Legal Obligations of Proprietor of Land

Dear Sir or Madam,

Will you confirm or deny there is no legal obligation on the
proprietor of land to provide correct information on their
ownership of it.

Yours faithfully,

fred robinson

Dear Robertson, Andrew,

I trust that you are confirming that forged maps used to transfer
land, or undisclosed insurance claims regarding the land that were
in train at the time land was sold by the owner, would be of no
concern to the Registry nor would such things effect the legality
of the Registration of the land concerned by the Registry who, did
not register the land within the two month period from transfer,
and when it did, did so with a different forged map than that
provided and certified by buyers solicitors.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Robertson, Andrew,

You have already confirmed that there is in place mechanisms to
detect dishonest information provided to the Registry.

For the absence of doubt, are you now saying there is no
requirement for the Registry to verify the veracity of information
and documentation the seller of land provides to the Registry.

It is clear that the Registry has forging title maps for titles
that seem not to even exist except on the clumsily forged maps and
documents the Registry has provided to me that any schoolboy could
see through, otherwise why wont the registry or Landsearch provide
me with further copies of them when I have contracted for and paid
some £60 to obtain them.

I have been seeking information from the Registry since October
2000 about title MS351606 and the Registries Head Registrar,
officers and lawyers from Telford, Swansea and Birkenhead have been
drip feeding me misinformation regarding title MS351603 ever since.

Those are the "precise circumstances" I have in mind, and those are
the "precise circumstances" the Registry is attempting to conceal.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Robertson, Andrew,

You answer goes no way to explaining how a forged transfer map can
elude the process you refer to or,

how information from a forged transfer map, which should have been
detected by the Registry on registration of the land by reference
to its own mapping, is used in an altered form by the Registry and
incorporated into the Registered title of the land.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Robertson Andrew

With regard to the below I request an internal review:

Title MS351603 was registered on August 31st 1994 at the Land
Registry in Birkenhead using OS SJ 3396 dated 1975 and is composed
of five parcels of land taken from land referred to below as parcel
A, B, C, D, E, F and G:

Parcel A

On April 11th 1950, Crosby Council’s Town Planning Sub-Committee
considered a proposal for redevelopment in the Borough.

On January 18th 1956, the Housing Minister wrote to Crosby Council
proposing to approve the Council’s clearance area scheme under Part
III of the Housing Act 1936.

On January 19th 1960, with regard to a letter from Lancashire
County Council referring to the Counties development Plan dated
July 1956. Crosby Borough’s Engineer reported he would bring
forward to the County, any detailed approvals and references and
maps found necessary.

On February 15th 1961, Crosby Council recommended declaring a
clearance area under s.42 of the Housing Act 1957. This
recommendation was subsequently seconded under resolution 1790 and
107 houses then fell under this order.

On August 2nd 1962 the above order was modified with the Minister
of Housing

The application for registration of land under a clearance order
was made on August 10th 1964 and was registered in November 1964
under Title LA51977 using OS SJ 3396 dated 1960.

Between November 1964 and May 1976 nine parcels of land were
purchased on the land shown on OS SJ 3396 dated 1960 and registered
under Title LA45086. This land was subsequently used, when they
inherited this land in 1974, by Sefton MBC to build four blocks of
maisonettes and a tower block of flats.

Sefton MBC’s ownership of the land from 1977 is confirmed by the
fact that delay to Sefton’s builders of the maisonette blocks had
occurred for fifteen months over possession of the land, a delay
for which the builders successfully claimed for, and were paid an
out of court settlement of £5,362 by Sefton MBC in January 1968.

Parcel B

On May 12th 1976, the nine parcels of land registered under Title
LA45086 – that were now recorded on a Land Registry office copy of
OS SJ3396 dated 1969 with the maisonete blocks and tower block of
flats in situ - were removed from that title. The Land Registry on
an office copy edition dated April 14th 1998, record this land to
have been registered to Sefton MBC at the Town Hall, Oriel Road
Bootle under the Title Number MS351603.

Title MS351603 is recorded on the April 14th 1998 office copy to
have been removed from Title LA45086 on September 9th 1998.

Parcel C

On March 7th 1962, Crosby Council made another parcel of land -
recorded on OS SJ 3398 and situated some 40 metres from the land
recorded in 1977 as Title MS351603 - a clearance area. 150 houses
fell under this order.

By mid 1966 demolition was well under way on parcel C and planning
permission was sought to develop the land.

By September 1966 a contract had been negotiated to build three
maisonete blocks on the land in parcel C with the same contractor
who built the four maisonette blocks on parcel B. Subsequently a
tower block of flats was added to parcel C and, an access road to
parcel C from the land in parcel B that had been put up for
registration on August 10th 1964 had been proposed.

Parcel D

The access road mentioned above is recorded on OS SJ 3396 1969. On
September 30th 1967 a small area of private land was bought by
Crosby Council to complete the road in parcel D.

Parcel E

Sometime between September 30th 1967 and May 12th 1976, three
parcels of land were purchased on the land shown on OS SJ 3396
dated 1966 and registered under Title LA45343. This land was
subsequently used by Sefton MBC to build three blocks of
maisonettes and a tower block of flats.

A Land Registry office copy edition dated February 9th 2005 records
that the land under Title LA45343 was registered to Sefton MBC on
May 12th 1976 using OS SJ 3396 dated 1966 and records this land to
have been registered to Sefton MBC at the Town Hall, Lord Street
Southport with a small area of land annexed to it referenced
MS351603.

The above is parcel E.

OS SJ 3396 dated 1966 does not record the three maisonettes block
and a tower block of flats in situ on the land, as, in 1966 they
had not been built. The land recorded as Title MS351603 is thus
land mapped in 1966 and does not, at that time the contain three
maisonette blocks.

Parcel F

On December 24th 1993, Sefton Council transferred land, comprising
3.4 acres of land from titles LA45086 and LA45343, to Maritime
Housing Association. The OS map sent to the inland revenue for
stamping prior to the transfer being submitted to the Land Registry
by Maritime’s solicitors, depicts parcels B, C, D and E as the land
being sold and consisting of three parcels referenced B, C and E
being united by parcel D.

Parcel G

Title MS351603 was registered on August 31st 1994, based on OS SJ
3396 dated 1975 and is recorded on a Land Registry office copy
dated November 11th 2004 as the land depicted on the transfer map
which had been removed from Title LA45086 and LA45343 under Title
MS351603 in 1977 and united by Parcel D and, registered to Maritime
Housing Association on January 21st 1994.

On May 1st 2002, the Council’s CEO wrote to me confirming that on
December 24th 1993 Sefton had transferred their land to Maritime
Housing Association, however, officer’s of the Council have written
to me stating that last day Sefton was responsible for the land was
March 31st 1994 and that it was handed over to Maritime on April
1st 1994, Maritime have written to me stating that the land was not
transferred to then until “mid 1995” and then change their position
and say it was theirs from December 24th 1993.

On September 17th 2002, the Land Registry wrote the following to me
regarding Title MS351603 and, seemingly contradicting the Terrier
Map:

“I have inspected our files…Maritime Housing Association Limited
became proprietors of the above title…registered with the Land
Registry on 21 January 1994. Maritime Housing Association Limited
have been, and remain, registered proprietors since that date.
Regarding the legal obligation of the proprietors to provide
correct information on their ownership. I regret that is beyond the
remit of the Land Registry to comment on such matters. You may wish
to seek legal advice.”

From the above it appears that nobody has a legal obligation to say
who owns land registered by the Land Registry to them when they
sell it, or have good title in the land to sell it in the first
place if they have beeen sold a dud.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Robertson, Andrew,

I REFER YOU TO THE APHORISM:

“IF YOU WISH TO FIND THE CRIMINALS, DON’T FOLLOW THE CRIMINALS,
FOLLOW THE MONEY.”

FOR THE MONEY READ THE LAND

In 1962: Crosby Council, initiated a compulsory purchase order to
buy a plot of land to the south of Lime Grove consisting of Maple
Grove, Willow Grove, Bangor Street and Beaumaris Street which is
shown on OS SJ3396.

This land was subsequently filed under title LA45343 at the Land
Registry.

In December 1964: Land to the north of Lime Grove, bought under a
compulsory purchase order by Crosby Council, was registered under
title LA45086 at the Land Registry using OS SJ3396 dated 1955.

By 1968: Numerous streets to the north of 19 Lime Grove, including
21 Lime Grove, had been demolished, the land cleared, and
maisonettes built on it. This land became known as the Kepler
Street Estate.

One of the maisonette blocks, 21 to 39 Lime Grove, was built some 5
metres from the gable wall of 19 Lime Grove.

The level of the land adjacent to 19 Lime Grove was consequently
lowered by Crosby Council’s contractors to accommodate the building
of these maisonettes, and the support that this land had previously
given to 19 Lime Groves gable wall was removed and, in so doing,
exposed the shallow footing of part of 19 Lime Grove’s gable wall.

Crosby Council’s building contractors, Mathew and Mumby,
subsequently replaced the former support with two Party Boundary
Structures in the forms of what are known as, the ‘screen wall' and
the 'old footings' some 700mm square which were constructed
abutting the gable wall of 19 Lime Grove around 1968.

The first and most significant of these structures being the ‘old
footings.’ The term 'old footings' a misnomer as they 'footed'
nothing and were in fact a ‘buttress.’ They remain in place today
and, with the land they stand on, are, and have been since 1994,
the property of Maritime Housing Association.

The second was a wall built abutting the gable wall of 19 Lime
Grove around its centre, and extending to abut the gable wall of
the maisonette block, 21 to 39 Lime Grove near its front elevation.

The location of this wall is of some significance as it was
constructed at the point where the footings of the gable wall
descend into a cellar and thus obviate the need for support beyond
that point.

Clearly those structures belonged to Crosby Council.

This is borne out by the fact that the brick cladding of the gable
wall of the maisonettes was, the same brick as used to construct
the screen wall, and obviously, both structures stood on Crosby
Council’s land.

The structure the ‘screen wall’ was first shown on OS SJ3396 in
October 1969, and by October 1989, (according to a ruling in the
House of Lords) 19 Lime Grove had obtained a legal right to the
support it gave.

Beyond the rear of the screen wall where, the footings were exposed
by the excavation of the land, is where the old footings abutted
it, and from there commenced, it is abundantly clear that no other
purpose can be attributed to this constructions other than to give
support to the gable wall of 19 Lime Grove and, that purpose, in
the absence of any other, would be obvious to an engineer,
architect, surveyor or any competent builder.

This contention is borne out by the fact that the old footings
extend beyond the gable wall and continue to give support not only
to the gable wall but also to the boundary wall which, extends some
four metres from the gable wall.

The ‘old footings’ are still in situ but, have never been recorded
on an OS map. They could not be removed at any time after 1984
without causing structural damage to my property.

In 1973: A new version of OS SJ3396 was drawn which did not
included the Star of the Sea Junior School, built in 1974, but did
included the maisonettes 21 to 39 Lime Grove with the boundary
structure, the 'screen wall' still shown running at right angles
between the respective gable walls of 19, and 21 to 39 Lime Grove.

In 1978: A new version of OS SJ3396 was drawn which included the
Star of the Sea Junior School, the maisonettes 21 to 39 Lime Grove
with the boundary structure, the 'screen wall' still shown running
at right angles between the respective gable walls of 19, and 21 to
39 Lime Grove.

In March 1977: The land, known as the Kepler Street Estate, filed
at the Land Registry in 1964 under the title number LA45343 using
the 1969 OS SJ3396 map: had removed from it a parcel of land
re-registered under title MS351603 which included the maisonettes
21 to 39 Lime Grove with the boundary structure, the 'screen wall'
still shown running at right angles between the respective gable
walls of 19, and 21 to 39 Lime Grove.

In April 1977 The land filed at the Land Registry under title
number LA45343 using OS SJ3396 dated 1966: had removed from it two
parcels of land that were also re-registered under title MS351603.
The 1966 OS SJ3396 did not include the maisonettes 21 to 39 Lime
Grove with the boundary structure, the 'screen wall' shown running
at right angles between the respective gable walls of 19, and 21 to
39 Lime Grove, because in 1966 they had not been built.

In 1984/5 Sefton Council revamped the maisonettes including 21 to
39 Lime Grove and reduced the screen wall from some 5 metres long
to a 'nib wall' some 1.5 metres long and built a pier on its end.

Clearly Sefton Council also attached some significance to the
screen wall’s role of support to my gable wall, and just as
clearly, their actions prove that they owned it by virtue of them
reducing and strengthening it, something Maritime Housing
Association seemed unaware of, because when they wrote to me on
October 5th 1999 - in response to a photograph of the nib wall in
situ, taken by Sefton Council (their appointed agents) on March
14th 1994 during a survey which, in June 2000, Maritime did know
about and, which they also (then, if not before) knew was prior to
the demolition of the maisonette block 21 to 39 Lime Grove - they
stated:

“Sefton as our agent, are responsible for controlling building
operations on our behalf, but as I have already said, demolition
was still taking place up to September 1994, which had nothing to
do with Maritime…looking at the photograph you have sent me I
notice what appears to be either a newly built brick pier attached
to your wall, or an old pier that has been repointed…I would
question who constructed, or repointed, the brick pier. ”

In 1989: A new version of OS SJ3396 was drawn showing no screen
wall between 19 and 21 to 39 Lime Grove.

On August 13th 1993: Planning Permission for:

“Erection of single story and 2 storey dwellings after demolition
of the existing maisonettes.”

Was granted to Maritime Housing Association.

On September 25th 1992: The three titles, taken from Titles LA54086
and LA45343, and filed under MS351603, were Registered separately
to Sefton MBC at Bootle Town Hall, and Southport Town Hall.

On October 28th 1993: Sefton Council’s Housing Standing Sub
Committee resolved, that:

“Demolition of maisonette blocks at Kepler Street prior to
development by Maritime Housing Association. (1) That the
appropriate officer be authorised to implement the demolition works
by acceptance of the tender of GTB Demolition company…in the sum of
£95,693 subject to the land being acquired by Maritime Housing
Association by December 31st 1993. That subject to (1) above the
Borough Property Services Officer be authorised to issue a letter
of intent in advance of formal contract documentation.”

On December 16th 1992: Sefton Council’s Housing Standing Sub
Committee considered the report of the Borough Property Services
Officer recommending the transfer of land for two new build sites
to Maritime Housing Association.

On December 13th 1993: A new version of OS SJ3396 was drawn showing
no screen wall between 19 and 21 to 39 Lime Grove.

On December 24th 1993 Sefton Council and Maritime Housing
Association, after taxation, signed and sealed the transfer
documents for the sale of 3.5 acres of land under titles 1. (a)
LA45086 and (b) LA45343.

This land consisted of the three plots filed in March and April
1977 with the Land Registry under the title numbers LA45086 and
LA45343 re-referenced to Sefton on September 25th 1992 which, the
transfer document shows were to be given a new title number with
another two parcels of land, i.e.:

(c) the land comprised in an agreement dated 7 August 1967 made
between Liverpool Roman Catholic Archdiocese & Trustees
Incorporating (1) and the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the
Borough of Crosby.

(d) the land comprised in a Statutory Declaration dated December
16th 1993 made by Michael Scott.

There were on December 24th 1993, to my knowledge, five distinct OS
SJ3396, maps of the Kepler Street estate available, they were:

The first dated October 1969 – showing the screen wall

The Second dated 1973 - showing the screen wall

The third dated 1978 – showing the screen wall

The fourth dated 1989 – showing no screen wall

The fifth dated December 13th 1993 – showing no screen wall

Bound with the transfer documents was a ‘cut and pasted’ version of
OS map SJ3396 comprising of: an ‘outer section’ being OS SJ3396
dated 1978 showing the Star of the Sea School and,

an ‘inner section’ depicting the land filed under titles MS351603,
united by a section of public highway named Maple Close.

The screen wall, despite being on both of the versions of OS SJ3396
used in the forgery, had been erased from this transfer map.

The altered OS map SJ3396 provided for sale of the land is a forged
instrument under s.8. (1) (a) and 9 (2) of the Forgery and
Counterfeiting Act 1981 as it does not depict the presence of the
party Boundary Structure 'the screen wall' and is clearly
calculated to deceive.

This document also breaches s. 183 (1) of the Law of Property Act
1925 as neither Sefton or Maritime showed "due diligence" in the
sale of the land in breach of s. 2 of the Property Misdescriptions
Act 1991.

At 2, of the transfer document it is stated:

“It is agreed between the Council and the Association that any
boundary structure now or hereafter constructed within 80 years of
the date herein between the property herby transferred and the
adjoining land of the Council are party boundary structures and are
maintainable and repairable as such.”

This land is identified at 3, of the transfer documents as land
referenced by Planning Permission as 93/03897/S. this reference was
given to me by Sefton Council’s Planning Department as land
provided for: “Erection of single story and 2 storey dwellings
after demolition of the existing maisonettes.”

This permission was the permission granted on August 13th 1993.

The above dwellings are all now in situ on the land registered to
Sefton Council under title MS351603 on September 25th 1992, taken
from title LA43086 1977.

These dwellings are also identified in a ‘memo’ from Sefton’s Mr
Barr, to Sefton’s Mr Williams: Referenced HSG 1188/2, and dated
November 12th 1999 in which Mr Barr states, with regard to 19 Lime
Grove – with a twist as to responsibility:

“This particular dwelling lies within an area which was redeveloped
by the Council in conjunction with Maritime Housing Association
during the period January 1994 to September 1995. The work
basically involved the demolition of 7 blocks of 4 storey
maisonettes and the construction of 49 new 2 storey traditionally
built houses as part of the City Challenge program relating to
relocation of residents of the former Rimrose Housing Estate.”

And further, with another twist:

On November 16th 1999, Fawley Construction, Maritime’s Building
contractor, wrote the following to me:

1. “Our site plan 417/01 was adapted from Sefton Council’s drawing
HSG 1187.1A which did not show a nib wall attached to your
property, therefore one was not included on our drawing submitted
for planning approval.”

2. Drawing HSG 1187, a used as part of the transfer map, and is
marked as a Sefton Planning Department drawing based on OS SJ3396
dated 1978, which has had the screen wall erased from it.

3. This clearly shows that Sefton and Fawley, if not Maritime, had
a drawing, and knowledge, at the planning stage of the development
in August 1993 that showed no nib wall abutting my gable wall. All
three had contractual obligations to each other.

On August 31st 1994 the land shown on the forged OS map used to
transfer the land at both Kepler Street, shown on title LA45086,
and Maple Grove, shown on LA45343 which was united by the public
highway, Maple Close, was registered by the Land Registry under
title MS351603 to Maritime Housing, at 2, of the office copy of the
Property Register dated February 3rd 2006, it states:

“2. (21.01.1994) A transfer of the land in this title dated 24
December 1993 made between (1) The metropolitan Borough of Sefton
and (2) Maritime Housing Association Limited contains the following
provision:-

2, It is agreed between the Council and the Association that any
boundary structure now or hereafter constructed within 80 years of
the date herein between the property herby transferred and the
adjoining land of the Council are party boundary structures and are
maintainable and repairable as such.”

The title map that accompanies this title is a forgery which again,
like the transfer map is composed of two versions of OS SJ3386 cut
and pasted together, this time, the outer section is that of OS
SJ3396 dated 1984 showing the Star of the Sea junior school, and
the inner section, that of OS SJ3396 dated 1969, clumsily overlaid
on it which has, amongst other things, removed the pavement between
Seaforth Road and 19 Lime Grove and the entire pavement from
Seaforth Road and the opposite side of Lime Grove through to Maple
Close from it.

This title map is marked: Crown copyright 1975.

The altered OS map SJ3396 draw by the Land Registry for
registration of the land is a forged instrument under s.8. (1) (a)
and 9 (2) of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 as it does not
depicts the presence of the party Boundary Structure 'the screen
wall' and is clearly calculated to deceive.

This document also breaches s. 183 (1) of the Law of Property Act
1925 as the Registry did not show "due diligence" in the production
of this title map and also breach of s. 2 of the Property
Misdescriptions Act 1991.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Robertson, Andrew,

Sefton Council from the evidence below did not have sufficient
legal interest over the land to instruct Fawley Construction to
grant me a one metre strip of land along my gable wall and alter
the boundary of the land between my property and that of Maritime
housing Association: Consequently, it is for Maritime to establish
that Sefton was given that interest in the strip of land to give it
to me on their behalf.

It is common ground between Maritimes contractor Fawley
Construction and Sefton that Sefton’s instructions to Fawley in
April 1994 for the alteration of the boundary based on Sefton’s
mapping, was supported by Maritime at the Planning stage of the
development granted on June 29th 1994 under reference’s: 417/02 -
417/04 - 417//04 – 417/05, 417/06 plus revised layout plan, and
417/07 revision E.

It is also common ground between Sefton Council, myself and its
insurers, Royal & SunAlliance that the Council had no insurable
interest in the land from December 24th 1993 when Sefton
transferred the land title to Maritime.
However, the minutes from a ‘pre site meeting attended by Sefton,
Fawley and Maritime on July 28th 1994 state “NO HANDOVER WILL BE
ACCEPTED WITHIN 10 DAYS PRIOR TO CHRISTMAS DAY.”
Maritime at that time were averring that their ‘RECORDS’ showed the
land was transferred to them from Sefton in “MID 1995.”
The registration for this land under tile MS351603 is recorded as
August 31st 1994. The Land Registry say that from December 24th
1993 Maritime were the owners of the land, the Registry also say in
an office copy dated February 3rd 2006, that, due to the transfer
of the land, the title absolute of the freehold land was Maritime’s
from January 21st 1994.
There is no common ground between Maritime and Sefton as to who had
‘CONTROL’ over the land from December 24th 1993 until September
1994..
Sefton’s CEO states that from December 24th 1993 Maritime were
RESPONSIBLE for the land, however, the Council’s insurance section
and the CEO’s officers state that Council had an interest in the
property until is was “HANDED BACK TO MARITIME ON APRIL 1ST 1994”.
This brings Sefton within the Occupiers Liability Act between
January and September 1994.
However, Maritime say that Sefton were “IN CONTROL OF THEIR
CONTRACTORS ON THE LAND DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSES ON
IT” which was until: so Sefton’s Principle Architect says,
SEPTEMBER 1995. This brings Sefton within the Occupiers Liability
Act between January 1994 and September 1995. Fawley, who did not
start their building activities on the land until September 1994,
aver in a WITNESS STATEMENT to the court they were under the
‘VERBALLY AGREED’ control of Sefton in February 1995.
However, Sefton say that they were LICENCED by Maritime to be on
the land to effect demolition of the existing maisonettes between
JANUARY 21ST AND MARCH 31ST 1994 when their interest in the site
ceased. This removes them from the Occupiers liability Act.
However, Sefton also say [PAW/RRROB6 MAY 8TH 2000] that, to the
best of their knowledge, “MARITIME HOUSING TOOK POSSESSION OF THE
SITE ON MARCH 14TH 1994.” This means that whoever Maritime took
possession from on March 14th 1994 had POSSESSED the site until
March 14th 1994.
However, Maritime say as far as they were aware [DV/PQ A4345
SEPTEMBER 28TH 1999] that, “UP UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1994 THE SITE WAS
UNDER THE CONTROL OF SEFTON COUNCIL WHO WERE NOT ACTING ON THE
BEHALF OF THIS ASSOCIATION BETWEEN JULY AND SEPTEMBER 1994…THEY
WERE APPOINTED BY US TO OVERSEE AND LOOK AFTER OUR INTERESTS WHILST
THE HOUSES WERE BEING BUILT” This brings Sefton under the Occupiers
Liability Act ‘up to September 1995.
However, Sefton say [PAW/RRROB6 MAY 8TH 2000] that “FROM DECEMBER
24TH 1994 THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE LAND PASSED TO MARITIME AND
ANY WORK OF DEMOLITION BY SEFTON WHICH MAY HAVE STILL BEEN UNDERWAY
AFTER THAT DATE WOULD HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED BY MARITIME”. This
asserts that Sefton were acting “ON BEHALF OF THIS ASSOCIATION
BETWEEN JULY AND SEPTEMBER 1994”.
However, Maritime say [DV/PJQ/A2983 MARCH 2ND 1999] that “I am sure
you will appreciate that there are many departments in Sefton
Council that could have carries out the demolition, if, in fact the
demolition was carried out by Sefton Council.”
However, Maritime state [DV/PQ/A2302 MARCH 4TH 1999] “THIS
ASSOCIATION WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE
MAISONETTE BLOCKS WHICH PREVIOUSLY OCCUPIED THE SITE. THIS
ASSOCIATION TOOK POSSESSION [ON MARCH 14TH 1994] OF A CLEARED SITE,
FOLLOWING DEMOLITION BY SEFTON COUNCIL.”
However Royal & SunAlliance say on November 16th 200 [in a claim
for an incident on January 17th 1994 referenced:
RR98XN/conner/TPPZ] that ”ANY CLAIM FOR DAMAGE TO YOUR PROPERTY
RESULTING IN THE DEMOLITION WORKS CARRIED OUT BETWEEN 14 MARCH AND
6 APRIL 1994 SHOULD BE REDIRECTED TO FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION WHO WERE
THE DEMOLITION CONTACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR CARRYING OUT THE WORKS.”
– “Work’s” is defined as including demolition works under the
Building Act.
However, Maritime say [DV/PQ/A3054 MARCH 17TH 1999] “THE SITE
CLEARANCE WAS NOT CARRIED OUT BY THE SAME CONTRACTOR WHO UNDERTOOK
THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE FOR THIS ASSOCIATION.” Which was a
reaffirmation of a statement by Maritime and copied to Sefton
[DV\PQ\A2302 MARCH 4TH 1999] regarding “THE ASSOCIATIONS BUILDING
CONTRACTOR WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR DEVELOPMENT AT KEPLER
STREET.” Which was again reiterated by Maritime’s statement
[PJQ\DV\C3019 SEPTEMBER 8TH 1999] that “THE STRICT LEGAL POSITION
IS THAT WHEN A CONTRACTOR TAKES POSSESSION OF A SITE HE IS
RESPONSIBLE UNTIL THAT SITE IS HANDED BACK TO THE OWNER…SEFTON MBC
WERE EMPLOYED AS THIS ASSOCIATION’S AGENTS, AND AS SUCH WERE
RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING SUCH ACTION AS WAS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE
COMPLETION OF THE NEW HOUSES. THEY WERE, THEREFORE, EFFECTIVELY IN
CONTROL OF THE SITE ON OUR BEHALF.” This brings Fawley within the
Occupiers Liability Act.
However, the minutes from a ‘pre site meeting attended by Sefton,
Fawley and Maritime on July 28th 1994, some months after the
demolition of the maisonettes on the land had been completed, give
the dates for contract COMMENCEMENT OF THE BUILDING CONTRACT WITH
FAWLEY AS COMMENCING ON MARCH 14TH 1994 WITH A COMPLETION DATE OF
APRIL 21ST 1995.
However, Fawley Construction says that they took POSSESSION of the
land on March 14th 1994.
However, there is a document “PASSAGE OF OWNERSHIP” dated March
14th 1994, accompanied by an undated deed TRANSFERRING the land
from Fawley to Maritime to meet their stage payments for work under
the ‘City Challenge Scheme’ sponsored by the Government.
The law is that: If A and B are in dispute about ownership of a
piece of land, the only question for the court is which of the two
of them has the better title to the land.
From the above it appears that Maritime contest the date on which
they themselves owned the land by the transfer of it to them from
Sefton being dated by them as either December 24th 1993 [a witness
statement to the court, verified by a statement of truth states
Maritime, ”obtained legal title to the land on the 24th December
1993] which is contradicted by the statement on February 1st 1999
that Maritime’s records showed the land was transferred to them in
“MID 1995.”
It is not common ground with anyone that the land was registered or
unregistered on December 24th 1993.
Section 3 (2) of the Land Registration Act 2002 deals with the
circumstances in which a person may apply to be registered as the
proprietor of what had hitherto been an unregistered legal estate.
Section 3(2) provides as follows:
Section 11 (11) of the Land Registration Act deals with the effect
of registration of a person as the proprietor of a freehold estate,
and provides: "THE ESTATE IS VESTED IN THE PROPRIETOR TOGETHER WITH
ALL INTERESTS SUBSISTING FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ESTATE."


It is clear there was a delay of over seven months between the
possesessory title of the land and its registration on August 31st
1994, this registration should have been completed within two
months and. by virtue of that fact, and there must have been
something ‘special’ to account for this delay.

Section 11(7) deals with the special case of possessory title and
provides that: "REGISTRATION WITH POSSESSORY TITLE HAS THE SAME
EFFECT AS REGISTRATION WITH ABSOLUTE TITLE, EXCEPT THAT IT DOES NOT
AFFECT THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY ESTATE, RIGHT OR INTEREST ADVERSE TO,
OR IN DEROGATION OF, THE PROPRIETOR'S TITLES SUBSISTING AT THE TIME
OF REGISTRATION OR THEN CAPABLE OF ARISING."


It is common ground [by evidence] between Sefton and Maritime and
the Land Registry that on January 21st 1994 Maritime became the
owners of the land by way of a forged certified transfer document
and forged mapping composed of two versions of OS SJ3398 dated 1978
and 1969 cut and pasted together. It is also common ground [by
evidence] that the Registry ALTERED the mapping used in the
transfer with a forged title map for this same land composed of two
versions of OS SJ3396 dated 1969 and 1884 cut and pasted together.

The reasons allowed by the Land Registry Act allow the registrar to
alter the registrar; “FOR THE PURPOSE OF:
 (A) CORRECTING A
MISTAKE,
 (B) BRINGING THE REGISTER UP TO DATE,
 (C) GIVING EFFECT
TO ANY ESTATE, RIGHT OR INTEREST EXCEPTED FROM THE EFFECT OF
REGISTRATION, OR
( D) REMOVING A SUPERFLUOUS ENTRY.”

AND

There are two copies of the transfer document between Sefton
Council and Maritime Housing Association.

The first was given to me by Royal & SunAlliance in a witness
statement bundle in July 2004 and is stamped CAU. It has not had
stamp duty paid on it and refers to four parcels of land sold by
Sefton to be designated with a new title number. These titles are
described as:

a) part of the land comprised in Title LA45086

b) part of the land comprised in Title LA45343

c) the land comprised in an Agreement dated 7 August 1967 made
between Liverpool Roman Catholic Archdiocese & Trustees
incorporating (1) the Mayor Aldermen & Burgesses of the Borough of
Crosby

d) the land comprised in a Statutory Declaration dated ………1993 made
by Michael Scott

This land is the land registered under Title MS351603 on August
31st 1994 comprising of:

a) land at Kepler Street Seaforth registered under Title MS351603
in March 1977.

b) land at Maple Grove Seaforth registered under Title MS351603 in
April 1977.

c) a section of the public highway at Maple Close Seaforth.

d) property in Beaumaris Street Seaforth registered under title
MS351603 in April 1977 and shown on the 1966 edition of OS SJ3396.

On November 21st 2007 Mr Williams, a Land Registry lawyer wrote the
following to me:

“You have enclosed with your letter a copy of the front page of a
Transfer dated December 24th 1993…you indicate that you believe
that the date of the statutory declaration has been erased from
this deed. Having compared it to the copy of the completed
transfer…it seems likely that the copy you have been supplied with
would have been a file copy as it does not bear either the hand
written date of the statutory declaration or the stamp duty
impression…the most likely explanation would seem to be that the
date of the statutory declaration had not actually been entered and
had been left blank on the file copy held by the solicitors…the
copy would appear to have been taken…prior to the date of the
statutory declaration and prior to the Transfer having been
submitted to the inland revenue for stamping or being presented for
registration. The date of the statutory declaration may have been
left blank until after completion and only entered at that stage.
As the document you refer to does not appear to have been issued by
the Land Registry as an official copy section 113 of the Land
Registration Act 1925 which relates to the suppression of
documents…it would be a matter for the court to decide in all the
circumstances of the case what weight should be given to any
particular evidence that is presented to it.”

The procedure referred to by Mr Williams, and the procedure for
obtaining stamp duty below, do not correspond because:

THE REGISTRAR MUST ENSURE THAT ALL TRANSFER DOCUMENTS THAT REQUIRE
STAMP DUTY ARE STAMPED BEFORE REGISTRATION AND IF A TRANSFER
DOCUMENT IS DELAYED PRIOR TO STAMPING THE APPLICANT MUST FIRST
PRESENT THE TRANSFER DOCUMENT AND A CERTIFIED COPY TO THE REGISTRAR
AND STATE IN WRITING THAT THE STAMPED ORIGINAL WILL BE PRESENTED AS
SOON AS IT IS STAMPED. THE ORIGINAL IS THEN GIVEN BACK TO THE
APPLICANT TO BE STAMPED.

Clearly, what was on the copy given back to the solicitors by the
registrar must have been the same as the copy filed with the
registrar, and just as clearly, it’s a long way from a document
filed at the registry in 1993, to a bundle in a case in 2004
regarding the same land.

On February 29th 2008, Mr Williams confirmed to me:

“Land Registry produces a title plan for each title it creates
which is based on the Ordnance Survey map…the title plan
MS361603…was created in 1994.”

I HOPE THIS ASSISTS

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Robertson, Andrew,

YOUR RESPONSE DECEMBER 15TH 2008:

"I am not saying that there is no requirement on Land Registry to
check the validity of information and documentation submitted to
us. What I said was that Land Registry has no authority or
responsibility over the legal obligations of landowners to disclose
correct information. This does not mean that we do not check
information and documentation submitted to us for the purposes of
registration. As you have acknowledged, I have already advised you
elsewhere that we do check the material that we receive."

FOR INFORMATION OF KNOWLEDGE:

The vendor of land must show to the purchaser a good unencumbered
title, which the purchaser does not need to investigate before a
binding contract is made.

If the land is unregistered the vendor must show and verify good
title to his land by way of an abstract, which summarises all the
documentary evidence regarding the land and all deaths, if any,
that have affected the transfer of the land.

The purchasers solicitor, then examines the abstract to satisfy
himself that the property described in the abstract matches the
property his client is to purchase, and advises him to continue
with the purchase or clarify any anomalies with the vendor prior to
purchase.

Such an abstract was produced in the sale to Crosby Council of 21
Lime Grove and, states the following – text modified:

“Land situated on the north side of Lime Grove…bounded on the west
by the detached Dwellinghouse and Premises then or lately belonging
to Mr Bentley on the east side by the property belonging to the
said Arthur Woods and on the North by the middle of a common
passage measuring in front to Lime Grove134 feet 9 inches or
thereabout and at the back along the middle of the said common
passage 135 feet 2 inches or thereabout running in depth backwards
or the East and West sides severally 60 feet or thereabout.
Together with 9 dwellinghouses thereon erected and being the odd
numbers 3 to 19 inclusive”.

This abstract must have been in the possession of both Sefton and
Maritime when the land was sold in 1993 and was most certainly in
the possession of the Land Registry.

Therefore it is not possible, for anyone in possession of, or
knowing the contents of the above abstract to adduce any evidence,
record or document or map or, hold or rely on or, be able to prove,
any misunderstanding or any true belief that 19 and 21 Lime Grove
were ever adjoined or attached to each other by a party wall.

IF YOU WERE TO MEASURE THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE GABLE WALLS OF 3
AND 19 LIME GROVE, YOU WOULD FIND THAT THEY ARE 134 FEET 9 INCHES,
OR THEREABOUT, APART.

THE OFFICE COPY OF TITLE MS351603 DATED FEBRUARY 3RD 2006 RECORDS
THE LAND OWNED BY ARTHUR WOODS IN LIME GROVE TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED
BY HIM FROM JANE LOWE ON MAY 31ST 1879.

1. TITLE MS351603: ON SEPTEMBER 17TH 2002 AN OFFICER FROM THE
REGISTRY AT BIRKENHEAD WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

"REGARDING THE LEGAL OBLIGATION OF THE PROPRIETOR TO PROVIDE
CORRECT INFORMATION ON THEIR OWNERSHIP, I REGRET THAT THIS IS
BEYOND THE REMIT OF THE LAND REGISTRY."

2. TITLE NOT REGISTERED: ON APRIL 9TH 2003 ANOTHER OFFICER FROM THE
REGISTRY AT BIRKENHEAD WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

"HAVING EXAMINED THE MAPPING HISTORY OF THE AREA, I CAN TELL YOU
THAT NUMBER 21 LIME GROVE WAS ORIGINALLY ATTACHED TO NUMBER 19,"

ATTACHED: (I) TO FASTEN IN A SPECIFIED POSITION, TO CONNECT OR JOIN
(II) SHARING A WALL WITH ANOTHER BUILDING. NOT STANDING ALONE.

I HOPE THIS ASSISTS.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear ROBERTSON ANDREW

FOR INFORMATION

A FEW SIMPLE FACTS PRESENTED TO ME:



1. ON DECEMBER 24TH 1993 MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION BOUGHT
THE
LAND AT KEPLER STREET / MAPLE CLOSE - THE KEPLER STREET SITE -
FROM
SEFTON COUNCIL WITH A FORGED MAP WHICH DID NOT SHOW THE NIB
OR
SCREEN WALL.



2. ON MARCH 29TH 1994 SEFTON AND MARITIME INSPECTED THE SITE
AND
PROPOSED TO GIVE ME A ONE METRE WIDE STRIP OF LAND ALONG MY
GABLE
WALL. AT THIS TIME THE NIB WALL WAS IN SITU. THIS PROPOSAL
WAS TO
BE AMENDED TO THE SITE PLANS BY MARITIME’S CONTRACTOR’
FAWLEY.



3. PRIOR TO PLANNING PERMISSION FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION - AT
THE
WRITTEN REQUEST OF SEFTON, MARITIME'S APPOINTED AGENTS
-SUBMITTED
PLAN 417/01 FOR PLANNING PERMISSION USING A SEFTON
DRAWING HSG
1187.1A WHICH THEY CONFIRM DID NOT SHOW THE NIB OR
SCREEN WALL.



MARITIME STATE THE ONE METRE STRIP OF LAND WAS FENCED OFF:



"On the authority of this Association and Sefton Council as
our
consultants...clearly as the land was in our ownership we did
not
require your permission"



4. A DISTRICT JUDGE HAS FOUND THE NIB WALL WAS DEMOLISHED
BETWEEN
MARCH AND SEPTEMBER 1994.



5. SEFTON HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE NIB WALL IN SITU DATED MARCH
7TH
1994 AND I HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE NIB WALL IN SITU TAKEN
AFTER
APRIL 21ST 1994. FAWLEY HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING NO NIB WALL
WHICH
THEY SAY WAS TAKEN IN SEPTEMBER 1994.



6. ON JUNE 28TH 1994 PLANNING PERMISSION FOR PLANS 417/01 TO
417/17
WERE GRANTED TO MARITIME HOUSING AND FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION.
INCLUDED
IN THOSE PLANS WAS THE PROPOSED ONE METRE STRIP OF LAND
ALONG MY
GABLE WALL WITHOUT THE NIB WALL, AS VERIFIED BY SEFTONS
DRAWING HSG
1187. 1A AND WHICH SEFTON PASSED.



7. ON AUGUST 31ST 1994 THE LAND REGISTRY REGISTERED THE
KEPLER
STREET SITE TO MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION USING A FORGED
OS MAP
THAT SHOWED THE SCREEN WALL IN SITU.



Nobody has said the maps referred to above are not forged.



I REFER YOU TO THE BUILDING ACT 1984

SECTION

6

Passing or rejection of plans



(1) Where plans of any proposed work are, in accordance
with
building regulations, deposited with a local authority, it is
the
duty of the local authority, subject to any other section of
this
Act that expressly requires or authorises them in certain
cases to
reject plans, to pass the plans unless

(a) they are
defective


(2) 
(2) If the plans



(a) are defective



(b) the local authority may



(i) reject the plans, or



(ii) subject to subsection (4) below, pass them.



(3) The conditions mentioned in subsection (2) above are—



(a) that such modifications as the local authority may
specify
shall be made in the deposited plans, and



(b) that such further plans as they may specify shall be
deposited.



(4) A local authority may only pass plans subject to a
condition
such as is specified in subsection (3) above if the
person by whom
or on whose behalf they were deposited



(a) has requested them to do so, or



(b) has consented to their doing so



(5) A request or consent under subsection (4) above shall be
in
writing



(6) The authority shall within the relevant period from the
deposit
of the plans give notice to the person by whom or on whose
behalf
they were deposited whether they have been passed or
rejected



(8) A notice that plans have been passed shall



(a) specify any condition subject to which they have been
passed,
and


(b) state that the passing of the plans operates as an approval
of
them only for the purposes of the requirements of



(9) Where the deposited plans are accompanied by



(a) a certificate given by a person approved for the purposes
of
this subsection to the effect that the proposed work, if
carried
out in accordance with the deposited plans, will comply
with such
provisions of the regulations prescribed for the purposes
of this
subsection as may be specified in the certificate, and



(b) such evidence as may be prescribed that an approved
scheme
applies, or the prescribed insurance cover has been or will
be
provided, in relation to the certificate



(10) In any case where a question arises under this section
between
a local authority and a person who proposes to carry out
any work

(a) whether plans of the proposed work are in conformity
with
building regulations, or



(b) whether the local authority are prohibited from rejecting
plans
of the proposed work by virtue of subsection

(9) above, that person
may refer the question to the Secretary of
State for his
determination; and an application for a reference
under this
subsection shall be accompanied by such fee as may be
prescribed.



(11) Where


(a) deposited plans accompanied by such a certificate and
such
evidence as are mentioned in subsection

(9) above are passed by the
local authority, or



(b) notice of the rejection of deposited plans so accompanied
is
not given within the relevant period from the deposit of the
plans,
the authority may not institute proceedings under section 35
below
for a contravention of building regulations that


(i) arises out of the carrying out of the proposed work
in
accordance with the plans, and



(ii) is a contravention of any of the provisions of the
regulations
specified in the certificate.



(12) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, “the
relevant
period”, in relation to the passing or rejection of plans,
means
five weeks or such extended period (expiring not later than
two
months from the deposit of the plans) as may before the
expiration
of the five weeks be agreed in writing between the
person
depositing the plans and the local authority.



Section 16

Passing or rejection of plans



(1) Where plans of any proposed work are, in accordance
with
building regulations, deposited with a local authority, it is
the
duty of the local authority, subject to any other section of
this
Act that expressly requires or authorises them in certain
cases to
reject plans, to pass the plans unless



(a) they are defective



(2) If the plans



(a) are defective


(b) 
(b) the local authority may



(i) reject the plans, or



(ii) subject to subsection (4) below, pass them subject to
either
or both of the conditions set out in subsection (3) below.



(3) The conditions mentioned in subsection (2) above are



(a) that such modifications as the local authority may
specify
shall be made in the deposited plans, and



(b) that such further plans as they may specify shall be
deposited.



(4) A local authority may only pass plans subject to a
condition
such as is specified in subsection (3) above if the
person by whom
or on whose behalf they were deposited


(a) has requested them to do so, or



(c) has consented to their doing so.



Section 31

Proposed departure from plans



(1) Where plans of any proposed work have been passed under
section
16 above by a local authority, the person by or on whose
behalf the
plans were in accordance with building regulations
deposited with
the authority may, and in such cases as may be
prescribed shall,
for the purpose of obtaining the approval of the
authority to any
proposed departure or deviation from the plans as
passed, deposit
plans of the departure or deviation.



(2) Section 16 above applies in relation to plans deposited
under
subsection (1) above as it applies in relation to the
plans
originally deposited.



CLEARLY THE AMENDMENT SHOWN ON PLAN 417/01 WAS NOT REGARDED
AS
BEING DEFECTIVE UNDER THE ACT AS IT WAS PASSED.



BY THE TIME THE NIB WALL (SCREEN WALL) WAS FILED ONTO THE TITLE
BY
THE LAND REGISTRY ON AUGUST 31ST 1994 (AND, ACCORDING TO
THE
DISTRICT JUDGE), IT COULD HAVE BEEN ACCURATE.



BY SEPTEMBER 1994 IT WAS FOUND BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE TO HAVE BEEN

DEMOLISHED.


Yours sincerely,

fred robinson