Jump to: Known-facts register · 1877–1949 · 1950–1969 · 1969–1983 · 1984–1989 · 1989–2005 · 2019–2026 · What cuts against · Forward roadmap
The known-facts register
Each fact is stated once here and referred to by its code in the milestones below. F = title facts; H = heritage facts.
| Code | What was known | Known from | Status · evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | The farmhouse parcel was separated from Bute-retained land in 1877 | 1877 | FAMILY EVIDENCE · E115 |
| F2 | The family’s long, continuous occupation of the house and land | from at least 1891 | DOCUMENTED FACT · N01, E151 |
| F3 | No rent paid on the house parcel after 1928 | 1928 | FAMILY EVIDENCE · E120 |
| F4 | On F2 and F3, twelve years’ adverse possession of Parcel A had matured by 1940, fifteen years before the 1955 order | 1940 | LEGAL INFERENCE (follows from F2 and F3) |
| F5 | The family planted trees on Parcel A as an assertion of ownership | by 1955 (dates to be sourced) | FAMILY EVIDENCE, not yet sourced · E151 |
| F6 | No document conveying Parcel A to WGR is known; the 1938 conveyance has not been read for scope 🕒 | 1938 | UNRESOLVED · E121 🕒 |
| F7 | WGR’s own 1939 tenancy plan shows Parcel B only, expressly not Parcel A | May 1939 | DOCUMENTED FACT · DBDT123/7 |
| F8 | In the family’s case, the 1949 letting (to Frederick, from 2 Feb 1949; dropped by the agents’ letter of 10 Oct 1952) was an attempt to put the occupation on a permissive footing; no 1949 offer to Mary, or reply from her, has been found | 2 Feb 1949 | FAMILY EVIDENCE · E122 |
| F9 | The family title papers were taken in 1950–52 | 1950–52 | FAMILY EVIDENCE · E123, E124 |
| F10 | Mary’s resistance in 1955 rested on her ownership claim; “the whole of the farm” was not defined by plan | 1955 | FAMILY EVIDENCE / UNRESOLVED until the order is seen · E125, E127 🕒 |
| F11 | Execution left the house and garden; the north forest and south-east green were taken | 4 Jul 1955 | FAMILY EVIDENCE / UNRESOLVED · E126 🕒 |
| F12 | Living witnesses could have been asked: Mary (to March 1983), Frederick (to 1967), their children | 1955 onward | DOCUMENTED FACT · E114 |
| F13 | WGR’s own 1962 claim was confined to the farmhouse and garden | 11 Dec 1962 | DOCUMENTED FACT (as recited) · E130 |
| F14 | Mary pleaded ownership on 3 July 1974; it was never tried | 3 Jul 1974 | DOCUMENTED FACT (court record) · E135 |
| F15 | Mary remained in actual occupation until her death on 26 March 1983 | 1955–1983 | DOCUMENTED FACT |
| H1 | RCAHMW surveyed the house in 1974 as a sub-medieval or late-17th-century building, noting problems from an ownership dispute | 1974 | DOCUMENTED FACT · E137 |
| H2 | GGAT warned about the site’s archaeological sensitivity | 1 Oct 1982 | DOCUMENTED FACT · E139 |
| H3 | The East Vale Local Plan said the buildings should be retained | Feb 1987 | DOCUMENTED FACT · E143 |
| H4 | Cadw inspected in July 1988 and coded the house “YYY” | 29 Jul 1988 | DOCUMENTED FACT · E144 |
| H5 | GGAT warned again; the later excavation found burials just below the topsoil | 27 Jul 1992 | DOCUMENTED FACT · E147, E148 |
1. Foundations: 1877 to 1949
Evidence: E115 (placeholder) · E116 (placeholder, 6 Nov 1877) · E117 (placeholder). Unknown: sale or quarry lease; what the plan shows.
2. Possession: 1950 to 1969
Evidence: E125 (placeholder) · E126 (placeholder) · E127 (missing) · narrative · loss dossier.
KNOWN BY 1955, NOT RECORDED (omission observed, intent not established):
- Whether the order covers Mary’s home and garden, and whether she accepted or resisted it, is not stated in any account. Execution left the house and garden undisturbed (F11).
- Her resistance rested on her ownership claim, not on a tenancy dispute (F8, F10).
- “The whole of the farm” is not defined by plan, acreage or parcel (F10).
- No conveyance of Parcel A to WGR is mentioned; the 1938 conveyance is not cited for it (F6).
- The only WGR tenancy plan known, the 1939 agreement, is Parcel B only and expressly excludes Parcel A (F7).
- The family’s tree planting on Parcel A as an assertion of ownership (F5, not yet sourced).
- No rent on the house parcel since 1928, so adverse possession of Parcel A had matured by 1940, as a matter of fact, fifteen years earlier (F3, F4).
- Generations of continuous occupation (F2).
- The theft of the title papers in 1950 (F9).
- The 1949 letting, which the family’s case treats as an attempt to make the occupation permissive (F8).
- Living witnesses who could have been asked: Mary, Frederick, their children (F12).
- The forest north of the house and the green to the south-east were taken in the same enforcement (F11).
Note: the order, warrant and return have not yet been obtained, so items 1 to 3 and 12 are checked against E125 and E126 when they arrive.
3. Registration: 1969 to 1983
4. Litigation, eviction and demolition: 1984 to 1989
Known by then, not recorded: why her documents were not produced (F9); that the clock on her facts started in 1928, maturing in 1940 (F3, F4); WGR’s own 1939 plan (F7); no known conveyance of Parcel A to WGR (F6); the 1949 refusal, her ownership claim in 1955 and the taking of the forest and green (F8, F10, F11); the undecided 1974 plea (F14); generations of occupation and the planting (F2, F5). No judicial wrongdoing is suggested: the question is what was put before the court.
5. Redevelopment and archaeology: 1989 to 2005
6. Recovery: 2019 to 2026
What cuts against, and what the omissions would change
Stated in the same place as the accusation, under the Wiki’s rule that interpretation stays open to challenge.
| Milestone | If the omitted facts had been weighed | Cuts against |
|---|---|---|
| 1939 and 1940 | Adverse possession against WGR would have matured about 1940 (HIGH) | The 1916 tenancy is recited as “the whole farm” and the family accepts it covered both areas; if the family held the 1939 plan in 1984–87 and did not use it, the fraud route weakens |
| 1955 | Mary joined as a party; the forest and green stay in Parcel A; no 1955 starting point for the later chain (HIGH) | The order, warrant and return are unseen, so its own wording and plan may cover the forest and green; F5 and F10 are not yet sourced; the 1955 taking is also the start of the historic limitation clock |
| 1962 | A boundary statement showing what WGR still sought (MODERATE) | The narrower claim may simply reflect that the house was the part still occupied |
| 1974 to 1983 | Ownership tried while Mary was alive; first registration with a qualified class of title or delayed (HIGH if the file shows a misstatement) | A solicitor may honestly have treated the 1962 order and 1974 licence as disposing of doubt; the Court of Appeal upheld the licence route; deeds were normally returned after registration |
| 1984 to 1987 | Title tried as well as licence (HIGH) | Absence of a deed from a register file is not proof of concealment; an amalgamation is not inherently improper 🕒 |
| 1988 | A listing or preservation notice would have required consent before demolition (HERITAGE) | Cadw coding was marginally below the bar on one of its explanations; no statutory duty then existed to consult occupiers; Cadw engaged in time in 2026 |
| 1989 | A property-rights analysis might have differed (UNCERTAIN) | A second application is barred by Article 35(2)(b) and the Human Rights Act does not reach pre-2000 acts |
| 1990 to 1994 | Stronger archaeological safeguards and a more intact assemblage (HERITAGE) | GGAT did not demolish or decide listing, and the Council relied on counsel’s opinion |
| 1994 to 2005 | If the transfer was a gift, purchaser protections may not apply (UNCERTAIN) | The charity says it bought after due diligence; a bona fide purchase would change the route to indemnity |
| 2026 | A register-mistake and indemnity analysis tested against the 1983 file (MODERATE) | The judicial-review window from 25 May 2026 has passed; indemnity is time-limited |
The shared premise. Each adverse step relies on an earlier one describing the land as “the farm”. No document yet seen is an independent conveyance of Parcel A into the WGR and BP chain. Where each record is still a placeholder, the catalogue lists what is unknown, and the first documents to obtain are E125, E126, E121, FC-002, FC-001 and FC-005. See Case Analysis and Anticipated Objections. 🕒
Forward roadmap: what is live now
| Date | Milestone |
|---|---|
| 9 Oct 2026 | HMCTS and MoJ chase; RCAHMW scan order for E137 (NMR 6048941, 6048943, 6048945); Litigation Activation sprint runs 9 Oct to 14 Nov |
| 12–14 Oct | Heneb and NLW follow-ups; archive, National Archives, Companies House and Vale scrutiny actions |
| 16 Oct | Vale and ICO decision point (Vale 00210772 internal review unanswered since 7 July) |
| 20 and 23 Oct | Cadw complaint chase; Heneb chase |
| 26–28 Oct | Wales Office IR/26/16, Cadw ATISN 27589, Vale 00211557 deadlines; HMLR subject access request and MoD escalation control |
| 3 Nov | Heneb complaint outcome expected |
| 18 Nov | ICR window control (ICR/090/26); the legal review gave about 25 November for the six-month clock, so verify the exact date |
| 18 Dec | Programme gate G0 |
| Early 2027 | Forest of Cardiff has said the remaining woodland may go on the open market; a protective or standstill decision is needed before then |
Dates are from Where Things Stand and the Litigation Activation stage plan, as at 9 October 2026; those pages control.
Related: Master Timeline · Forensic Master Chronology · Evidence Chain · Legal Review · Missing Records Register · Source Conflicts Register · Evidence Library 🕒
Page version & change log
Current version: 1.0.1
| Version | Date (UTC) | Editor (human or agent name) | Change | Source / evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0.1 | 2026-10-24T01:37Z | Cedwyn editors | 1949 (F8) reworded: Frederick’s letting from 2 Feb 1949, dropped 10 Oct 1952; no 1949 offer to Mary or reply found; permissive-occupancy point labelled as the family’s case. | [1987] EWCA Civ 2 paras 5, 7 |
| 1.0.0 | 2026-10-18T15:42Z | Cedwyn editors | Footer standardised; no content change | Editing Protocol, 18 Oct 2026 |
Agents and editors: follow the Editing Protocol.