Subject: Request for review of potential irregularities in 1982 land registration
From: Sion Buckler
Direction: sent
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2026 05:04 UTC
Institution: HM Land Registry
Refs: none
Archive id: gm-19c1270aaa478aaf
------------------------------------------------------------

Dear HM Land Registry – Fraud Review Team,

Sirs/Ma'am,I am writing to request a review of the integrity of a land
registration made in or around *1982*, which later underpinned the
proceedings commonly referred to as *BP v Buckler (1987)*.

My concern is to raise reasonable grounds of belief that the 1982
registration *may have been obtained or maintained through
misrepresentation, non-disclosure, or procedural irregularity*, resulting
in a register entry that did not reflect a title definitively determined by
a court of law.

In summary:

   1.

   *No definitive judicial determination of ownership existed at the time
   of registration*
   Prior to the 1982 registration, the courts had not conclusively
   determined ownership of the land.
   -

      Proceedings in *July 1974* were adjourned.
      -

      An appeal pursued by my grandmother on *31 October 1974* was
      effectively neutralised following two letters sent by BP-associated
      entities, rather than by a substantive judicial ruling on title.
      -

      Ownership was *asserted*, not adjudicated.
      2.

   *Competing assertions of ownership were unresolved*
   BP asserted ownership, but so did my grandmother, who maintained
   possession and occupation until her death in *1983*, after the registry
   entry had already been filed.
   At no point prior to her death was there a final court decision
   extinguishing hers (or our families) claim or possession.
   3.

   *Inconsistent treatment of BP entities in later proceedings*
   In the 1987 proceedings, the judge indicated that correspondence had not
   been replied to because it was sent by a different BP entity (BP Properties
   rather than BP Trust).
   However, in my father’s related appeal, the same judge treated *BP Trust
   and BP Properties as effectively the same entity*.
   This inconsistency meant that:
   -

      We were said to have lost because of non-reply, while
      -

      The judgments simultaneously acknowledge that a reply was in fact
      made and that the entities were treated as one.
      This contradiction is material, as it goes directly to whether BP’s
      asserted title was properly established.
      4.

   *Possession and long occupation were not displaced by lawful process*
   My family had occupied the land openly and continuously for generations
   without challenge. We consistently asserted ownership and, in any event,
   possession sufficient to ground squatter’s or possessory rights.
   Our removal was *not voluntary*; it was effected by force and exclusion,
   not by a final determination of title.
   5.

   *Subsequent events reinforce the concern*
   Following the appeal, my father’s application to the European Court of
   Human Rights was blocked, the farm was demolished preventing re-entry, and
   he also died thereafter in *1991*.
   Shortly after his death in 1994, the land was excavated and items of
   archaeological value were removed, despite prior knowledge of Roman remains
   on the property (including a Roman soldier previously uncovered within the
   living structure).

Taken together, these matters raise serious questions as to whether the
1982 registration accurately reflected the legal position at the time, or
whether it relied on assertions and correspondence that had not been
validated by a court and that were later treated inconsistently.

I respectfully request that HM Land Registry review whether:

   -

   The statutory requirements for registration were properly satisfied in
   1982; and
   -

   The register may be inaccurate or was obtained by mistake,
   misrepresentation, or material non-disclosure.

I am able to supply supporting documents, title numbers, correspondence,
and a concise timeline if required. But everything already on public record
indicates and supports everything I've highlighted in this email.

Regards,

Sion Buckler