Subject: Re: Reply to your email of September 2025 From: Sion Buckler Direction: sent Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2026 21:16 UTC Institution: Ministry of Justice / HMCTS Refs: none Archive id: gm-19ddb19c4dc181b3 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dear 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 procedural irregularity, misrepresentation, non-disclosure, and structural unfairness which, taken together, raise serious questions as to whether the proceedings were properly and fairly determined. 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; - The rendering of a vulnerable family homeless, including a pregnant mother, young children, and a disabled elderly occupant; - Ongoing intergenerational harm, including psychological, social, and economic consequences; - 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 Ruling1. 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) 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); - family testimony not previously considered; - 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, Sion Buckler On Monday, 27 April 2026, Central Correspondence Team < [email redacted]> wrote: > Good morning, > > > > With apologies for the delay, a reply to your email of September 2025 to > Cabinet Office is attached. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Ministry of Justice > > > > > > > > *PLEASE NOTE: the inbox for the account which generated this email is NOT > monitored, therefore any incoming emails to the above inbox address will > not be acknowledged or receive a response.* > > > ------------------------------ > This e-mail and any attachments is intended only for the attention of the > addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not > permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies > and inform the sender by return e-mail. Internet e-mail is not a secure > medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone > else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in > response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail (whether you are the sender > or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry > of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content > may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not > broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents. >