[Recovered on 19 Oct 2026 from the original email in the family's Gmail, because this archive file was missing. Matched to this entry by its subject line; where several emails share a subject, the order within the group is not certain. Email addresses, phone numbers and private addresses are redacted.]

Subject: Re: Subject: Stage Two Complaint – Title WA231076 – Alleged Mistake in the Register
From: Sion Buckler
Date: Sun, 03 May 2026 16:10 UTC
------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to append further evidence and clarification to my ongoing
complaint regarding the registration of title relating to Great House Farm,
Llandough (also known as Ty Mawr / Great House).

https://youtu.be/4GXmR7mAas0?feature=shared

This submission sets out a series of facts which I can evidence and which,
taken together, raise serious concerns of fraud, concealment, and wrongful
registration that have materially affected the rights of the Williams
family and their heirs.

1. Unauthorised transfer of title (circa 1965)
I can evidence that the title to the property was transferred or sold in or
around 1965 by Frederick Buckler without the knowledge or consent of Mrs
Mary Williams, who maintained a rightful claim to the property. This raises
the issue that the disposition may have been made without lawful authority.

2. Death of key party and concealment (1968)
Frederick Buckler died in 1968. Any knowledge he held regarding the
circumstances of the transfer died with him, preventing proper scrutiny or
challenge at the time.

3. Inability to prove ownership in court (1974)
Mrs Mary Williams was subsequently unable to prove her claim in court
proceedings in 1974. This inability must be viewed in the context of the
prior undisclosed transfer and the absence of key evidence and testimony.

4. Knowledge of defective title by acquiring party
There is a credible basis to assert that the acquiring party (BP and/or its
associated property entities) knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that
the title they acquired was defective. This point is central and I am
compiling supporting material demonstrating notice and/or constructive
knowledge.

5. Registration following death of claimant
Mrs Mary Williams died prior to the land being formally registered in the
name of the acquiring party. As a result, she was denied any opportunity to
rebut, challenge, or correct the position before registration was effected.

6. Death of additional disputing party
Mr Buckler also died during the period in which he was engaged in disputing
the matter. The cumulative effect is that all primary individuals with
direct knowledge were deceased before the issue could be fully and fairly
resolved.

7. Ongoing family claim
Despite these events, the claim of the Williams family has never been
relinquished. The position remains that the title was wrongfully
transferred and subsequently registered on the basis of that defective
transfer.

---

Request for Action

In light of the above, I respectfully request that:

1. This evidence be formally appended to my existing complaint file.
2. The register be reviewed in accordance with provisions relating to
fraud, mistake, and/or rectification.
3. Consideration be given to whether the registration was obtained through
or affected by fraud or concealment.
4. I be informed of the appropriate process for seeking rectification
and/or indemnity.

I am prepared to provide supporting documents, including historical
records, press reports, and family documentation, upon request or via
secure submission.

Given the seriousness of the matters raised, I would be grateful for
written confirmation that this submission has been received and attached to
my complaint, along with an outline of the next steps.

Yours faithfully,


Sion Buckler

On Sun, 19 Apr 2026, 16:29 Sion Buckler, <[email redacted]> wrote:

>  Sir or Madam,
>
> I write to ask that my complaint regarding title number WA231076 (Land on
> the North Side of Leckwith Road, Llandough) be escalated to **stage two**
> of HM Land Registry’s Complaints Procedure. This email sets out why I
> consider the stage‑one decision to be incorrect, identifies the mistake I
> say exists in the register, and explains the decision I seek.
>
> ### 1. My core contention
>
> My core contention is that BP Properties Limited were registered as
> proprietors on the basis of a factual and legal error regarding my
> grandmother’s status on the land. My grandmother did not occupy under any
> genuine licence granted to her and did not relinquish any claim. Instead,
> any licence relied on by BP related to a different name/person. As her
> heir, I have succeeded to her claim; I therefore say that registering BP as
> proprietors was a “mistake in the register” for the purposes of the Land
> Registration Act 2002.
>
> ### 2. Identity mismatch and alleged “licence”
>
> Your stage‑one letter records that HM Land Registry relies on the Court of
> Appeal decision in BP Properties Ltd v Buckler  EWCA Civ 2, and treats my
> grandmother as having occupied under a licence granted by the documentary
> title holder, so that her possession was no longer adverse.
>
> However, the alleged licence and related correspondence did not use my
> grandmother’s true legal name. My grandmother was Mrs Williams (supported
> by her birth, marriage and death certificates), not “Mrs Buckler”. The
> “licensee” referred to in BP’s narrative and in the 1987 litigation is
> therefore not the same legal person as my grandmother. There is, in other
> words, a fundamental mis‑identification or identity fraud at the heart of
> the story that HM Land Registry and the Court have relied upon.
>
> If the licence relied on by BP was addressed to, or granted in respect of,
> a different named individual, it cannot properly be said that my
> grandmother’s occupation was under that licence. In that case her
> occupation remained adverse to BP’s paper title, and any finding that she
> was a “licensee” rests on a factual premise that is demonstrably wrong.
>
> ### 3. Timing – “cart before the horse”
>
> Your letter explains that the applications for first registration of
> WA231076 (and the related title WA240304) were made in 1982–83 and that BP
> demonstrated a documentary root of title back to 1969/1975 by way of
> conveyances and a 1971 abstract of title.
>
> You also confirm that the Court of Appeal only gave its decision in BP
> Properties Ltd v Buckler in 1987, holding that an offer by BP to let my
> grandmother remain created a licence and brought her adverse possession to
> an end.
>
> This highlights a fundamental sequencing problem:
>
> - At the date of first registration (1982–83), whether there was a valid
> licence capable of defeating my grandmother’s adverse possession was a
> live, unresolved dispute.
> - BP nevertheless presented themselves as entitled to be registered as
> proprietors and their solicitors certified on form FR1 that there was no
> question or doubt affecting the title.
>
> - HM Land Registry, relying on that certification, registered BP before
> any court had determined whether my grandmother’s possession had
> extinguished BP’s title.
> - Only in 1987 did the Court of Appeal retrospectively treat the alleged
> licence as bringing adverse possession to an end, and that decision was
> itself based on the mis‑identification described above.
>
> In simple terms, the effect of the alleged licence (if any) was judicially
> determined **after** first registration, and on the basis of the wrong
> person being treated as the “licensee”. BP and their solicitors put the
> cart before the horse, and HM Land Registry accepted that position.
>
> ### 4. The specific “mistake in the register”
>
> Your stage‑one response concludes that there is “no evidence of a mistake
> in the register” and therefore no power to alter the register and no right
> to indemnity. I say this is incorrect.
>
> The mistake I allege is as follows:
>
> 1. On the true facts, my grandmother’s occupation of the land was adverse
> to BP’s documentary title and was not under any valid licence granted to
> her.
>
> 2. Her adverse possession had, or may have, extinguished BP’s title by the
> time of first registration in 1982–83, meaning BP were not entitled to be
> registered as proprietors at that time.
>
> 3. HM Land Registry nevertheless registered BP as proprietors on the basis
> of:
>    - a licence attributed to the wrong person (identity error/fraud), and
>    - a solicitor’s FR1 certificate stating there was no question or doubt
> affecting title, despite a long‑running dispute and pending litigation.
>
> 4. Subsequent reliance on the 1987 Court of Appeal decision does not cure
> this, because that decision itself proceeded on the mis‑identification of
> my grandmother and did not and could not retrospectively validate a licence
> that never related to her.
>
> On that analysis, the register shows BP as proprietors when, in law, my
> grandmother’s adverse possession should have extinguished BP’s title and
> given rise to a transmissible proprietary interest which I, as her heir,
> now claim. The register therefore does not accurately reflect the true
> legal position and contains a mistake capable of rectification.
>
> ### 5. Why the stage‑one reasoning is inadequate
>
> In your stage‑one letter you state that:
>
> - HM Land Registry has an administrative function and cannot “look behind
> or challenge decisions of the Court”. [1]
> - My identity‑fraud claims are “not relevant to the issue of title to the
> land” because they relate to the dispute heard by the Court.
>
> - There is no evidence of negligence or maladministration and no evidence
> of a mistake in the register.
>
> With respect, this reasoning is incomplete:
>
> - Once HM Land Registry is presented with clear evidence that the person
> named as the “licensee” in the litigation and licence documentation is not
> the same legal person as the occupier (my grandmother), that goes directly
> to whether the Court of Appeal’s factual premise remains reliable and
> whether the register is accurate.
>
> - Recognising that there is a serious question as to the correctness of
> the register is not the same as “overturning” the Court of Appeal. HM Land
> Registry has statutory powers to alter the register where there is a
> mistake, and it can, where appropriate, refer disputes about rectification
> to the tribunal or the courts.
>
> - To simply say that identity‑fraud concerns are “not relevant to title”
> is, I say, an error of law and/or an unreasonable application of policy. It
> disregards new evidence going to the foundation of BP’s claimed entitlement.
>
> ### 6. The decision and outcome I seek
>
> For stage two, I ask that a Land Registrar (Senior Officer) reconsider the
> complaint and:
>
> 1. Accept that the combination of:
>    - the identity mismatch (licence/name vs my grandmother’s true legal
> name), and
>    - the timing (registration in 1982–83 before the 1987 decision) gives
> rise to at least a **serious question** as to whether the register is
> mistaken in showing BP/ Companies thereafter, as proprietors.
>
> 2. Treat this as evidence of a potential “mistake in the register” for the
> purposes of your alteration powers and Schedule 8, rather than as a mere
> disagreement with the 1987 judgment.
>
> 3. Either:
>
>    - (a) commence the process of rectification, recognising that my
> grandmother’s adverse possession may have extinguished BP’s title and that
> I, as her heir, now have a claim to be registered, or
>
>    - (b) formally refer the dispute over the correctness of the register
> to the appropriate tribunal/court, making clear that HM Land Registry
> recognises that the identity‑fraud evidence raises a real issue about
> whether the register is accurate.
>
> 4. Confirm that, if it is ultimately determined that the register is
> mistaken and cannot be rectified without prejudice to third parties, HM
> Land Registry will treat me as having a potential claim for indemnity under
> Schedule 8.
>
> Please also confirm any further documents you require (for example, copies
> of the licence, the BP v Buckler pleadings/judgment, and my grandmother’s
> certificates) so that the stage‑two review can consider the identity
> evidence in full.
>
> Fraud unravels all. The limitation act also had a clause for fraud.
> Furthermore any limitation begins from discovery of fraud not occurrence of
> it.
>
> The convenient and timely death of my nan after her two obstructed
> attempts to make her case in 1974, followed by my father's convenient and
> timely death after his appeal of the 1987 case was dismissed and his ECHR
> obstructed, along with our forceful removal by 30 police and bailiffs in
> 1988. And the press reporting us as squatters on our ancestral birthland
> since 1667, did unlawfully dispossess and disposition us, but it doesn't
> change the facts.
>
> I see this case as instrumental in Wales' decolonisation. Whereby us
> indigneous Welsh Nationals on our ancestral birthland are victim to a
> crime. And I am the only one willing to speak up and out as my family of
> mostly women, are all too traumatised by this crime.
>
> It's evident illicit profits and gains. Identity fraud. And negligence and
> incompetence. I absolutely see the Brit-ish Establishment that now occupy
> and rule through force, stealth/ secrecy and licence as terrorists and us
> your hostages. As a direct result of this case.
>
> This is now a hostage terrorist situation on our lands. Well, my family
> are your hostages, I'm more of a counter officer soldier. So put it right.
> I will not stand down.
>
> Regards,
>
> Sion Buckler Esq. (Ret'd Sgt)
> Rightful Squire & executor of Manon of Llandough, Vale of Glamorgan, Wales.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2026, 07:41 Wales.OfficeMail, <
> [email redacted]> wrote:
>
>> The document attached is an official requisition, reminder or letter from
>> HM Land Registry. It is not a circular and relates either to an application
>> you have lodged with us or a property in which you have an interest. No
>> paper copy of the item of correspondence will be sent to you.
>>
>> The document is in 'Portable Document Format' (PDF) which replicates the
>> appearance of the hard copy version. You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to
>> open the document. If you do not already have Adobe Acrobat Reader it can
>> be installed free from www.adobe.com. Please note that as the document
>> is in PDF format you cannot add text to any document that you need to
>> complete and return to HM Land Registry. You will have to return any such
>> completed document by post.
>>
>> Ymholiad, nodyn atgoffa neu lythyr swyddogol gan Gofrestrfa Tir EM yw'r
>> ddogfen atodedig. Nid cylchlythyr yw hi ac mae'n ymwneud naill ai â chais
>> rydych wedi ei gyflwyno i ni neu ag eiddo y mae gennych fudd ynddo. Ni
>> chaiff copi papur o'r ohebiaeth ei anfon atoch.
>>
>> Mae'r ddogfen ar ffurf 'Portable Document Format' (PDF) sy'n dyblygu
>> golwg y fersiwn copi caled. Bydd angen Adobe Acrobat Reader arnoch i agor y
>> ddogfen. Os nad yw Adobe Acrobat Reader gennych yn barod, gallwch ei lwytho
>> i lawr am ddim o www.adobe.com. Sylwch na fydd modd ichi ychwanegu
>> testun at unrhyw ddogfen y mae'n rhaid ichi ei llenwi a dychwelyd i
>> Gofrestrfa Tir EM gan ei bod ar ffurf PDF. Ar ôl ichi lenwi unrhyw ddogfen
>> o'r fath bydd rhaid ichi ei dychwelyd trwy'r post.
>>
>>
>>
>> HM Land Registry’s purpose is to protect your land ownership and provide services and data that underpin an efficient and informed property market. Our vision is: “A world-leading property market as part of a thriving economy and a sustainable future”.
>>
>> We check all mail and attachments for known viruses. However, you are advised that you open any attachments at your own risk. If you have received this email and it was not intended for you, please let us know, then delete it.
>>
>> We welcome correspondence in English and Welsh.
>>
>> To see how HM Land Registry treats your personal information, read our Personal information charter: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/personal-information-charter.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Diben Cofrestrfa Tir EF yw gwarchod perchnogaeth eich tir a darparu gwasanaethau a data sy’n sail i farchnad eiddo effeithlon a gwybodus. Ein gweledigaeth yw: “Marchnad eiddo o’r radd flaenaf fel rhan o economi ffyniannus a dyfodol cynaliadwy”.
>>
>> Rydym yn gwirio pob neges ac atodiad am firysau hysbys. Fodd bynnag, fe’ch cynghorir mai chi sy’n gyfrifol am unrhyw atodiadau y byddwch yn eu hagor. Os ydych wedi cael yr ebost hwn trwy ddamwain, rhowch wybod i ni ac yna’i ddileu, os gwelwch yn dda.
>>
>> Rydym yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn Gymraeg a Saesneg.
>>
>> I weld sut mae Cofrestrfa Tir EF yn trin eich gwybodaeth bersonol, darllenwch ein Siarter gwybodaeth bersonol: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/personal-information-charter.cy.
>>
>>
>>