Dear Sion, Thank you for your email to Kanishka Narayan MP and for passing on your concerns regarding HM Land Registry.    Unfortunately, the Westminster constituency and the Vale of Glamorgan Council do not align fully, and Dinas Powys is not part of the Vale of Glamorgan Westminster constituency. Parliamentary protocol states that an MP cannot assist those outside their constituency. Therefore, I would encourage you to contact Stephen Doughty, MP for Cardiff South and Penarth, and he may be able to assist you further. His email address is: Stephen.Doughty.MP@parliament.uk. Kind regards Madelene UK Parliament Disclaimer: this e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This e-mail address is not secure, is not encrypted and should not be used for sensitive data. ________________________________________ From: "Sion Buckler " Sent: 31 May 2026 22:07 To: NARAYAN, kanishka.narayan.mp@parliament.uk Subject: Request for Referral to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman – HM Land Registry Complaint     Dear MP of Vale of Glamorgan I am seeking your assistance in referring a complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman concerning HM Land Registry. I have exhausted HM Land Registry's internal complaints process and have received what they describe as their final Stage 2 response regarding title number WA231076 and land at Great House Farm / Land on the North Side of Leckwith Road, Llandough. My concern is not simply that HM Land Registry disagrees with me. Rather, I believe there has been a failure to properly engage with key evidence and historical issues raised by my family concerning ownership claims, missing title documentation, and the procedural history of litigation connected with the property. In particular: HM Land Registry relied on references to court findings but did not clearly identify which court determination finally adjudicated the historical ownership claim advanced by my family. My request for examination of registration issues appears to have been converted into a complaints process and then closed through administrative procedures. HM Land Registry repeatedly stated that it would not "look behind" court decisions, yet did not address whether certain historical ownership issues were ever substantively determined by a court. Important factual concerns were treated as irrelevant to registration without detailed investigation. I remain concerned that potentially significant historical evidence and title issues have never been fully examined. I am therefore requesting that you refer this matter to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman for independent review of HM Land Registry's handling of my case and its decision-making process. I can provide the full correspondence, Land Registry references, court materials, historical documents, and supporting evidence if required. I would be grateful if you could consider making a referral on my behalf. Yours sincerely, Sion Buckler [redacted]  P.S. Having carefully reviewed HM Land Registry's responses, I remain concerned by several matters that appear unresolved. The responses state that the registered proprietor evidenced a good documentary title, yet do not identify the precise chain of title relied upon, the key documents considered, or how that documentary title was assessed against the long-standing ownership claim advanced by my grandmother, Mary Williams. The responses rely upon references to court findings, but do not clearly identify whether any court ever finally adjudicated the merits of my grandmother's ownership claim. My understanding is that earlier proceedings may have encountered procedural difficulties and may not have resulted in a substantive determination of title. HM Land Registry states that it will not "look behind" court decisions. However, this leaves unanswered the question of whether certain historical ownership issues were ever examined by a court in the first place. The responses also do not explain what consideration, if any, was given to my grandmother's repeated assertions of ownership, the documents she believed supported that ownership, or the circumstances under which those documents became unavailable. Similarly, concerns raised regarding the manner in which my grandmother was identified in historical dealings were treated as irrelevant to registration, but the underlying factual issues were not addressed. What I am seeking are clear answers to the following questions: • What specific documentary chain of title was relied upon for first registration? • Was there ever a final judicial determination of the Williams ownership claim on its merits, and if so, what was the case, court, and order? • What records are held by public authorities relating to documents relied upon by Mary Williams when asserting ownership? • Have the historical ownership issues raised by my family ever been independently investigated, or have they been treated as settled by reference to later proceedings concerning different legal questions? These questions have remained unanswered despite many years of enquiries and are central to understanding whether my family's concerns have ever been fully examined. UK Parliament Disclaimer: this e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This e-mail address is not secure, is not encrypted and should not be used for sensitive data.