Subject: BP vs Buckler 1987 (fraud & Consealment) From: Sion Buckler Direction: sent Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2026 10:54 UTC Institution: Senedd Refs: none Archive id: gm-19f6fb6d6595006e ------------------------------------------------------------ *Editor / Investigations Desk* Dear Editor, I am writing to ask your investigations team to examine what I believe is a significant public-interest story involving one of the most influential adverse possession cases in modern English and Welsh property law: *BP Properties Ltd v Buckler [1987] 2 EGLR 168* (also reported as *(1988) 55 P & CR 337*). This Court of Appeal decision continues to be cited in legal textbooks and case law. It established that a unilateral letter from the paper title owner granting a rent-free licence could prevent adverse possession, even where the occupier had not expressly accepted it. The case has shaped property law for almost forty years. My concern is not simply with the legal judgment itself. It is with what surrounded it. For several years I have been investigating the history of my family's occupation of *Great House Farm, Llandough, near Penarth*, and the events leading to the litigation. Through hundreds of Freedom of Information requests, archive searches, Land Registry enquiries, historical research and correspondence with public authorities, I have uncovered what I believe are serious inconsistencies, missing records and evidence of institutional concealment that deserve independent scrutiny. Among the matters that I believe warrant investigation are: - Whether material evidence relating to the occupation and ownership of Great House Farm was withheld or never presented. - The circumstances surrounding the registration of title by BP interests in 1982 despite the long-running dispute. - Missing or unexplained historical records across multiple public bodies. - Whether public authorities have failed to preserve records concerning a nationally significant legal case. - Whether subsequent institutions have frustrated attempts to obtain records through Freedom of Information legislation. - The wider implications if a leading legal precedent was built upon an incomplete or inaccurate factual record. My investigation has revealed repeated examples of authorities either claiming records do not exist, directing me elsewhere, or providing documents unrelated to the requests made. Numerous archives acknowledge gaps where relevant material would ordinarily be expected. I have also experienced what I believe to be persistent obstruction. My elected representatives have failed to engage despite repeated requests. Complaints have been redirected without investigation. During my enquiries, a court employee whom I challenged over contradictory information left their position shortly afterwards. While I cannot infer the reason for that departure, the wider pattern has made it exceptionally difficult to establish an accurate historical record. This story extends far beyond a private family dispute. It concerns: - whether powerful institutions have been properly held accountable; - preservation of public records; - transparency within government; - the development of UK property law; - the treatment of ordinary families in litigation against major corporations; - and whether historical injustices can remain effectively hidden because records disappear over time. The human story is equally compelling. My family lived through decades of litigation, uncertainty and eventual displacement. The farmhouse was ultimately demolished, ending centuries of family association with the property. Much of my family—particularly the women—have lived with the consequences for generations and remain reluctant to speak publicly because of the trauma. My brother and I are now attempting to reconstruct the historical record before more evidence disappears. The property itself has remarkable historical significance. Great House Farm has connections with the historic Bute Estate, archaeological discoveries including Roman remains, and local accounts associated with the pioneering wireless experiments at Lavernock Point during the Marconi era. Yet the legal battle that made national case law has largely eclipsed that wider history. This investigation is supported by: - extensive documentary evidence; - Land Registry correspondence; - Freedom of Information responses from multiple public authorities; - archive references from national and local repositories; - court documents; - historical maps; - newspaper reports; - and a detailed chronology spanning more than a century. I have also recorded my testimony explaining the evidence, chronology and impact on my family: https://youtu.be/XuArB_vYWWA?si=O7TL2i5ocU3vn5fG I am prepared to provide your journalists with a fully indexed evidence archive, original source documents, timelines, witness information where available, and copies of all official correspondence. I am *not* asking your newspaper to accept my conclusions without question. I am asking you to investigate. If my concerns are unfounded, they should be capable of being disproved through proper scrutiny. If they are substantiated, they raise serious questions about one of the UK's leading property law authorities, institutional accountability, public record keeping and the treatment of an ordinary family whose story has never properly been told. This is not simply a historical dispute. It is a story about how legal precedents are created, how power operates, whether the historical record can be trusted, and whether ordinary citizens can ever obtain accountability decades after the events in question. I believe it is exactly the kind of investigation that serves the public interest. I would welcome the opportunity to speak with one of your investigative journalists and provide unrestricted access to the evidence I have assembled. *Yours faithfully,* *Sion Buckler* Retired Sergeant, Royal Signals Cyber and Electronic Warfare Professional Life Member, Royal Signals [phone redacted] [phone redacted]