reported as not found; and 3. let me have a caseworker’s name and a direct reply address, so that I do not have to rely on the general inbox. For your information, the Independent Complaints Reviewer has opened an investigation (ICR/090/26), the Wales Office internal review of 26FOI 103 is due by 26 October 2026, and HM Land Registry’s subject access reply is due by 28 October 2026. I am not asking you to intervene in any of those processes, only to press the Ministry of Justice for the reply your office is waiting on. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]