HM Land Registry — Email Correspondence Catalogue (Part 4)

From: Sion Buckler
To: enquiries@icrev.org.uk
Date: 26 September 2026, 19:09 UTC
Subject: Great House Farm, Llandough
Attachments: 1067.jpg, 1155.jpg, 3844.jpg, 3850.jpg, 3846.jpg, 3842.jpg, 2353.mp4, 2823.jpg, 2815.png

Dear Sirs,

I am seeking an independent review of HM Land Registry's handling of my complaint concerning the historic registration of land belonging to the Williams/Buckler family at Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough, Cardiff, and the subsequent registered title history, including WA231076, WA240304 and the later woodland title WA735527.

HM Land Registry has now replied to my MP and has maintained, in essence, that it does not accept that a mistake was made.

My concern is not simply that HM Land Registry reached a conclusion with which I disagree. It is that the conclusion appears to leave fundamental documentary questions unanswered and relies heavily upon historical proceedings which did not determine the underlying documentary root of the family's ownership claim.

I have spent approximately twenty years researching this matter and have assembled a substantial body of documentary, archival, court, Land Registry and family evidence. I am not asking ICR to determine ownership itself. I am asking it to review whether HM Land Registry properly investigated and answered the complaint put before it, whether it addressed the evidence I supplied, and whether the reasons given for its conclusion adequately explain how the disputed registration was accepted and subsequently maintained.
1. The underlying family ownership claim

The family's position is that our historic Parcel A was a distinct parcel of land around the farmhouse and woodland and that our underlying freehold interest was never lawfully extinguished.

My grandmother, Mary Williams, consistently asserted ownership of the family parcel. The documentary history presently available to me raises a substantial question as to whether Parcel A was ever conveyed to Western Ground Rents in the manner subsequently assumed.

There is an important distinction between:

- the family-occupied Parcel A surrounding the farmhouse; and
- the eastern agricultural Parcel B which was the subject of the later agricultural tenancy arrangements.

The 1939 revised agricultural tenancy documentation which I have located appears to concern Parcel B and its associated land. The accompanying plan does not appear to include the family-occupied Parcel A.

This raises a basic documentary question:

What instrument actually conveyed Parcel A to Western Ground Rents, if it was ever conveyed to them at all?

I have not yet obtained a document which satisfactorily answers that question.
2. The 1928 / 1938 / 1939 documentary sequence

The present reconstruction begins with the 1877 arrangements involving the Marquess of Bute and Daniel Thomas & Son and the subsequent quarrying arrangements.

My understanding from the evidence presently assembled is that the relevant quarrying arrangements were completed by 1928 and that the family thereafter continued in occupation of Parcel A as its own land.

The later 1938 conveyancing from the Bute estate to Western Ground Rents therefore requires close examination as to precisely what land was conveyed.

This is particularly important because the 1939 revised agricultural tenancy record naming Western Ground Rents as landlord appears, from its plan, to concern Parcel B rather than Parcel A.

That record was brought to my attention by the clerk for Llandough Town, who directed me to the archive material shortly before his retirement earlier this year.

If Parcel A was not conveyed to Western Ground Rents in 1938, and was not included in the 1939 agricultural tenancy, the subsequent legal narrative by which the family's occupation came to be treated as permissive requires considerably more examination than HM Land Registry's present response appears to have given it.
3. The successive attempts to characterise the family occupation as permissive

The historical evidence reveals a sequence of events which I believe needs to be examined as a whole rather than in isolation.

These include:

*1949* — an attempted tenancy arrangement concerning Parcel B which appears to have sought to include my grandmother in the tenancy and thereby connect her occupation of Parcel A with the agricultural tenancy of Parcel B;

*1951* — the disappearance of important family papers, including the family's title documentation, which my grandmother reported as stolen;

*1955* — possession proceedings in which the language concerning the “whole farm” requires comparison with the actual definition of the agricultural holding and its separate parcels. The order also expressly excluded the “house and garden” and referred to my grandmother's “condition and resistance”;

*1959* — an offer of a tenancy of the farmhouse and garden, which my grandmother rejected while continuing to assert an ownership claim;

*1962* — a possession order concerning the farmhouse and garden, the legal effect and subsequent enforcement history of which require examination;

*1965* — a further attempt to place “Mrs Williams” into a weekly tenancy, again rejected;

*1974* — an ownership action was adjourned; leave to enforce the 1962 possession order was obtained but the warrant was not pursued; and BP subsequently relied upon the two letters of 31 October 1974 as establishing a licence relationship.

The family interpretation is that these were not independent, isolated events but a succession of attempts to convert or present an allegedly proprietary occupation as permissive.

I appreciate that this is an interpretation requiring documentary testing. That is precisely why I believe HM Land Registry should have engaged with the underlying documents rather than treating the later registered position and the 1987 Court of Appeal judgment as effectively resolving the matter.
4. The 1987 judgment does not answer the documentary provenance question

A particularly important part of my complaint concerns the way HM Land Registry has relied upon *BP Properties Ltd v Buckler* [1987] EWCA Civ 2.

I do not dispute that this was an important Court of Appeal decision.

However, the case concerned the adverse-possession and possession issues concerning the farmhouse and garden. The Court considered the registered/paper-title position relied upon by BP, the previous possession proceedings and the legal effect of the 1974 letters upon the character of Mrs Buckler's occupation.

The judgment itself records that Mary Williams had asserted that she had a title to Great House Farm through her grandfather and believed that documents existed establishing that title, but that such documents were not produced.

The point is therefore not that the Court of Appeal “never touched title”. It plainly considered BP's registered/paper-title position.

The point is narrower and, in my view, fundamental:

The 1987 judgment is not itself the conveyance, plan, root deed or other documentary instrument establishing how the woodland and the family's historic Parcel A entered BP's registered title.

Nor did it adjudicate the validity of Forest of Cardiff's separate 1994 acquisition of the woodland.

I am concerned that HM Land Registry's present response treats the 1987 judgment as though it answers a documentary provenance question which it did not determine.
5. The 1969 conveyance and 1971 abstract

HM Land Registry has also told me that BP supplied a title chain extending back to 1969.

That raises another substantial documentary issue.

There were only thirteen years between the 1969 conveyance and BP's first registration in 1982.

The 1969 conveyance from Western Ground Rents to BP Pension Trust therefore requires examination as to exactly what proprietary interest was being conveyed.

I understand the later title documentation to recite the 1969 conveyance as a root document, while the 1971 abstract refers to the 1962 possession order and an OS plan.

If the underlying title to Parcel A was never conveyed to Western Ground Rents, the critical question is how an asserted interest arising from possession proceedings could subsequently be treated as though it were documentary title to the parcel itself.

The 1971 abstract is therefore particularly important.

HM Land Registry's own correspondence has recorded that such an abstract was lodged. The 30 July 2026 schedule of surviving first-registration documents does not identify the 31 December 1969 conveyance itself, nor does it resolve the evidential gap concerning the 1971 abstract.

I am continuing to pursue those underlying records.
6. The 1982–83 registrations

My principal concern is that BP may have registered not the family's actual historic Parcel A, supported by a lawful root title, but a later constructed or “synthetic” parcel derived from the succession of possession, tenancy and licence documents which had been used to characterise the family occupation as permissive.

I use “synthetic parcel” as a description of the issue I am investigating, not as a statement that this is already legally established.

The essential question is:

What precise land did BP apply to register in 1982–83, what documentary instrument entitled BP to register that land, and did that land correspond to the land actually conveyed to BP's predecessors?

The later amalgamation of the BP titles is also significant because what may have originated as separate parcels or interests appears subsequently to have been brought together within the registered estate.

It is necessary to establish whether that process merely recorded an existing lawful title or whether it caused an underlying proprietary boundary to disappear within a later registered estate.
7. HM Land Registry's response

HM Land Registry has now maintained that it was correct to register the land and has relied, in part, upon the 1987 judgment.

I respectfully submit that this does not answer the complaint.

An administrative conclusion that a registration was “correct” cannot itself reconstruct a missing conveyance, establish the precise boundary of land conveyed decades earlier, or demonstrate that a later registered proprietor had documentary title to a distinct parcel where the underlying conveyancing remains disputed.

Nor does the existence of the 1987 judgment establish the documentary provenance of WA735527 or the validity of the separate 1994 transfer to Forest of Cardiff.

I am particularly concerned that HM Land Registry appears to regard its reliance upon the 1987 judgment as effectively validating the 1982–83 registration, when the registration itself pre-dated the judgment.

The chronology matters.

The registration came first.

The litigation came afterwards.

I therefore cannot see how a later judgment concerning possession and adverse possession can, without further analysis, resolve whether the earlier registration accurately represented the documentary title existing at the date of registration.
8. Notification and my grandmother's death

Another issue which requires consideration is notification.

To my knowledge, the family was not notified that BP had applied to register the relevant land in 1982.

My grandmother died on 14 March 1983, shortly after the first registration and within the period in which the registration would have been capable of being challenged had she known of it.

She had spent decades rejecting attempts to characterise her occupation as permissive and consistently maintaining an ownership claim.

The fact that she died shortly after the registration is not itself proof of wrongdoing. It is, however, a material chronological fact when considering whether she had a meaningful opportunity to challenge the registration and whether HM Land Registry appropriately considered the notification history.

I ask the ICR to consider whether HM Land Registry has adequately addressed:

- what notice was given of the 1982 application;
- to whom it was given;
- what information was supplied to the persons potentially affected;
- whether any competing ownership claim was disclosed by the applicant;
- and what records exist showing how HM Land Registry assessed those matters.

9. Possible fraud, concealment and institutional involvement

Through my research I have also identified matters which I consider may warrant investigation for possible fraud, deliberate concealment, misrepresentation, mistake and institutional involvement.

I want to be precise about this.

I am not asking the ICR to find that fraud occurred.

I am asking the ICR to consider whether HM Land Registry adequately investigated evidence raising those questions, particularly where the evidence concerns missing historic documents, the distinction between Parcel A and Parcel B, the provenance of the 1969 title, the 1971 abstract, the 1982–83 registrations and the subsequent amalgamation of titles.

I have deliberately distinguished established documentary facts from matters which remain hypotheses requiring investigation.

There are also serious questions concerning the destruction or absence of historical records and the later treatment of the land. Those matters are being pursued through separate archival and documentary channels.
10. The human and public-interest dimension

This is not merely an abstract registration dispute.

My grandmother was a disabled widow and amputee who maintained an ownership claim to the family land through decades of litigation and repeated attempts to characterise her occupation as permissive.

The family was ultimately removed from the property in 1988. The historic farmhouse, which had been our family home and which we believe had significant architectural and historic importance, was subsequently demolished.

I was a child when we were removed.

Family possessions and historic material were lost or dispersed, while the land was subsequently developed and altered.

The family's connection with the site is recorded as extending back to the seventeenth century, and I was born at Great House Farm.

There are also wider heritage and archaeological questions concerning the site and its subsequent development, which I am investigating separately.

I mention these matters because they explain why I have continued the investigation for approximately twenty years and why the accuracy of the underlying land record matters so profoundly to my family.

My professional background is in military cyber and electronic warfare, and much of my research has involved reconstructing fragmented documentary histories and identifying discrepancies between records. I have approached this as an evidential investigation rather than simply as a family grievance.
11. Why I am approaching the ICR

I therefore ask the ICR to review HM Land Registry's handling of my complaint and, in particular, whether it:

1.

adequately investigated the distinction between historic Parcel A and Parcel B;
2.

adequately considered the 1938 conveyance and 1939 revised tenancy plan;
3.

adequately addressed the documentary provenance of the 1969 conveyance and the 1971 abstract;
4.

adequately examined the precise land comprised in the 1982–83 registration applications;
5.

relied upon the 1987 *BP v Buckler* judgment for a proposition which the judgment itself did not determine;
6.

adequately considered the chronology whereby the 1982–83 registration preceded the 1987 judgment;
7.

adequately investigated the notification given to persons asserting ownership of the land;
8.

adequately addressed the missing or unavailable historic documents and the evidential gaps I have identified;
9.

adequately considered the evidence I supplied rather than simply reaffirming the existing registered position; and
10.

provided reasons sufficient to explain why, notwithstanding those unresolved documentary questions, HM Land Registry considers that no mistake or registration error occurred.

I am not asking the ICR to adjudicate the family's ultimate title claim.

I am asking for an independent examination of whether HM Land Registry's investigation and reasoning were adequate, proportionate and properly responsive to the evidence and issues actually raised.
12. Documents and evidence

I can provide the relevant correspondence with HM Land Registry, the response to my MP, registration material, historical conveyancing, court records, archival plans, family evidence and other documents relied upon in my complaint.

I also maintain a detailed chronology of the matter, including:

1916 — agricultural tenancy;

1928 — completion of the relevant quarrying arrangements;

1938 — Bute / Western Ground Rents conveyancing;

1939 — revised agricultural tenancy and plan;

1949 — tenancy attempt;

1951 — missing/stolen title documentation issue;

1955 — possession proceedings;

1959 — farmhouse and garden tenancy offer;

1962 — possession order;

1965 — further tenancy attempt;

1969 — Western Ground Rents → BP Pension Trust conveyance;

1971 — abstract and plan material;

1974 — ownership proceedings, possession enforcement history and licence letters;

1975 — BP Pension Trust → BP Properties transfer;

1982 — first registration;

1983 — subsequent registration and title dealings;

1987 — *BP Properties Ltd v Buckler* Court of Appeal judgment;

1988 — final removal from the farmhouse and demolition; and

1994 — subsequent acquisition of the woodland by Forest of Cardiff.

The chronology is significant because it demonstrates why I do not consider the 1987 judgment, standing alone, capable of answering the earlier registration question.
13. What I am asking for

I respectfully ask the ICR to accept this as a request for independent review of HM Land Registry's handling of the complaint.

In particular, I ask that the reviewer consider whether HM Land Registry has actually answered the documentary questions raised, rather than merely reaffirming the registered position.

I would also ask that the underlying Land Registry records relevant to the 1982–83 registration, notification, supporting title documents, plans, the 1969 conveyance and the 1971 abstract be considered where they remain available.

I am not seeking a finding against individual Land Registry staff.

I am seeking an independent assessment of whether the institution's handling of this matter has been adequate and whether the reasons given for refusing to recognise a possible mistake are properly supported by the underlying record.

The issue remains live because the disputed land is now being dealt with through subsequent titles and, in the case of the woodland, is presently subject to a proposed disposal by Forest of Cardiff.

I therefore respectfully ask the ICR to consider this matter on the basis of the documentary chronology and evidence rather than treating the existence of the current register as dispositive of the historical question.

I am willing to provide a structured evidence bundle and chronology to assist the review.

Yours faithfully,

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

From: Sion Buckler
To: enquiries@icrev.org.uk; cc: stephen.doughty.mp@parliament.uk
Date: 27 September 2026, 04:17 UTC
Subject: Referral to the Independent Complaints Reviewer — HM Land Registry, titles WA231076 / WA240304 (Llandough)

Dear Independent Complaints Reviewer,

Complaint about HM Land Registry — titles WA231076 and WA240304 (closed), land north of Leckwith Road, Llandough (Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr). HMLR references: N610CGV, 260919-6726246.

I ask you to review how HM Land Registry handled my complaint. HMLR gave its final decision on 25 May 2026 that the title was "registered correctly". I understand you cannot review that registration decision itself. My complaint is about the way it was reached and handled:

1. The decision came before the file was examined. HMLR gave its final decision on 25 May 2026, but did not list what the first-registration files actually contain until 30 July 2026. A final complaint decision cannot properly rest on documents that had not yet been identified.

2. The decision relies on a document that does not appear on the file. HMLR's letter of 19 April 2026 described a 15-year root of title. The root relied on, a conveyance of 31 December 1969, was under 13 years old at first registration in 1982. Neither that conveyance nor the 1971 abstract said to prove it appears on the 30 July 2026 file list, and HMLR has not explained this.

3. HMLR has given three different dates for the closure of title WA240304:
1983 (file correspondence of 12 April 1983), 1987 (an amalgamation application of 2 February 1987, made while my family's appeal was pending) and 2005 (an email of 21 September 2026). It has not reconciled them.

4. The stage 1 response relied on a form FR1 certificate, although the applications were on forms 1E and 1C.

5. The file holds examination material (form D23 and a letter of 8 April
1983) and two 1994 applications "to correct the title". HMLR has not explained any of them.

6. My written questions, including through my MP Stephen Doughty, have been redirected to a property search service instead of being answered.

The outcome I seek is a numbered written answer to these points, confirmation that all first-registration, amalgamation and correction records for both titles are being preserved, and acknowledgement of any failure in how the complaint was handled.

I am separately taking advice on whether to apply to alter the register. I understand that is outside your remit.

Yours faithfully,

Sion Buckler (Ret'd Sergeant)
greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com

From: Independent Complaints Reviewer Office (enquiries@icrev.org.uk)
To: hywelapbuckler@gmail.com
Date: 28 September 2026, 11:43 UTC
Subject: Your complaint about HM Land Registry - referral to ICR Office

Dear Mr Buckler

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of:

1.) Your email of 26 September titled "Great House Farm, Llandough" with 9 attachments.

2.) Your email of 27 September titled "Great House Farm, Llandough" providing correction of a date quoted in your earlier correspondence.

3.) Your email of 27 September titled "Referral to the Independent Complaints Reviewer - HM Land Registry, titles WA231076 / WA240304 (Llandough)"

Thank you for setting out the details of the complaint you have about HM Land Registry (HMLR). Your correspondence and request for an independent review will be passed to an investigation officer here at the ICR Office. They will consider what you have said and discuss your complaint with the Independent Complaints Reviewer.

The investigation officer will contact you in the next ten working days.

Your referral has been allocated reference number ICR/090/26.

Yours sincerely

Vicky Applegate
Office Administrator
Independent Complaints Reviewers Office
10 South Colonnade
Canary Wharf
London
E14 4PU

enquiries@icrev.org.uk<mailto:enquiries@icrev.org.uk>
0300 013 2119

From: Sion Buckler
To: enquiries@icrev.org.uk
Date: 28 September 2026, 20:31 UTC
Subject: Re: Your complaint about HM Land Registry - referral to ICR Office
Attachments: Williams TreePlanting & Destruction of Evidence (1)_compressed (1).pdf, 3672.jpg, 3670.jpg

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/

From: Independent Complaints Reviewer Office (enquiries@icrev.org.uk)
To: hywelapbuckler@gmail.com
Date: 29 September 2026, 10:50 UTC
Subject: Your complaint about HM Land Registry - reference ICR/090/26

Dear Mr Buckler

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of the following further emails from you:

1.) Your email of 28 September, sent 21:31, titled “Re: Your complaint about HM Land Registry - referral to ICR Office” with three attachments.

You have asked that the four further points you make in this email be placed on file for consideration by the investigation officer alongside the information you have already provided about your complaint (ICR/090/26). I can confirm that this has been done.

2.) Your email of 28 September, sent 22:40, titled “Preservation notice — Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), Llandough — do not destroy records — Matter of public interest”

Yours sincerely

Vicky Applegate
Office Administrator
Independent Complaints Reviewers Office
10 South Colonnade
Canary Wharf
London
E14 4PU

enquiries@icrev.org.uk<mailto:enquiries@icrev.org.uk>
0300 013 2119

From: Independent Complaints Reviewer Office (enquiries@icrev.org.uk)
To: hywelapbuckler@gmail.com
Date: 9 October 2026, 08:49 UTC
Subject: RE: Your complaint about HM Land Registry - referral to ICR Office
Attachments: ICR09026-Blank letter R7-01102026.pdf

Dear Mr Buckler

Further to my colleague's email below, please find my letter of today's date attached.

Yours sincerely

Denyse St Rose
Office Manager and Investigations Officer
ICR Office

10 South Colonnade
Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU
[Title: phone - Description: phone-icon] 0300 013 2119
[Title: website - Description: website-icon] www.icrev.org.uk<http://www.icrev.org.uk/>

From: Sion Buckler
To: enquiries@icrev.org.uk
Date: 10 October 2026, 19:11 UTC
Subject: ICR/090/26 – further formal points on the first-registration file and 1987 amalgamation

Dear Independent Complaints Reviewer,

Reference ICR/090/26.

I hold the stage-one decision of 19 April 2026 and the stage-two decision of 25 May 2026. I also hold the schedule of 43 documents on the first-registration files released on 30 July 2026.

The family’s established case, recorded on the public wiki and under investigation, is that the 1877 arrangement took effect in 1928, transferring the full Parcel A (house and buildings, barn, stable and west-side yard, garden, northern forest and the south-east ground later registered as VG41) to the Williams family. The 1939 agreement/plan depicts Parcel B only. On the family account, the 1949 attempt to make the occupation of Parcel A permissive failed, title papers were reported missing in 1950–52, and Western Ground Rents’ 4 July 1955 enforcement of Parcel B also seized the Parcel-A forest and green under “whole farm” wording. Later documentary work is directed at corroborating or precisely mapping that account and tracing those areas into later titles.

Four specific points remain unanswered and are relevant to that investigation:

1. The 1969 root deed recited as the root of title does not appear on the schedule. Please confirm whether HMLR holds that deed under any other reference, or whether it was never lodged.
2. What evidence exists on the file of notice or opportunity to object given to the occupying family (Williams / Buckler) in 1982–83.
3. The precise legal and administrative basis for the 1987 title amalgamation that took place while the Court of Appeal proceedings in BP Properties Ltd v Buckler were still live.
4. Whether the inclusion of the woodland (or any land beyond the 1938 conveyance) is regarded as a possible mistake capable of alteration or indemnity under the Land Registration Act 2002 and Practice Guide 39.

Please confirm these points form part of the live investigation and state the exact start date of the ICR six-month period (so that the ~25 November 2026 outer limit can be verified).

Yours faithfully,

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

From: Independent Complaints Reviewer Office (enquiries@icrev.org.uk)
To: hywelapbuckler@gmail.com
Date: 12 October 2026, 10:09 UTC
Subject: RE: ICR/090/26 – further formal points on the first-registration file and 1987 amalgamation
Attachments: ICR09026-Blank letter R7-01102026.pdf

Dear Mr Buckler

Thank you for your email.

It appears that you have not received my letter dated 9 October 2026 which I sent on the same date. Therefore, please find that letter attached.

Yours sincerely

Denyse St Rose
Office Manager and Investigations Officer
ICR Office

10 South Colonnade
Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU
0300 013 2119 (Telephone number)
www.icrev.org.uk

From: Sion Buckler
To: Wales.Office@landregistry.gov.uk; cc: Coventry.Office@landregistry.gov.uk; bcc: enquiries@icrev.org.uk; stephen.doughty.mp@parliament.uk; customersupport@landregistry.gov.uk; findapropertysupport@landregistry.gov.uk; FOI@landregistry.gov.uk; hello@darwingray.com; sfon@darwingray.com; julianwilkesarb@gmail.com; trees@treescene.co.uk; SeneddDiwylliant@senedd.cymru; Correspondence.Heledd.Fychan@gov.wales; VDavidson@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk; lburnett@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk; leader@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk; clrm.misra@llandough-cc.co.uk; FOIRequests@nationalarchives.gov.uk; Glamro@cardiff.gov.uk; enquiry@library.wales; Barbara.Rees@heneb.org.uk; FOI.Requests@museumwales.ac.uk; dave.noble1959@gmail.com
Date: 27 September 2026, 04:12 UTC
Subject: Great House Farm, Llandough

Sirs/ Ma'ams,

I need to correct a date I have used in earlier correspondence about Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough, titles WA231076 and WA240304.

I had treated 1983 as the year the two titles were merged. That was wrong. HM Land Registry’s own letter of 23 March 2026 (Lisa Griffiths, ref N610CGV) separates the two acts.
1982–83 was first registration of two live titles, not a merger. 30 November 1982: application to first-register WA231076. The Court of Appeal later treated BP Properties Ltd as registered proprietors of “the farm” from November 1982.
23 February 1983: application to first-register a second title, WA240304. 26 March 1983: Mary Williams died. On the family’s case, notice of those applications did not reach us until after her death, while the family was in mourning. She had no window in which to object. The family was not in a position to use any window that arrived after that.
Those two titles remained separate through first instance.
24 July 1986: Hollis J. Both titles were still live. The judgment language treats Great House Farm as one holding. It had not been one holding on the register. On the family’s case it had not been one holding since the 1877 split: Parcel A (house, buildings, garden/yard and about 10 acres, the Thomas/Williams line) and Parcel B (the eastern fields retained by Bute and later WGR/BP).
2 February 1987: application to amalgamate the two titles. WA240304 was then closed and registration continued under WA231076. That is the merge. It was made after the 1986 ruling and before the Court of Appeal gave judgment on 31 July 1987.
So 1983 is silent first registration of a second title while Mary was still in Parcel A, or had only just died. 1987 is the administrative merger, carried out while the appeal was still open.
This was not a dispute about a single land parcel that BP already owned. Mary was on Parcel A, which the family says she owned, with occupation on that house parcel running in the family from at least 1667. BP, and WGR before it from 1949, were the neighbouring interest on Parcel B. From 1949 onwards the family’s case is that those neighbours ran a decades-long series of tenancy offers, “whole farm” wording, possession orders and the 1974 letters to make her occupation of her own parcel look permissive, and to make both parcels look like one estate they had acquired. They never produced a conveyance of Parcel A. What they had was an unfounded claim that her occupancy was permissive.
Please treat any earlier letter from me that said the titles merged in 1983 as corrected by this email. The dates that matter are:
1982/83 — first registration of two titles, without the occupier being heard;
24 July 1986 — first-instance judgment describing one farm while two titles still stood;
2 February 1987 — amalgamation, before the appeal ended;
31 July 1987 — Court of Appeal.
Yours faithfully,

Sion Buckler
Refs where relevant: N610CGV; 260919-6726246; titles WA231076 and WA240304. Sion Buckler (Ret'd Sergeant)
greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com

Note: Multi-authority notice of 27 September 2026, sent to HM Land Registry Wales Office, copied to Coventry Office, and blind-copied to all of the bodies listed in the To line (including the Independent Complaints Reviewer, three further HMLR mailboxes, the MP, the Senedd committee, the Vale of Glamorgan Council, The National Archives, Glamorgan Archives, the National Library, Heneb and Amgueddfa Cymru). Replies from other bodies are catalogued on their own pages.

From: HM Land Registry (FOI@landregistry.gov.uk)
To: hywelapbuckler@gmail.com
Date: 27 September 2026, 04:12 UTC
Subject: Automatic reply: Great House Farm, Llandough

Thank you for contacting HM Land Registry. This is an automated response to confirm that we have received your correspondence. We aim to formally provide an acknowledgement within three working days. If you have any special requirements that mean you would like us to communicate with you in a specific way, please let us know and we will make adjustments if we can.

If you are contacting us in respect of any matters relating to property registration or have a general customer enquiry – Our team are unable to respond to any general registration enquiries or provide updates on any property applications. Please redirect your customer enquiry to our Customer Support colleagues, using any of the methods below:

* Online contact form: HM Land Registry Contact Us form<https://customerhelp.landregistry.gov.uk/guide-page-external/?stepid=2b31bc48-eb96-eb11-b1ac-002248413956>
* Website - www.gov.uk/guidance/contact-hm-land-registry<http://www.gov.uk/guidance/contact-hm-land-registry>
* Telephone
* English language 0300 006 0411
* Welsh language 0300 006 0422

Telephone lines are open between 08:00 and 17:00 Monday to Thursday. This does not include Bank Holidays.

* Post

HM Land Registry Citizen Centre
PO Box 74
Gloucester
GL14 9BB

There is no direct contact e-mail address for Customer Support. Please use the online contact form and any responses will be issued via e-mail.

If you have made a request under the Freedom of Information Act or Environmental Information Regulations – the statutory timescale for response is 20 working days following receipt of your request.

If you have made a request in relation to your data rights, for example, a subject access request for personal data – the statutory timescale for response is one calendar month following receipt of your request.

Please note that where personal data is held on our register, it is exempt from the right of subject access under UK GDPR.

Where any personal data is held on record for a registered title, the exemption provided at Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph 5(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018 would be engaged.

This states:

“5(1) The listed GDPR provisions do not apply to personal data consisting of information that the controller is obliged by an enactment to make available to the public, to the extent that the application of those provisions would prevent the controller from complying with that obligation.”

Please see the section below titled 'Register information and your data protection rights' for further explanation.

If you have only copied your correspondence to us - we will not respond.

Yours sincerely

Information Rights Team
HM Land Registry

Accessing information held by HMLR on our register of title

To assist you in accessing information held by HMLR, please be aware most of the information held within our registers is open to public inspection and accessible via statutory routes of access. This means that we may be unable to provide access to this information via a Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) request.

Statutory Routes of Access to information held on Public Registers

The Land Registration Act 2002 is the principal legislation governing land registration in England and Wales. It sets out provisions for keeping a register of title to land and property, and in accordance with Section 66 & 67 of the Land Registration Act, it is a requirement that the Chief Land Registrar makes this information (including any documents held on the register of title) available for public inspection.

How to access information held on our Registers

The information you have requested is available to access under our statutory protocol under section 66 & 67 of the Land Registration Act 2002.

Search for Land and Property

Please visit our website for further information about our registers:

www.gov.uk/get-information-about-property-and-land<http://www.gov.uk/get-information-about-property-and-land>

Official Copies

For information about how to apply for official copies of documents held in relation to registered titles, and information about the types of documents available, please refer to practice guide 11:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/inspection-and-application-for-official-copies/practice-guide-11-inspection-and-application-for-official-copies<http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inspection-and-application-for-official-copies/practice-guide-11-inspection-and-application-for-official-copies>

Index of proprietors’ names

Under rule 11 of the Land Registration Rules 2003 the registrar is required to keep an index of proprietors’ names which shows for each individual register the proprietor of the registered estate and the proprietor of any registered charge together with the title number. When you search the index of proprietors’ names, you will receive a list of titles that are owned by, or mortgaged to, the name that you have searched against.

For further information about this please refer to practice guide 74:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/searches-of-the-index-of-proprietors-names/practice-guide-74-searches-of-the-index-of-proprietors-names<http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/searches-of-the-index-of-proprietors-names/practice-guide-74-searches-of-the-index-of-proprietors-names>

Section 21 FOIA exemption: Information accessible to the applicant by other means

Where information held on the register of title is available for inspection through these statutory routes of access it is exempt from disclosure under section 21(2)(b) of FOIA.

Section 21 states:

“21 Information accessible to applicant by other means.

(1) Information which is reasonably accessible to the applicant otherwise than under section 1 is exempt information.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)—

(a) information may be reasonably accessible to the applicant even though it is accessible only on payment, and

(b) information is to be taken to be reasonably accessible to the applicant if it is information which the public authority or any other person is obliged by or under any enactment to communicate (otherwise than by making the information available for inspection) to members of the public on request, whether free of charge or on payment.”

Therefore, we are unable to provide information held on our register through FOIA, as it covered by this exemption.

Advice and assistance

Under Section 16 of FOIA and in accordance with the Section 45 FOIA code of practice, we have a duty to provide you with reasonable advice and assistance.

Please note that the ICO has previously reviewed HM Land Registry’s use of the section 21 exemption. Relevant decision notices can be accessed here<https://icosearch.ico.org.uk/s/search.html?collection=ico-meta&profile=decisions&query&query=&f.By+authority%7CpublicAuthority=HM%20Land%20Registry&f.By+section%7CsectionOfLegislation=FOI%2021> including IC-173302-N4J1<https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2022/4022883/ic-173302-n4j1.pdf>, FS50685812<https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2017/2172810/fs50685812.pdf> and FER0454056<https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2012/780474/fer_0454056.pdf>.

The ICO has agreed that this position is long established, and the Commissioner is satisfied that section 21 would be engaged for this type of request.

For assistance on how to obtain official copies of documents you can contact our Customer Support Centre by telephone between 8am and 5pm, Monday to Thursday on 0300 006 0411 or online through our Contact Us<https://customerhelp.landregistry.gov.uk/guide-page-external/?stepid=2b31bc48-eb96-eb11-b1ac-002248413956> form.

Our Customer Support colleagues are trained to handle queries which relate to information that is held on the register of title.

Information about how to apply to inspect or obtain official copies is contained with practice guide 11:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/inspection-and-application-for-official-copies/practice-guide-11-inspection-and-application-for-official-copies<http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inspection-and-application-for-official-copies/practice-guide-11-inspection-and-application-for-official-copies>

If you need any support completing the application form for official copies or to determine which documents to order, you may contact our Customer Support colleagues:

www.gov.uk/guidance/contact-hm-land-registry<http://www.gov.uk/guidance/contact-hm-land-registry>

You may also refer to our Publication Scheme which includes information about how to access information that is held on the register of title under the heading ‘Request information’:

www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/publication-scheme#request-information<http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/publication-scheme#request-information>

Please refer to HMLR’s Transaction Data webpage which contains information in respect of commonly used abbreviations:

www.gov.uk/guidance/hm-land-registry-transaction-data#abbreviations-used-in-transaction-data<http://www.gov.uk/guidance/hm-land-registry-transaction-data#abbreviations-used-in-transaction-data>

If you need any independent advice about individual’s rights under information legislation you can contact the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.

The contact details for the ICO are detailed below. There is useful information on the ICO website which explains the rights of individuals:

www.ico.org.uk/for-the-public<http://www.ico.org.uk/for-the-public>

Please refer to the top tips:

www.ico.org.uk/for-the-public/official-information<http://www.ico.org.uk/for-the-public/official-information/>

Register information and your data protection rights

Data protection law permits HM Land Registry to use personal data for our official purposes.

The lawful basis for HM Land Registry processing personal data under the United Kingdom (UK) General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) is that it is necessary to enable us to perform our public task of the registration of land and property (Article 6(1)(e) of UK GDPR). This is defined in the Land Registration Act 2002.

Paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 Part 1 of the Data Protection Act 2018 provides the following exemption from the specified UK GDPR provisions:

“The listed UK GDPR provisions do not apply to personal data consisting of information that the controller is obliged by an enactment to make available to the public, to the extent that the application of those provisions would prevent the controller from complying with that obligation.”

The Land Registration Act 2002 is the principal legislation governing land registration in England and Wales. It sets out provisions for the keeping of a register of title to land and requirements for its administration by HM Land Registry under a Chief Land Registrar.

The Chief Land Registrar is required by the Land Registration Act 2002 and to make register information (including any documents held on the register of title) available to the public, therefore the following data protection provisions do not apply:

* the requirement to provide ‘privacy notices’ to individuals
* the requirement to provide personal data in response to subject access requests
* the requirement to rectification
* the requirement to comply with requests to erasure (right to be ‘forgotten’)
* most of the principles of UK GDPR

Please visit our website for further information about our registers:

www.gov.uk/get-information-about-property-and-land<https://www.gov.uk/get-information-about-property-and-land>

For further information in relation to your rights and how HMLR processes personal data please refer to our Personal Information Charter:

www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/personal-information-charter<http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/personal-information-charter>

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.

From: HM Land Registry (donotreply-dynamics@landregistry.gov.uk)
To: hywelapbuckler@gmail.com
Date: 27 September 2026, 04:13 UTC
Subject: Enquiry:  260927-6756312

Enquiry Reference: 260927-6756312

Dear Customer

Please do not reply to this email. This mailbox is not monitored.

Thank you for contacting HM Land Registry. Your reference number is 260927-6756312 .

We usually reply to online enquiries within five working days but depending on the nature of your enquiry this could take up to 20 days. Please bear with us and we will respond as quickly as we can.

We will respond to Data Protection Act requests within one month and Freedom of Information Act requests within twenty working days.

In the meantime, you may find an answer to your enquiry at www.gov.uk/land-registry<https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/>.

If you have used one of our email addresses we suggest using our Contact Form for any future correspondence to help us route your enquiry in the most efficient way.

The security and confidentiality of all personal data is maintained in accordance with our Personal Information Charter<https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/personal-information-charter>.

Read more about our service standards<https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about-our-services#complaints>.

Peidiwch ag ateb yr ebost hwn. Nid yw’r blwch negeseuon ebost hwn yn cael ei fonitro.

Diolch am gysylltu â Chofrestrfa Tir EF. Eich rhif cyfeirnod yw 260927-6756312 .

Fel rheol, rydym yn ymateb i ymholiadau ar-lein o fewn pum niwrnod gwaith ond yn dibynnu ar natur eich ymholiad, gall gymryd hyd at 20 niwrnod. Gofynnwn ichi fod yn amyneddgar gyda ni – byddwn yn ymateb cyn gynted ag y gallwn.

Byddwn yn ymateb i geisiadau’r Ddeddf Diogelu Data o fewn mis a cheisiadau’r Ddeddf Rhyddid Gwybodaeth o fewn ugain niwrnod gwaith.

Yn y cyfamser, efallai cewch ateb i’ch ymholiad yn www.gov.uk/land-registry.cy<http://www.gov.uk/land-registry.cy>

Os ydych wedi defnyddio un o’n cyfeiriadau ebost, awgrymwn eich bod yn defnyddio’n Ffurflen Gysylltu ar gyfer unrhyw ohebiaeth yn y dyfodol i’n helpu i gyfeirio’ch ymholiad yn y ffordd fwyaf effeithlon.

Cedwir diogelwch a chyfrinachedd yr holl ddata personol yn unol â’n Siarter Gwybodaeth Bersonol<https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/personal-information-charter.cy>.

Darllenwch ragor am ein safonau gwasanaeth<https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about-our-services.cy> .

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.

From: HM Land Registry (NoticeResponse@landregistry.gov.uk)
To: hywelapbuckler@gmail.com
Date: 29 September 2026, 09:47 UTC
Subject: RE: Great House Farm, Llandough

Dear Customer,

This email address is not the correct method of contact for general enquiries. Therefore, no action will be taken with this enquiry.

Our Contact HM Land Registry page<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/contact-hm-land-registry> has comprehensive help pages for most enquiries.

Please resubmit your enquiry via our online contact form.

From: HM Land Registry (donotreply-dynamics@landregistry.gov.uk)
To: hywelapbuckler@gmail.com
Date: 29 September 2026, 13:04 UTC
Subject: Further to Your Enquiry: Enquiry Ref: 260929-6766714

Enquiry Reference: 260929-6766714

Dear Customer

Please do not reply to this email. This mailbox is not monitored.

Thank you for contacting HM Land Registry.

We usually reply to online enquiries within five working days but depending on the nature of your enquiry this could take up to 20 days. Please bear with us and we will respond as quickly as we can.

We will respond to Data Protection Act requests within one month and Freedom of Information Act requests within twenty working days.

In the meantime, you may find an answer to your enquiry at www.gov.uk/land-registry<https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/>.

If you have used one of our email addresses we suggest using our Contact Form for any future correspondence to help us route your enquiry in the most efficient way.

The security and confidentiality of all personal data is maintained in accordance with our Personal Information Charter<https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/personal-information-charter>.

Read more about our service standards<https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about-our-services#complaints>.

Peidiwch ag ateb yr ebost hwn. Nid yw’r blwch negeseuon ebost hwn yn cael ei fonitro.

Diolch am gysylltu â Chofrestrfa Tir EF.

Fel rheol, rydym yn ymateb i ymholiadau ar-lein o fewn pum niwrnod gwaith ond yn dibynnu ar natur eich ymholiad, gall gymryd hyd at 20 niwrnod. Gofynnwn ichi fod yn amyneddgar gyda ni – byddwn yn ymateb cyn gynted ag y gallwn.

Byddwn yn ymateb i geisiadau’r Ddeddf Diogelu Data o fewn mis a cheisiadau’r Ddeddf Rhyddid Gwybodaeth o fewn ugain niwrnod gwaith.

Yn y cyfamser, efallai cewch ateb i’ch ymholiad yn www.gov.uk/land-registry.cy<http://www.gov.uk/land-registry.cy>

Os ydych wedi defnyddio un o’n cyfeiriadau ebost, awgrymwn eich bod yn defnyddio’n Ffurflen Gysylltu ar gyfer unrhyw ohebiaeth yn y dyfodol i’n helpu i gyfeirio’ch ymholiad yn y ffordd fwyaf effeithlon.

Cedwir diogelwch a chyfrinachedd yr holl ddata personol yn unol â’n Siarter Gwybodaeth Bersonol<https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about/personal-information-charter.cy>.

Darllenwch ragor am ein safonau gwasanaeth<https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry/about-our-services.cy>.

Yours sincerely
HMLR Customer Support

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.

From: Sion Buckler
To: NoticeResponse@landregistry.gov.uk
Date: 29 September 2026, 13:05 UTC
Subject: Re: Great House Farm, Llandough

Reference number 260929-6766714

Thanks,

Sion Buckler (Ret'd Sergeant)

From: HM Land Registry (NoticeResponse@landregistry.gov.uk)
To: hywelapbuckler@gmail.com
Date: 29 September 2026, 13:05 UTC
Subject: Automatic reply: Great House Farm, Llandough

Thank you for your recent communication.　

Your email and any attachments have been passed to an HM Land Registry caseworker for consideration.

If you would like to discuss this correspondence or require it in an alternate format, please contact us at NoticeResponse@landregistry.gov.uk

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.