Subject: Re: Your complaint about HM Land Registry - referral to ICR Office
From: Sion Buckler
Direction: sent
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2026 20:31 UTC
Institution: HM Land Registry (Independent Complaints Reviewer)
Refs: ICR/090/26, N610CGV
Archive id: gm-1a0e9b71dfbd3bfa
------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Ms Applegate,

Thank you for your letter of 28 September 2026 acknowledging my emails of
26 and 27 September, and for allocating reference ICR/090/26. I note that
an investigation officer will contact me within ten working days.

I would like to place four further points on the file for the investigation
officer, in addition to those already set out in my emails.

1. Public record

Please treat https://greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com/ as part of the
material already cited.

The landing page sets out, diagrammatically and with links to the
underlying evidence, the family’s case that Parcel A — the farmhouse,
garden and associated land on the Williams/Thomas line — was included
within a whole-farm registered title even though the documentary root by
which BP acquired that parcel remains unresolved.

Our paper title deed being stolen from our home resulting in us not able to
be present in court in 1974 (and so ownership adjudication was ajourned and
our ownership assertion was weakened (not exstiguished) we understand. But
the stretch of the imagine it takes to ever believe it was Western Ground
Rents or BPs is all based on absurdity after absurdity and does not in my
estimation, meet the criteria of what a sane, reasonable person would do.

The website greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com
deliberately distinguishes documentary records from family evidence,
reconstruction and unresolved inference. I am therefore not asking ICR to
accept every proposition on the site as established fact; I am asking that
the underlying records and the specific questions identified there be
considered.

2. Chronology now recorded by HM Land Registry

I had earlier written as if the two titles merged in 1983. That was wrong.
HM Land Registry’s letter of 23 March 2026 (Lisa Griffiths, ref N610CGV)
separates the first-registration events from the later amalgamation. My
correction of 27 September is already on your file.

The chronology that now matters is:

• 30 November 1982 — application to first-register WA231076.

• 23 February 1983 — application to first-register WA240304.

• 26 March 1983 — Mary Williams died. Our family’s account is that notice
of BP’s registration was received only after her death, during/ after that
mourning period. Whether that account can be established from the notice,
service and correspondence records is itself a question for investigation.

• 24 July 1986 — Hollis J. The historical title material still showed both
titles live.

• 2 February 1987 — an application to amalgamate the two titles was
recorded. WA240304 was subsequently closed and registration continued under
WA231076. This is the amalgamation event, distinct from the 1982/83 first
registrations. It occurred while the BP Properties Ltd v Buckler litigation
was still live and before the Court of Appeal judgment of 31 July 1987.

• *14 April 1989 — Buckler v United Kingdom was declared inadmissible by
the European Commission of Human Rights.*

I regard this as a further institutional failure that now requires
reconsideration. The decision treated BP as having rights in our land
parcel and referred to BP as the owners, although BP had been awarded
possession, not ownership, and ownership of Parcel A had never been
adjudicated in BP’s favour. The distinction is fundamental. Possession is
not the same thing as ownership, and an order for possession did not itself
determine that BP had acquired the underlying proprietary interest in
Parcel A.

On the family’s case, our ownership claim to Parcel A was never
extinguished. The question therefore is not simply whether BP obtained
possession through the proceedings, but whether any legal process ever
transferred, extinguished or superseded the family’s underlying proprietary
interest. If it did not, the basis upon which BP was subsequently treated
as having superior rights in the parcel requires examination.

That issue also goes directly to the later assertion that the family’s
occupation became “permissive” under BP’s 1974 licence letters. A party
cannot ordinarily confer a proprietary right it does not itself possess. If
BP did not own Parcel A, it is necessary to establish what legal interest
BP actually held that enabled it to grant my grandmother, or anyone else,
permissive occupation of that parcel — particularly where there had already
been a long succession of earlier attempts to establish a permissive basis
for the family’s occupation.
The point is especially significant because the person whose occupation was
supposedly made permissive was herself the long-standing occupier and, on
the family’s case, the superior title holder of the parcel, with the
family’s occupation extending back centuries. I therefore ask that the
investigation distinguish carefully between *possession awarded to BP,
ownership of Parcel A, and any alleged power to license the family’s
occupation*. Those are not interchangeable propositions, and the
documentary basis for treating them as such requires examination.

3. What I am asking ICR to review

HM Land Registry has told my MP, and said in its stage-two decision of 25
May 2026, that the title was registered correctly and that there is no
evidence of a mistake. That is the institutional position my family has
encountered for decades.

I am not asking ICR to determine title. I am asking whether that conclusion
was reached after a proper examination of the first-registration files and,
in particular:

• the documentary basis and extent claimed for Parcel A in the
first-registration applications;

• the missing 31 December 1969 conveyance and the 1971 abstract of title;

• the notice and service records, including what notice was given to the
occupier, when, and what effective opportunity existed to object;

• the three inconsistent closure dates now appearing in the HMLR record for
WA240304; and

• the 2 February 1987 amalgamation application, including what was actually
amalgamated, on what plans and documents, and what title information
existed at that point in the still-live litigation.

The concern is therefore not simply one of hindsight. Much of the relevant
material was created contemporaneously with the events in question. That is
why I raise mistake, concealment and procedural unfairness as matters
requiring investigation, rather than as findings I am asking you to make at
this acknowledgement stage.

4. Why the record was reconstructed from Y Wladfa

For almost two years I have been in the Welsh Settlement in Patagonia,
rebuilding a replica of the farmhouse in which I was born.

That reconstruction prompted me to revisit the documentary history of Great
House Farm and, in doing so, to compare the family evidence with the
surviving land-registration, court and archival records. That work is what
brought the title chronology and the unresolved Parcel A question back into
focus.

The replica is also a way of preserving the history of a house that was
demolished in December 1988. I mention this not as an argument on the
merits, but to explain why a historical record that had remained largely
unexamined for decades was reconstructed now, and why I have pursued the
underlying documents rather than relying solely on inherited family
accounts.

Y Wladfa itself exists because Michael D. Jones and those who followed him
judged that Welsh language, history, heritage, people, landscape and
buildings were being overwritten in Wales — the process they cited as the
work of a “decapitation committee”. Which makes it interesting 99% of UK
MPs refused to sign an EDM in 2025 condemning us Christians being
decapitated. Our land parcel was clearly a Christian stronghold and holy
sacred lands and we were clearly stewards of it for centuries.

The Patagonia Welsh settlement is where those things are instead kept,
celebrated and respected. The replica stands there for the same reason the
original house cannot stand on Parcel A.

I will wait to hear from the investigation officer.

I also take this opportunity to draw your attention to the enclosed PDF,
which contains photographs relating to a tree-planting ceremony on the
southernmost part of our claimed Parcel A and subsequent photographs
showing the tree being demolished. The ceremony is part of the family’s
evidence of its assertion of ownership: my great-grandfather is recorded as
planting the tree to commemorate that ownership. The photographs also
preserve contemporaneous visual evidence, including identifiable
individuals and machinery vehicle registration numbers, which may assist in
establishing who carried out the later destruction and in what
circumstances.

There is a further land-history issue which may be relevant to the wider
question of how our claimed parcel came to be treated as no longer
belonging to the family. The woodland to the north of our home, on our
claimed parcel, was taken at a time when my grandmother had undergone a leg
amputation in 1955 and had become wheelchair-bound. I understand that this
woodland was subsequently gifted to a charity, which has itself contacted
me recently; I enclose that correspondence with the present material.

Similarly, I understand that land to the south of the farmhouse was also
taken, notwithstanding that the 1955 possession order appears, on the
documentary material presently available to me, to have concerned the
parcel to the east of ours. The Council subsequently made the southern land
into a small green or park and, in the process, the commemorative tree and
other physical evidence of the family’s assertion of ownership were
destroyed. I appreciate that this moves beyond the immediate registration
question, but the destruction of physical evidence bearing directly upon
the family's historic claim may be relevant to understanding the subsequent
evidential position.

There is also a further matter which I mention cautiously because I do not
yet know its full significance. It has been alleged to me that the
long-serving Council Clerk for Llandough played a role in the destruction
of this evidence. When I initially raised the matter through FOI, his
response was, as I understand it, an attempt not to become involved. When
subsequently required to respond, he retired after approximately 35 years'
service. I am not asserting that these events establish misconduct or that
his retirement was connected with this matter; I do not presently know the
extent, if any, of the connection.

I include the material because I believe it may have evidential relevance,
whether to the immediate investigation or, if not, at a later stage when
the wider history of the land and the disappearance of evidence is
considered. The tree ceremony, its subsequent destruction, the photographs,
and the associated correspondence provide material evidence which I do not
think should be disregarded simply because some aspects of it may
ultimately fall outside the immediate scope of this review.

There is also an important cultural dimension to the evidence. The tree was
not merely a physical object: its planting appears to have been an act of
asserting and commemorating ownership according to the family’s
longstanding traditions and understanding of the land. I recognise that
questions of ancient custom and tradition may not fall within the immediate
legal scope of ICR/090/26. I mention them because the destruction of the
physical manifestation of that assertion removed evidence of the very claim
whose documentary survival is now being investigated.

Regards,

Sion Buckler (Ret'd Sergeant)
Royal Signals Cyber/ Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member

ICR/090/26
Titles WA231076 / WA240304 (closed)
HMLR refs: N610CGV; 260919-6726246
https://greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com/