MP Doughty,

Further to the correspondence from Mr Iain Banfield, and my earlier email, I am writing again to be sure, placed on record, is the central issue which HM Land Registry's response still does not answer.

I appreciate that HM Land Registry is not a court and that it cannot simply reopen a Court of Appeal judgment. That, however, does not answer the separate question of whether the land registered in 1982/83 was correctly identified and supported by the documentary title then placed before the Registrar.

Mr Banfield's response relies heavily upon BP Properties Ltd v Buckler [1987] EWCA Civ 2. That judgment post-dated the registration by approximately four years. It records BP Properties Ltd as having become registered proprietor of the "whole farm" in November 1982 and then determines the later adverse-possession dispute concerning the farmhouse and garden. It does not, however, determine whether the 1982 first-registration application had itself correctly included the farmhouse parcel in BP's documentary title, or whether the registration had mistakenly conflated two historically separate parcels.

That distinction is fundamental.

My family's parcel — the former farmhouse, garden and curtilage, which I refer to as the House Plot — was historically distinct from the adjoining eastern agricultural land. The documentary history I have obtained indicates that these areas were not simply one undifferentiated proprietary parcel.

The 1916 agricultural tenancy is one important document because it embraced both areas. But that is not the end of the conveyancing history. The earlier 1877 Daniel Thomas & Son instrument, and the arrangement subsequently acted upon when the quarrying ceased in 1928, point to a separate proprietary interest in the House Plot.

I have the 1938 conveyance from the Marquis of Bute to Western Ground Rents, and the revised 1939 version of the 1916 tenancy, and it did not convey or demise the House Plot at all: the actual 1938 conveyance, the 1939 tenancy and their plans need to be examined by you lot too, not just me. Indeed, the 1987 judgment itself records that the alleged yearly tenancy commencing in 1949 has not been produced in the proceedings. Its geographical extent therefore remains unproved. Not withstanding it may pertain to the parcel to the east we leased and defaulted on, not our freehold parcel. Furthermore my nan expressly rejected the 1949 tenancy and attempt to make her occupancy of our parcel permissive in such a way, but expressly rejecting it while asserting her ownership claim of her parcel.

It's adolescent of everyone to keep having a meltdown and failing to compute the simplicity of the fact Mary Williams asserted she owned her parcel. And WGR saught possession of theirs, east of it. Western Ground Rents, already described in UK Parliament as praying on elderly and being abhorrent and scrupilous, clearly tried to make Mary's occupany appear permissive in 1949 and the 1955 proceedings.

The 1987 judgment records that and the 1962 proceeding, after the agricultural tenancy was terminated, as Western Ground Rents obtaining a 1955 possession order for the "whole of the farm". Crucially, however, when that order was enforced on 4 July 1955, possession was taken of all parts except the farmhouse and garden. The judgment gives the immediate reason as Mrs Mary Buckler's condition and her strong resistance to leaving the farmhouse. Ambiguity which is later misinterprited and clearly an early attempt at making her occupancy of her parcel appear permissive.

WGR subsequently brought a fresh action in 1962 specifically against Mr and Mrs Buckler for possession of the farmhouse and garden and mesne profits, resulting in the possession and mesne-profits order of 11 December 1962. The judgment records that this order was not enforced before 1974.

That sequence matters.

If the two areas had genuinely always constituted one undifferentiated proprietary estate subject to the same right of possession, it is difficult to understand why possession of the agricultural land was recovered in 1955 while the farmhouse and garden were left occupied and a separate possession action had to be brought in 1962.

I therefore ask that this fact not be retrospectively converted into an assumption that the 1955 "whole farm" wording necessarily comprised the House Plot in the same legal sense as the agricultural land.

The statutory effect attributed by the Court of Appeal to the 1955/1962 proceedings cannot itself establish title to a different, historically separate parcel which was never actually comprised in those proceedings.

The possession orders were orders for possession and associated relief. They were not conveyances. They did not retrospectively create a documentary chain of title where none existed, nor did they by themselves determine the geographical extent of an underlying freehold documentary title.

That is especially important in light of the sequence of events recorded in the 1987 judgment. WGR's own successive proceedings and selective enforcement distinguished the agricultural land from the farmhouse and garden in practical terms, whatever the later interpretation of the expression "whole farm".

There is a further point which I believe HM Land Registry has not addressed.

In 1949, according to the history now being assembled, Mrs Mary Williams was offered a tenancy of the farmhouse and garden which she rejected because she asserted ownership. The 1987 judgment itself confirms that she was offered a tenancy of the farmhouse and garden by Western Ground Rents and refused it. It also records that she had come to believe she had a title through her grandfather and that documents existed which supported that claim.

Thus there was plainly a known dispute over the House Plot long before first registration.

The 1974 proceedings and letters must also be put in their proper place. The Court of Appeal held that the 1974 letters operated as a licence, notwithstanding that Mrs Buckler had never expressly accepted them, and held that her possession thereafter was no longer adverse.

I am not asking HM Land Registry to disregard that decision.

Despite it being clear to any sane, reasonable person to see that, given the evidence, the 1974 order was not truly quashed due to the licence letters, which came afterwards and were backdated. Made out to a non existent Mrs Buckler. And quashed the case within minutes of Mary being notified of them, with no ample opportunity to respond. Albeit she actually did in writing. And asserted her ownership and challenged BP in a public newspaper. Not withstanding BP couldn't give something they don't own i.e. permissive occupancy.

This permissive occupancy followed by a conversion is a racket. Look at the pattern;

1955 permissive occupancy ploy > 1969 conveyance (WGR to BP Pension Trust Ltd)

1974 permissive occupancy ploy > 1975 conveyance (BP Pension Trust to BP Properties Ltd)

Nor am I asking the Land Registry to even acknowledge the fact court clerked notified the press who all decended on the scene, covered the story (that Mary asserted ownership, family occupancy since 1667, lawyer confirms her ownership claim was valid etc).

I am asking a different question: what land did BP actually have title to in 1974, and what land was actually capable of being registered in BP's name in 1982?

If the House Plot had never formed part of WGR's documentary estate (not in the 1938 conveyance from Bute, as it went to Daniel Thomas & Son in 1876 then to my great grandad John Williams in 1928), then the 1974 letters and the 1962 possession order cannot simply be assumed to cure that problem. The 1987 judgment did not adjudicate that separate issue of first-registration procedure and documentary extent.

BP never had ownership. Ours ownership claim was never legally exstiguished. BP never even saught ownership, only possession. And with no title chain, only their own issuance of permissive occupancy, based on interest they'd purchased in a possession order, which itself was also based on issuance of permissive occupancy. And with little to no meeting of the minds, but instead stealth/ secrecy. And the registration itself in 1983 was secret and undisclosed to Mary Williams and us living heirs and successors.

The Land Registry issue

The applicable statutory framework in 1982/83 was the Land Registration Act 1925 and the Land Registration Rules 1925.

The Rules expressly contained provisions dealing with first registration, including rule 20, requiring the applicant to deliver the original deeds and documents relating to the title which were in its possession or control. The operation of that rule in the first-registration context is confirmed in Walker v Burton, where the High Court described the requirement in those terms.

The Rules also contained a specific provision headed "Examination of title by Registrar" and provisions concerning searches and enquiries by the Registrar.

This means that the question cannot simply be reduced to "Land Registry registers what it is given".

The relevant question is whether, in this case:

the applicant supplied the material title documents in its possession or control;
the documents supplied actually demonstrated that the House Plot formed part of the estate being registered;
the Registrar examined the documentary chain sufficiently to identify any inconsistency between the deeds and the land claimed for registration;
any discrepancy between the deeds, plans, possession orders and the proposed registration plan generated a requisition or further enquiry;
the registration was completed as an absolute title despite a material uncertainty as to the extent of the documentary title; and
the Registrar's own records contain any warning, requisition, note, correspondence or other indication that the separate House Plot issue was considered.

There is a particularly important point concerning registration in error.

The Law Commission's review of the 1925 system records that the Land Registration Rules 1925 contained a specific power in rule 14 dealing with "registration in error", including registration of too large a part of a title, and explained that the registrar had an express power to rectify registration arising from mistake.

That is significant because HM Land Registry is currently saying, in effect, that there was no mistake. That conclusion should not be treated as established unless HM Land Registry has actually examined the surviving 1982/83 registration file and established what documentary evidence justified the extent registered.

HM Land Registry's present published guidance also expressly recognises that including too much land in a registered title can constitute a mistake in the register, and gives as an example a title being mapped to include land for which the registered proprietor has no documentary title. It also recognises that failure by a solicitor to lodge documents in their possession can amount to lack of proper care. I appreciate that this is modern guidance and I do not suggest that it can simply be imposed retrospectively as the law of 1983. It is nevertheless directly relevant to the distinction HM Land Registry now draws between a genuine registration mistake and a mere disagreement about the title boundary.

Likewise, HM Land Registry's current guidance states that a title plan cannot describe the land more accurately than the pre-registration deeds allow, and that the pre-registration deeds are crucial to resolving questions about the extent of a registered title. Again, I cite this as an expression of the documentary basis of registration, not as a claim that a 2025/26 practice guide was itself the governing rule in 1983.

The present register raises further questions

In addition to reperations for the demolition of our 800 year old home with us practically still inside at the time, inhumane abuse of my pregnant mum, terminally ill father and amputee grandmother, not withstanding 3 toddlers: myself included. I seek restoration of property in that I seek possession of the undeveloped woodland half of our land parcel. Which is virgin land, having not been touched since we were forced from it in 1988.

The current title material itself refers separately to:

the 23 May 1975 conveyance of land tinted blue, with the copy plan filed under WA240304;
the 19 November 1982 conveyance of land tinted pink, with the original filed under WA231076;
rights and retained land associated with those separate conveyances; and
the vendors' adjoining or retained land.

Those entries require the original plans to be compared with the House Plot.

I am particularly concerned that two separate conveyancing areas were subsequently presented as part of a single "whole farm" registered estate. If the House Plot was not actually comprised in the conveyances relied upon, the relevant question is not whether the modern red edging can be made to fit an Ordnance Survey map. The question is what deed, order or other legally sufficient evidence put that specific land into BP's registrable estate in the first place.

An Ordnance Survey description cannot by itself create a conveyance. Much like BPs 1971 alteration of the descriptor of our parcel, shifting "ty mawr" from theirs to ours and appending "farm" to the end of it.

Nor can a later registration description retrospectively supply a missing link in the pre-registration conveyancing chain.

I'll repeat this as its important;

Nor can a later registration description retrospectively supply a missing link in the pre-registration conveyancing chain.

The 1982/83 registration file

HM Land Registry's letter of 30 July 2026, reference N610CGV, has already confirmed that surviving first-registration material relating to the relevant titles exists and is open to inspection.

I therefore ask you to write again to HM Land Registry, not asking it to decide the family title, but asking it to answer the following precise administrative questions:

1. What exact first-registration applications were made for WA231076 and WA240304, and what deeds, abstracts, declarations, plans, court orders and other documents accompanied each application?

2. Did the application files contain the 1938 Bute–Western Ground Rents conveyance, the 1939 revised tenancy and plan, 1877 Daniel Thomas & Son instrument, or any other document showing that the House Plot was historically separate? What was included and not included.

3. What document was relied upon to establish that the House Plot formed part of BP Properties Limited's documentary estate? How was Land Registry not able to see only a plaintiff on the court paperwork preceeding 1982, and no defendant?

4. What was the precise geographical extent attributed to the 1955 possession order and the 1962 possession order by the Registrar, and were the original orders or plans ever examined?

5. Were the Registrar's records aware of the 1974 proceedings and Mrs Williams asserted ownership claim when the first-registration applications were processed?

The only way they could have not been is if they willfully ignorantly and selective vision didn't see there was another party to the court proceedings, not just a claimant but also a defendant. They/ BP will have had to have fished out a 1935 marriage certificate to find anything to match the name Mrs Buckler, on the licence letters. A deperate measure to avoid any of this clandestine registration reaching the families knowledge, which we would have been very quick to correct all this. Not withstanding my nan will have had to have died to not challenge this, having relentlessly and unwaveringly challenged this for decades already. And low and behold she did conveniently die in the two weeks she will have had to challenge this in 1983. I guess someone murdered her, just to be absolutely sure all this went ahead without any issues.

6. Did the Registrar raise any requisition because the possession history, the separate 1955/1962 proceedings, the 1975 blue conveyance, the 1982 pink conveyance and the proposed registered extent did not correspond straightforwardly?

7. On what evidence was the House Plot incorporated into the land registered to BP, rather than being left outside the registration pending proof of title?

8. Was the title registered with an absolute title, qualified title, possessory title or another class, and what was the evidential basis for the class of title granted?

9. Does HM Land Registry's surviving file contain any memorandum, examiner's note, requisition, map correspondence or other record explaining how the apparently separate areas were reconciled into the registered extent?

What I am asking you to investigate

I am not asking you, or HM Land Registry, to determine that my family is presently entitled to reporations of land now occupied by others. Or possession of the unoccupied woodlands north of church view close.

I am asking that the Department distinguish between two entirely different propositions:

First: the Court of Appeal decided the legal effect of the 1962 possession order and the 1974 letters in the particular litigation that came before it.

Second: HM Land Registry registered land in BP's name in 1982/83. That administrative act necessarily depended upon a first-registration application, documentary evidence and a determination of the land capable of registration.

The second proposition cannot simply be proved by citing the first.

If HM Land Registry now asserts that there was no mistake in registration, it should be able to identify the documentary chain and the registration evidence which led it to that conclusion.

Is land registry claiming my great grandad John Williams DID NOT gain and register title, in 1928, when the 1876/77 Marquess of Bute to Daniel Thomas and Son agreement enacted, thus title chain/ freehold transferred from DT&S to us? Is their understanding it conveyed from Bute/ DT&S to Western Ground Rents in 1938? Or even Williams Title ended up being conveyed to Western Ground Rents prior to 1955. And then to BP in 1969? Because both my nans statement alleges her paper title was stolen in the 40's. And some family members rumour her own husband Fredrick, pawned it, possible to settle Mary Williams fathers debts. That might explain Fredricks interest in the 1949 tenancy offer from WGR, if it indeed compromised the House Plot.

If the surviving file shows that the House Plot was supported by a valid conveyance or other legally sufficient title, that would answer these questions.

If, however, the file shows that the House Plot was included because an ambiguous "whole farm" permissive occupancy/ possession history was treated as equivalent to documentary title, or because two separate parcels were inadvertently conflated, that would be a materially different situation. It would raise an obvious question as to whether the registration process contained an error, an omission, inadequate examination, or reliance upon an incomplete or inaccurate presentation of the title.

I am deliberately not asserting fraud or negligence as an established fact at this stage. I'm just determined to make sense of what happened so that I can make the case and get this matter and evidence adjudicated.

Evidence must establish what happened. But the possibility of administrative error, inadequate examination, lack of proper care, or mistaken inclusion of land cannot sensibly be dismissed until the original registration material has been examined.

That is precisely why I am asking for the surviving file to be reviewed.

I remain willing to provide the title extracts, the 30 July 2026 HM Land Registry letter, the relevant historical documents and my chronology. I would also be grateful for your assistance in obtaining a substantive answer from HM Land Registry rather than a further general statement that it cannot reopen BP Properties Ltd v Buckler.

I just bought some records from them ref the forest half of our land parcel. To begin seeking possession of that. But I don't want to be extorted by Land Registry and have yet another local authority gatekeep information in some ploy to mitigate their legal liability exposure if it shows any negligence or incompetence un 1982/83. I was born on this land, it seems to be my land. I could just as easily do GDPR and SAR and not just FOI's.

I also resent Land Registry’s initial response to my intial enquiry was to convert my enquriy into a complaint, only to shut it down. And say I could never ask the same question again. This is the kind of behaviour that signals guilty conscience and bad faith. It was very hostile. Much like taking the maximum time to respond, is that really neccesary?

I have allocated at least 6 years to gathering evidence and making my case on this. It only looks damming for local authories when I visualise all this back and forth for months just to get to the information I should have been presented with in the first instance. I've barely if at all paid for evidence or had my lawyer demand/ summon evidence be disclosed yet. I'm just finding out who will co-operate at this stage. I'm also perfectly willing, like with CADW and Llandough councillor, to file complaints so that each party has ample opportunity and due procedure to try to satisfy our grievances directly. Dwr Cymru already posted me a cheque for ignoring my initial FOI. Albeit minor.

I have travelled the world. My wife and daughter and dog from Swansea live in the Caribbean. I'm mainly in Argentina as of 2025 constructing a replica Great House Farm Museum. What happens in this small county and country doesn't concern me much anymore. I think its mostly a lot of massachrist submissive hostages in concentration work camps under plastic terrorists now. And its a situationship that suits both parties and I don't intend on getting in the way of either.

I am more concerned to get the story of what happened in Llandough correct, so it can be accurately retold at the museum in Argentina. And gather evidence before any more goes missing or is destroyed. If it transpires the case can be reopened and reporations are due and/or possession of some/ any of our ancestral birthland can be returned to us, then all the better.

I'm also sure this what happened to us was an epademic racket/ playbook nationwide and if so, we're likely in a land market bubble and so a land market crash may come. Which would be literal, actionable and logistical decolonisation, like the way occupying UN issued land in Nicosia back to Greeks/ Turks. Not just political and figurative decolonisation. Not withstanding civil war brewing on British Isles, which is why having family estate records in order matters. I've already lost any confidence self proclaimed fudiciaries actually preserve records.

I've got herlooms going back centuries. Which myself and my family have somehow managed to preserve. How CADW and National Archieves and the Vale Council and even EU and Parliment don't have records of this case anymore, brings into question the point of their very existence.

Yours sincerely,

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