Subject: Re: Response to National Archives case number CAS-313954-Y6C0H3 CRM:022601127 From: Sion Buckler Direction: sent Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2026 09:57 UTC Institution: The National Archives Refs: CAS-313954 Archive id: gm-19c3caf0152e9a02 ------------------------------------------------------------ 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. 1. From "Archival Silence" to Potential Evidence Tampering You correctly note that archival silences are well-documented in academic literature. However, the circumstances surrounding Great House Farm suggest something more concerning than routine selection decisions. I am now in possession of first-hand testimony (David Buckler, 2024) alleging that: - Frederick Buckler (my grandfather) and his eldest son engaged a solicitor privately in the 1960s - Title documents were removed from the family home and allegedly sold - The family was deliberately misled with the phrase "it's all been dealt with legally" This testimony, combined with the disappearance of the Bute Estate → Daniel Thomas deed index card from Cardiff Library (reported missing in 1984), suggests potential spoliation of evidence rather than routine archival selection. The question is no longer "why weren't records preserved?" but "were records deliberately removed to prejudice a 320-year possessory claim?" 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." The original correspondence would constitute primary evidence of potentially fraudulent misrepresentation. 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 - Demolition of a medieval structure described as a "dilapidated utility building" to avoid heritage protection - Archaeological discoveries (1888, 1994) that were known but officially "forgotten" - 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, Sion Buckler On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 at 07:26, RESO Records Enquiries < [email redacted]> wrote: > Dear Sion, > > The question about archival silences is one upon which there is a > voluminous literature. Practically, however, the best way of making sense > of what is and is not in the archives is to refer to the reports which > shaped selection policies in the modern era - see especially the Report on > Departmental Records (Cmnd 9136) and the Report on Legal Records (Cmnd > 3084) - and the resulting retention and disposition schedules - see for > example the one for the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) published here > > . > > What you will see from these is that the presumption for modern records is > against permanent preservation. In general, apart from small samples to > demonstrate the ordinary functioning of the courts/government departments, > records are only preserved if they bear witness to moments of particular > legal or policy significance or change. In the case of legal records, the > presumption has been that parties would be responsible for maintaining > their own records. > > In terms of how to continue your search, my instinct is that you should > consider exploring the holdings of the relevant local archive. You can also > try some keyword searches in our catalogue - see, for example, these > > search results which highlight these > > series as potentially a relevant source of desired information. You might > also wish to search the registered files of the land registry in records > series LAR 1 . > You should be advised, however, that departmental records tend to focus > more on policy than upon the treatment of individual cases. > > I hope that this is helpful. > > Yours sincerely, > > Charlotte Smith > > Principal Records Specialist, Modern Legal Records > *www.nationalarchives.gov.uk* > > *Enquiry:* > > > > I note and appreciate your confirmation that the principal judicial series > (J 157, J 83, J 84) contain no relevant material. Given the scale of the > consequences flowing from the dispute—forced removal, demolition of an > occupied dwelling, and loss of heritage fabric—the absence of supporting > court or administrative files is itself significant for researchers. > > Accordingly, I would be grateful for guidance on the following procedural > points: > > - how researchers are expected to interpret gaps or silence in the > archival record where substantial actions plainly occurred; > - whether related non-judicial records (for example, departmental, > planning, regulatory, or corporate records connected to land registration, > planning consent, or archaeological works) are more likely to sit outside > the obvious court series; and > - whether there is an appropriate mechanism for flagging concerns > about record completeness or contextual risk, without seeking alteration of > the records themselves. > > For the avoidance of doubt, I am not alleging impropriety on the part of > The National Archives or its staff. My concern is to ensure that the > historical record is approached with appropriate caution where absence may > unintentionally convey certainty or closure that did not exist at the time. > Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > National Archives Disclaimer This email and any files transmitted with it > are intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom they are > addressed. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this > email in error, please notify the sender and delete the email. Opinions, > conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do > not relate to the official business of The National Archives are neither > given nor endorsed by it. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >